School financing is a complicated area that, frankly, lay people should not try to argue about unless they are well-versed. So, when Measure A opponent Jose Granda wrote a letter arguing, “Teachers used as political hostages” in Davis, he got a lot of facts wrong.
He wrote, “When you look at these numbers, it is easy to conclude that Measure A is a farce. What the school board is doing to the teachers in unconscionable. Like hijackers, they are using them and the programs they are obligated to provide our children with taxpayer dollars as a political hostages to coerce the voters into approving Measure A. These numbers prove the deception of the school board.”
Mr. Granda argued, “If the district is spending $29.1 million for teachers and received $65 million from state and federal funds, it has $35.9 million for administration, benefits and everything else, plus $9 million in reserves.”
He then pointed out that the Superintendent’s pay is roughly $200,000. “This gentleman is paid $42,129 more than the average superintendent of the counties around,” he writes.
So what is the truth? For starters, Winfred Roberson is paid $178,000 rather than $200,000, so the position received about a $20,000 reduction, which already cuts his conclusion in half without taking into account the context we will add shortly.
The truth is that 66% of the school district’s budget, according to Ed-Data, went to instruction. Another 11% went to instruction-related services. Another 6% went to pupil services.
Of the remainder only 7% of the district’s budget went to general administration, while 8% went to plant services.
In the year 2009-10 (last school year), the district spent $36 million on instruction, with salary and compensation to teachers. It spent $9 million more on special education (which is a non-general fund expenditure mandated by the state and federal government).
Of the instructional-related services, that includes costs to principals, librarians, and other related functions. That accounted for about $7 million.
Pupil services were another $4 million, which went to guidance counselors, psychological services, health services, speech, testing, pupil transportation and food services (which by the way was $524 dollars net).
The General administration included just under $5 million for the Board, Superintendent, other administrators, and Centralized Data Processing ($1.3 million).
Finally $5.7 million went to facilities maintenance and operations.
Mr. Granda is guilty of a huge fallacy, in somehow believing that money not directly spent on teachers does not end up benefiting children. The argument that everything beyond teacher’s salaries is discretionary and available is a fallacy.
The majority of the staff reductions from a loss of funding will come from instruction and instruction-related activities.
It is important to bear in mind that the first cuts that the district made were to general administration. The District has operated without an Associate Superintendent on the Education side since 2008. It kept its Associate superintendent on the business side, but cut most of the administrators that work under Mr. Colby.
I would also argue that Mr. Granda’s criticism of the Superintendent’s salary is not valid. The state average fails to take into account size of the district or cost of living in the district.
There are over 1000 school districts ranging in size from 10 students to over 600,000 students. Pay ranges from less than $100,000 to $300,000. The size, location and demographics of school districts is a major factor. Thus, the pay in Davis is comparable to other districts in size and demographics.
By way of example, the typical house in Davis may cost $600,000. However, if you go to other places, the same house would cost considerably less. So if you buy a house in Davis for say $700,000 or $800,000 you are probably not overspending, based on the market. And yet, if you looked at the statewide average it might look like you ridiculously overspent.
You cannot weigh a bunch of tiny rural districts into an average salary and create a valid comparison. Just as you should not compare the cost of the superintendent in this district to the one in LA, representing 600,000 students. Instead, you ought to compare districts over similar sizes with similar demographics.
There is a reason I keep asking people to come up with an alternative budget. That would force people like Mr. Granda to have to deal with the reality on the ground.
In order to do that, you have to understand the state laws, what is spending mandated from the federal government or the state government, what programs are categorical and therefore locked into place by the funding source, what programs are mandates and therefore cannot be cut, what programs are funded by Measure Q and W, the parcel taxes, and therefore locked into place, etc.
I understand the response of a lot of people will be that the laws are the problem – but the district has no control over that aspect of their operations, they can only follow the law.
Even then it is tricky, because you have to have a pretty good grasp of the functions that each position plays and the consequences for cutting it.
