Stop me if you’ve heard this one before – the school district is facing fiscal crisis that requires immediate action or we face cuts in the millions. And the worst part is that there is a very real chance that even if the district is able to make those cuts, it will lack the cash to meet payrolls and end up being taken over by the state – the same state that is largely responsible for these problems in the first place.
People have the right to be skeptical. After all, if you cry doom and gloom all of the time, people have the tendency to regard you as the boy that cried wolf. At some point when you are crying fiscal emergency all of the time, people stop running.
So for everyone skeptical of these claims, I am going to try to run you through the hard numbers and then you can decide for yourself.
The decision to remove restoration of the past year’s cuts from the district makes this analysis much cleaner. There are basically two big pieces to the district’s current crisis. First, is the expiration of Measure A. Second, is the governor’s tax ballot measure and the subsequent trigger cuts if it does not pass.
According to Bruce Colby, if the tax passes, the best case scenario will be flat funding. However, if it does not pass, we face the loss of $35 million through automatic trigger cuts from the state.
“The proposed budget along with the prior year reductions has left the district with a structural deficit,” he said. “Additionally, special education costs continue to rise, increasing the deficit. This deficit is being addressed through the passage of the Measure A parcel tax, budget reductions and reserve reductions. The district will need to address this future ongoing budget deficit immediately to remain fiscally solvent.”
Bruce Colby and most political pundits are expecting the tax measure to fail in November. Why is that? Despite the fact that a recent Field Poll shows it passing at 52% to 35%, there are several factors.
First, 52% is bare bones support. Second, there has not been a campaign launched against the measure. And third, traditionally, tax measures have not fared well.
Opponents will remind California voters of the relatively high tax burden, challenge the contention that the tax increase is for schools and attack social programs. Since 2004, the voters have not approved a statewide ballot measure to raise taxes.
Adding to the uncertainly is the drop in support for not only the tax measure, but also in confidence of the governor’s handling of the state budget deficit.
The structural deficit, that is set at $4.5 million if the trigger cuts kick in, grows to $7.5 million as the Measure A funds leave the books in 2014.
When Measure A was passed last year, I honestly believed that it was an emergency measure. I thought last year and even early this year that the economy had turned the corner and that revenues would begin to rebound.
This view was shared on Thursday night by both Gina Daleiden and Sheila Allen, who co-chaired the Measure A campaign.
“Sheila [Allen] and I spent awhile saying that was an emergency parcel tax,” she said. “That was absolutely what I believed at the time. Things have only gotten worse. It’s almost unpredictably worse. If we’re going to say, look, game has changed, we have new information and our first job is to protect the school district as best we can, then I’m willing to talk about continuing what you are already paying to bridge us through some additional time.”
Sheila Allen said “I swear when I was doing Measure A, I was very clear, two years emergency funding. The fact is, the emergency has not gone away. That’s the problem.”
That is really the bottom line. Some will argue that the district planned to try to extend the Measure A funding past the two years all along. I don’t believe that is the case.
I believe most people, including myself, thought two years would get us through the worst of it.
The problem is that cutting $7.5 million on top of the more than seven million already cut since 2007-08 is difficult for anyone to stomach.
Sheila Allen said in terms of the state triggered funding reduction, “I cannot fathom where we would make those kinds of cuts looking at what we already cut in this district. I just cannot fathom what this district would look like if we had to make those kinds of cuts.”
The news is actually worse than that.
Last week we talked about the fact that the district is suffering now from a cash flow crisis.
As we have previously explained, the state is consistently behind on its cash payments to the district. Cash is what is used to make payroll, make purchases, and run the day-to-day operations of the school district.
Because the state is in fiscal crisis they are deferring on those payments, which means the district has to borrow money short-term to make payrolls and function, and then pay that back when they receive their money from the state.
Right now, the district is in trouble. The current fund balance is $9.6 million, which is roughly $2 million less than last year at this time.
More alarming, the cash balance is between $3 and $4 million.
In order to borrow the money needed to fund the district, they need 25% of what they are borrowing, or roughly $4 million in the bank, otherwise they lack the ability to borrow money and, absent that ability, they cannot run the district.
What happens if we lack the cash to borrow to make payroll? We could be put into receivership and run by the state. That would be the loss of local control of our school district.
Imagine that for a second. A district where the local taxpayers are spending $6.5 million annually could be put into receivership and the amazing thing is, the district could be operating in the black in terms of its budget and still face that crisis.