There is a temptation to argue to cut administration further. Without knowing how the system works, it would be difficult to speculate. I know they made some cuts already. But some people seem to think that what is essentially a $65 million company with multiple sites can be run without some form of central administration, and that is questionable reasoning at best.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David: How money is spent in the district is not my issue, but based on your bar chart above the district spends approximately 5% more on instruction and 3% more on adminstration that both the state and unified district averages. These increases are balanced by decreased spending in pupil services, plant services, and “other” spending catagories. The average distribution of spending between the state average and unified school district average is virtually the same. Therefore, the DJUSD does not align well with the other districts, as you say above in your article. The variance between the two averages you wish to compare DJUSD is virtually zero, and much greater than zero for DJUSD.
What does this mean? I don’t know.
First of all, where did you get the pie chart from? The school district? Second, it says 66% is spent on “instruction”. What does “instruction” mean? Does it refer only to teachers salaries? Or are other things lumped under “instruction”? Where do text books fit in? AV equipment? Teachers aides? It also appears from the bar chart comparing Davis schools to others, that Davis has more teachers than the average school? In other words Davis has chosen to have smaller class sizes? How is this funded? Do the parcel taxes play into this equation? And 66% “instruction” does not tell us what type of courses are being offered and how many students are in each class. Perhaps there are classes containing only a few students that would be considered a frill in other school districts? I don’t think the nebulous term “instruction” necessarily gives us enough information to really make “informed” decisions. Whose fault is that? Who put out the pie chart?
dmg: “School financing is a complicated area that, frankly, lay people should not try to argue about unless they are well-versed.”
Sorry, but in a democracy, I believe anyone is free to express an opinion no matter to what degree they are “informed”. That is their right. You are certainly free to point out where the argument is “misinformed” according to your world view. But to try and say they should not put forth an argument unless “well-versed” whatever that may mean is undemocratic. And “well-versed” according to who’s standards? Yours? The school district’s?
Your statement almost makes it sound as if the “lay person” should trust the school district implicitly, bc the average person could not possibly understand the complicated school funding issue. And therefore lay persons are not allowed to have an opinion if they are not willing to spend hours slogging through school district financial reports. And of course the implication is that those financial reports put out by the school district are absolutely honest and above board – which we know from past history is not the case.
As someone said (no one is quite sure who):”I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I subscribe to this philosophy wholeheartedly… apparently many of the proponents of Measure A do not – as evidenced by the LWV debacle…
ERM: [i]Your statement almost makes it sound as if the “lay person” should trust the school district implicitly, bc the average person could not possibly understand the complicated school funding issue. And therefore lay persons are not allowed to have an opinion if they are not willing to spend hours slogging through school district financial reports. And of course the implication is that those financial reports put out by the school district are absolutely honest and above board – which we know from past history is not the case.[/i]
Elaine, if you are sick, it is prudent to see a medical doctor. If your plumbing system breaks down, it is prudent to call a plumber to assess the situation. It is your right to follow their advice or not, but it stands that in the fields of medicine and plumbing, you are a lay person compared to the professional. That is what is going on here. You have a profound aversion to listen to explanations from the district about their financing.
Personally I don’t have any reason to distrust the financial explanations of the district, any more than I would distrust what my doctor tells me if I have problem. Six or seven years ago, there might have been reason to be skeptical of the CBO.
If you look around at nearly every other school district in the state, they are having similar kinds of budget issues. There is some variation in how they’re dealing with it, but mostly it involves a significant component of cutting. That is an answer, but it isn’t the only. Measure A offers a choice: keep the teachers or not.
I don’t defend how LWV chose to format their forum, but none of that changes the facts of the financial situation of the district.
ERM: [i]First of all, where did you get the pie chart from? The school district?[/i]
And what if he did? But I believe Greenwald took a screen shot from the ed-data site:
[url]http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/[/url]
I can find the same pie chart there. Just search for the Davis school district.
ERM, regarding your comment:As someone said (no one is quite sure who):”I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I subscribe to this philosophy wholeheartedly… apparently many of the proponents of Measure A do not – as evidenced by the LWV debacle…
I’m pretty sure it was Voltaire, and I supported Measure A and was equally offended that the opposition was not allowed to speak. It certainly is possible that a lot of us who support measure A want to silence the opposition, but I very much hope (and suspect) that it is a small, self-righteous minority. Otherwise, I appreciated your observations.
WDF: You really didn’t address the bulk of what elaine said, in particular the part where “instruction” can mean any number of things, making the chart pretty useless, no matter where it came from.
“School financing is a complicated area that, frankly, lay people should not try to argue about unless they are well-versed.”
Couldn’t the same be said about the City of Davis and their public union contracts and the city budget? Should we all just sit back and let them do as they please because we’re not “well-versed”? Just because we don’t sit on a board or are directly involved in the financing departments we still can argue our points because it’s not hard to see that their spending is unsustainable.
just to piggyback onto elaine’s statement the term “instruction related services” is even more nebulous- and could mean anything from teachers, to administration, to field trips, or vending machines.
and then the rest: “pupil services”, “plant services”…..
sounds like BS related services to me.
[i]WDF: You really didn’t address the bulk of what elaine said, in particular the part where “instruction” can mean any number of things, making the chart pretty useless, no matter where it came from.[/i]
If you go to the ed-data site referenced above, and find the budget/financials page, you will find “?” icons next to the different budget categories that explains briefly how each category is defined. This is what it says for instruction:
“includes all teaching activities between teachers and students”
I take this to refer to [u]credentialed[/u] teachers.
David Musser: Neither you considered the possibility that “instruction” and how to categorize it is defined and accounted for by law?
Click here to read them for yourself ([url]http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/ac/sa/documents/csam2008complete.pdf[/url])
Musser: Once again from the ed-data website, scroll over the “?” buttons by each category.
Pupil services: in this case go look at the spreadsheet under the activity tab and the sub-headings will give you a pretty good idea.
Plant services: “includes keeping schools open, safe, and comfortable as well as keeping the grounds, buildings, and equipment in working order”
Good Fresh Air (NPR) show on education today. Probably material for many sides of the issue:
Diane Ravitch: [url]http://www.npr.org/2011/04/28/135142895/ravitch-standardized-testing-undermines-teaching[/url]
Andrew Rotherham: [url]http://www.npr.org/2011/04/28/135802562/rotherham-dont-discount-charter-school-model[/url]
wdf1: “Elaine, if you are sick, it is prudent to see a medical doctor. If your plumbing system breaks down, it is prudent to call a plumber to assess the situation. It is your right to follow their advice or not, but it stands that in the fields of medicine and plumbing, you are a lay person compared to the professional. That is what is going on here. You have a profound aversion to listen to explanations from the district about their financing.
Personally I don’t have any reason to distrust the financial explanations of the district, any more than I would distrust what my doctor tells me if I have problem. Six or seven years ago, there might have been reason to be skeptical of the CBO.”
Having run a support group for people afflicted w Crohn’s Disease, I can tell you for a fact that many doctors do not know what they are doing. And I know of several cases in which the doctors “buried” their mistakes. Not a good analogy…
dmg: “David Musser: Neither you considered the possibility that “instruction” and how to categorize it is defined and accounted for by law?”
And of course the school district followed the law in regard to the “informational” letter and the LWV “informational” forum? LOL So of course we absolutely know their financials are above board for certain?
Observer: “I’m pretty sure it was Voltaire, and I supported Measure A and was equally offended that the opposition was not allowed to speak. It certainly is possible that a lot of us who support measure A want to silence the opposition, but I very much hope (and suspect) that it is a small, self-righteous minority. Otherwise, I appreciated your observations.”
Actually there is some debate as to who said it, some crediting a virtual unknown woman named Evelyn Beatrice Hall as having said it. The problem for me is the “small, self-righteous minority” seems to include the leaders of the school district and board who should know better…
[i]”Actually there is some debate as to who said it, some crediting a virtual unknown woman named Evelyn Beatrice Hall as having said it.”[/i]
I don’t know any more about this than I could find with Google. My search turned up a book called, [b]They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions.[/b] It lists Voltaire as having never said “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Apparently, Voltaire did say this: “Who is this Lexicon Artist fellow? I hear he is a jack ass!”
Some of this is sounding like the debate over the President’s birth certificate – the information can be right in front of you and you still try to find something wrong with it. The ed-data website is full of detailed information – a uniform database for all public school districts in California. The is a wealth if information there – real information.
Any way you cut it is obvious-
Davis is not overspending per student – example comparisons- below the State average and below SF, Sacramento, Fresno, LA. SD and Oakland. Slightly higher than Winters but the same as Redding
They have slightly fewer students per classroom than the State average (by one student)
Salaries are less than average also – less than San Juan in Sac for example
Davis has done a better job than most districts focusing spending on instruction (look at the chart) – that should be the objective and reflects a good job.
Based on falling State support – the parcel tax is certainly needed!
Some people may not support the parcel tax because they do not want to pay it or they hate the schools for some reason, but please stop trying prop up your decision by intentionally contriving false information. The debate should go on but avoid acting like Donald Trump.
ERM: [i]So of course we absolutely know their financials are above board for certain?[/i]
How do you ever sleep at night??
You can look at all their budget documents, you can call up the district office and ask them questions, they’re audited every year by an outside auditor.
I don’t think the school board/administration is as in tune with good practices in politics, but I am comfortable with how they’re running their finances.
From Bruce Colby, DJUSD Chief Business Official
The district’s financials are 100% open and available for public review. If you want to learn more or have questions, please feel free to email me at bcolby@djusd.net or call me at (530) 757-5300 x122. I am pleased to meet in person anytime. The District’s financial books and processes are transparent and open.
Our financials are reconciled and reported under strict accounting guidelines of governmental accounting standards (GASB) and California schools accounting (CSAM). The district’s financials must pass a rigorous technical review check at each reporting in order to be submitted to the Yolo County Office of Education (YCOE) and the State of California. The actuals are audited by a external audit firm under strict guidelines outlined by the state and federal government. The results of the audit are reported annually to the school board in January. The audit is also sent to the State for final certification.
The district’s financial reporting have passed all of these financial tests. If you have questions about the integrity of our financials, you can call Linda Legnitto Deputy Superintendent at the Yolo County Office of Education (YCOE) (530) 668-3722 or the district auditor at Perry Smith LLP, Managing Partner Steve Wescoatt (916) 441-1000.
“Couldn’t the same be said about the City of Davis and their public union contracts and the city budget?”
No the same could not be said for city financing, it is much less complicated than school financing.
“just to piggyback onto elaine’s statement the term “instruction related services” is even more nebulous- and could mean anything from teachers, to administration, to field trips, or vending machines.
and then the rest: “pupil services”, “plant services”…..
sounds like BS related services to me.”
I actually broke down the categories in the article if you had bothered to read it fully.
“And of course the school district followed the law in regard to the “informational” letter and the LWV “informational” forum? “
The LWV informational forum had nothing to do with the district’s operations. The district gets audited by the state every year to insure compliance. You are blindly throwing out accusations now.
[i]The district’s financials are 100% open and available for public review.[/i]
This also includes the much-discussed “long form” version of the budget which has also been made available by the district.
To dmg and wdf1: If you choose to believe everything you read, that is certainly your choice. I’m a bit more skeptical, and I am free to remain skeptical, no? As an attorney, I’ve seen too many doctored documents perhaps. And the school district’s ethics have been less than stellar, considering the last two recent fiascos, no?
Personally, I think it unwise to blindly follow any proponent of a tax measure. They have a vested interest in conforming documents to bolster their contentions. Doesn’t mean I will or won’t vote for the tax. Just means I remain skeptical. And I don’t find the pie chart particularly compelling for the reasons I stated. I consider it a bit nebulous as “evidence” for the parcel tax. I find the more compelling argument that laying off teachers is not a helpful thing 🙂
wdf1: “How do you ever sleep at night??”
I sleep just fine. How about yourself? 🙂
I’m a bit more skeptical, and I am free to remain skeptical, no?”
Yes, but it seems you have not spent the time reviewing the copious budget documents that are available to you. Everything about the DJUSD budget is available on line. Moreover, the county board of education oversees the financials of each school district.
I appear at a loss. the school district has auditors, checking things to make sure things are above board, like you said, the district has financials for all to see.
yet somehow, with all these checks, with federal auditors or whoever, with all of the pages and pages of budget documents to reassure any skeptical person that things are above board and honest, somehow valley oak was closed while another school opened, and the school board was ready to gear up to close emerson to make room for harper (and I am well aware of the counter argument that part of the equation was done under another school board but since the current school board closed valley oak and tried to close emerson, that makes them accomplices) any idiot without opening the books clearly sees. they can’t even do a simple thing like prioritize a mpr over a stadium – in other words there are crooked things that happened under this school board that state auditors and public records DO NOT CATCH.
and public records do not catch the league of women voters debacle – arguably this had more to do with the school board than LWV because they had the most to gain from this stunt and sheila allen and the suerintendent participated in this.
what is really sad is that although they need to accept responsibility – the league of women voters will take all of the blame and the school board will come out unscathed. if there is any party to blame for the problems surrounding LWV it is the school board, and quite frankly people should be mad that the school board has now succeeded in helping tarnish the LWV.
ha ha, nice try.
“somehow valley oak was closed while another school opened,”
That was a policy decision by an elected board, made after a long, open process by an appointed commission. Every aspect of it, including the enrollment projections used in support of the outcome, was done in public with records kept. It was vigorously debated. I disagreed with the decision, disputed the enrollment projections at the time, and supported alternatives and then supported the proposed charter option. But I cannot argue that it was done in an underhanded manner. It wasn’t “crooked.” It wasn’t something that people did “not catch.” Where were you when all that was going on? Did you not notice that it was a major topic locally, on this blog and in public hearings?
Fiscal records and decisions are overseen at many levels. I credit the current administration that they are very open and accessible about budget issues. Most of your arguments are about policy decisions by the board, yet you continue to try to tarnish the reputation of the budget administrators as though they can’t be trusted.
Both you and ERM make insinuations:[i] “there are crooked things….”
“They have a vested interest in conforming documents to bolster their contentions.”[/i] Crooked has a specific meaning: of questionable integrity, or unlawful. If you have evidence of any distortion in the budget information, please present it. Otherwise you are impugning the professionalism and ethics of the staff, when in fact your argument is with the school board (in fact, most of your arguments seem to be with previous school boards). If you don’t like the board members, vote them out. But to use your dislike of the elected board and their political decisions, and to continue to malign staff, in support of your position against Measure A is a weak rhetorical device.
[quote]I appear at a loss. the school district has auditors, checking things to make sure things are above board, like you said, the district has financials for all to see.[/quote]
Reading the rest of your post, I’m not sure you really understand what an auditor does.
[quote]yet somehow, with all these checks, with federal auditors or whoever, with all of the pages and pages of budget documents to reassure any skeptical person that things are above board and honest,[/quote]
That’s of course not the purpose of the auditor. The purpose of the auditor is to ensure that money is being spent as the district claims.
[quote]somehow valley oak was closed while another school opened,[/quote]
What makes you believe that an auditor would have any role in that? The district at one time passed a facilities bond to build additional schools. They did so under the belief that they would need those schools based on that time, current projects. Seven years later they realized that they were not growing fast enough, and three board members made a political decision to close one of the schools. That is not a decision that an auditor looks at.
[quote]and the school board was ready to gear up to close emerson to make room for harper (and I am well aware of the counter argument that part of the equation was done under another school board but since the current school board closed valley oak and tried to close emerson, that makes them accomplices) any idiot without opening the books clearly sees.[/quote]
They weren’t closing Emerson to make room for Harper, they considered it because they had to cut several million from the budget and considered that as a way to close some of the budget gap. Ultimately they could not make the logistics work and they abandoned the idea.
[quote]they can’t even do a simple thing like prioritize a mpr over a stadium – in other words there are crooked things that happened under this school board that state auditors and public records DO NOT CATCH.[/quote]
How is that crooked? All an auditor does is make sure that the money that the district says it is going to spend on something, is spent on something. You have no clue about this. None whatsoever.
[quote]and public records do not catch the league of women voters debacle – arguably this had more to do with the school board than LWV because they had the most to gain from this stunt and sheila allen and the suerintendent participated in this.[/quote]
What does this have to do with the way a school district spends money? This was an event that a private organization planned and operated. Again, I really question that you understand any of this stuff if this is your point that the district’s auditor is insufficient.
The auditor does not even deal with any of these decisions. All the auditor does is make sure the district is following the law in terms of what it is required to spend money on and that the district is spending the money where it says it is.
I’m just baffled that this is what you have come up with to argue that the auditor is insufficient.
what is really sad is that although they need to accept responsibility – the league of women voters will take all of the blame and the school board will come out unscathed. if there is any party to blame for the problems surrounding LWV it is the school board, and quite frankly people should be mad that the school board has now succeeded in helping tarnish the LWV.
ha ha, nice try.[/quote]
DS: “Yes, but it seems you have not spent the time reviewing the copious budget documents that are available to you.”
Sigh…
Don: “It was vigorously debated. I disagreed with the decision, disputed the enrollment projections at the time, and supported alternatives and then supported the proposed charter option.”
yes, in other words, there were problems with the enrollment projections. they were bogus. I remember that too.
Don: “But I cannot argue that it was done in an underhanded manner. It wasn’t “crooked.” It wasn’t something that people did “not catch.” Where were you when all that was going on? Did you not notice that it was a major topic locally, on this blog and in public hearings?”
the hell it wasn’t crooked!! I was at the valley oak hearings, so don’t assume you know crud about what I know. I remember how the school board “tabled” the discussion of the charter so when it came time to actually vote on the charter the filing deadline had expired and proponents gave up. dirty pool.
I also remember don, that people had to go outside the school chambers to protest the closure of emerson. so don’t give me crap about things being not dirty.
DMG: “Reading the rest of your post, I’m not sure you really understand what an auditor does.”
reading this one, I’m not sure you understood the rest of my post.
DMG: What makes you believe that an auditor would have any role in that?
exactly.
DMG: “How is that crooked? All an auditor does is make sure that the money that the district says it is going to spend on something, is spent on something. You have no clue about this. None whatsoever.”
and I think you have no clue as to what I meant. none whatsoever. lol!
DMG: “What does this have to do with the way a school district spends money? This was an event that a private organization planned and operated. Again, I really question that you understand any of this stuff if this is your point that the district’s auditor is insufficient.”
I think you really missed the boat here. You criticized elaine’s last post because she did not look at budget documents, and you brought up the auditor – in other words she shouldn’t criticize because she doesn’t know what she is talking about. but you admit here (thus making my point) that the auditor does not go into the planning, and having open books does not prevent a school from being closed. in other words, the limited roles of the auditor and budget documents are not any kind of safeguard against financial corruption for the reasons you just brought up. thank you for making my point.
It’s certainly a distinct possibility that I did not understand the point of your argument, but my initial response was to this one: “the term “instruction related services” is even more nebulous- and could mean anything from teachers, to administration, to field trips, or vending machines.” The fact is, that the term instruction related services is prescribed by law and audited. That’s the point I was getting at. They can’t simply stuff spending into it and call it instruction related services.
[i]but you admit here (thus making my point) that the auditor does not go into the planning, and having open books does not prevent a school from being closed. in other words, the limited roles of the auditor and budget documents are not any kind of safeguard against financial corruption for the reasons you just brought up. thank you for making my point.[/i]
??
You’re not making sense, here. Could you re-explain?