We face what is largely an unprecedented crisis on multiple levels in this state. Many have suggested that we need to deal with the problem at the state level. After all, they see that most local school districts cannot provide the level of support that our local voters have.
I really believe that, when we look at the whole picture over this five-year period, we are looking at a lost generation of youth. Children that will not have the educational resources to succeed, will be unable to go to higher education because of a combination of factors including local school district cuts and the rise in the cost of higher education.
And we may well look back and see the genesis of a new crime wave, a new wave of poverty in this state.
This is the world my kids enter into. We stayed in this community, despite the fact that we could not afford to buy a home, because of the educational system. We agreed to take in kids that otherwise would have been living on the public dime.
My nephew’s future in a large part depends on the ability of this community to step up one more time. Because he is on the edge now and he will not get a second chance and a do-over.
Some will argue that we are simply looking after our own best interests. I can understand where that thinking comes from. But, we have sacrificed greatly to raise other people’s kids.
Besides, even if I had no kids in this district, I would support education as the ultimate investment in our community and our state’s future. Don’t believe me? Look at my writings about Measure Q and W at a time when we had no kids.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“we are looking at a lost generation of youth. Children that will not have the educational resources to succeed, will be unable to go to higher education because of a combination of factors including local school district cuts and the rise in the cost of higher education.
And we may well look back and see the genesis of a new crime wave, a new wave of poverty in this state.”
Here we go, the doom and gloom scenarios start.
I challenge you to find a non-gloom and doom scenario given the reality of the fiscal crisis.
and the vanguard insisted we didn’t know which way it would come down on in terms of the Harris proposal. lol.
vanguard: “What happens if we lack the cash to borrow to make payroll? We could be put into receivership and run by the state. That would be the loss of local control of our school district.”
you say that like it is a bad thing. Needn’t we be reminded that the district built one too many schools, and the result was the closure of valley oak. If this is what Harris is referring to as “the gold standard” of education, then I’m willing to look into what is behind door number two. I also think we are about to get a lesson in what “cut to the bone”
really means.
It’s a demeaning corollary of too much direct democracy. The sun would still come up in the morning if these extra local school taxes all expired, or if they were all doubled. The fundamental point is that California runs its public schools on the cheap. So Davis voters wisely add a little more with parcel taxes. It doesn’t take any histrionics to describe the reality. But the effective way to campaign for these measures — especially at the stringent 2/3 threshold — is to panic and beg.
“you say that like it is a bad thing. Needn’t we be reminded that the district built one too many schools, and the result was the closure of valley oak.”
You mean 15 years ago, the school board with none of the same people on it and none of the same administrators made a mistake and we should hold the current board accountable for that mistake despite the fact that they have put the district in good standing over the last six or seven years since the individual responsible for the problems left the district?
yes. because it was their decision to close valley oak – completing the previous board’s mistake.
btw: I found this link quite interesting: http://dhs.djusd.k12.ca.us/files/admin/index.html
this is what the district calls cutting to the bone: three vice principals and one administrative assistant to the vice principal.
and covering it up.
[quote]You mean 15 years ago, the school board with none of the same people on it and none of the same administrators made a mistake and we should hold the current board accountable for that mistake despite the fact that they have put the district in good standing over the last six or seven years since the individual responsible for the problems left the district?[/quote]
Important point. But not the most important point. Much as I like some of the members of the current school board as people, this is not about them. It is about providing the education that we want for our children.
If you want to punish the school board, go to the meetings and make your comments, write letters, or vote them out next time they are up for election. I see no reason to take out your frustration with decisions made by the school board on the people who will truthfully be hurt by lack of funds, the students.
[quote]When Measure A was passed last year, I honestly believed that it was an emergency measure. I thought last year and even early this year that the economy had turned the corner and that revenues would begin to rebound.[/quote]
I advised that the economy was not “recovering” as reported in the news media. I have not changed my mind. It is going to take years (probably no less then 10 years) for the economy to “recover”. The economy has taken a “nosedive” from false projections of “recovery” because state budget crises have forced layoffs of those employees in the public sector. The more that are laid off in the public sector, the less tax revenue goes into state coffers. The less tax revenue generated, the more public employees have to be laid off. It is a downward spiral. This is why public employee concessions and minimizing layoffs are so important.
What does this have to do w the current local school crisis? It is important to realize that things are not going to get better in the immediate future. The next five to 10 years are going to be rough, and we need to plan for that eventuality. JMO
[quote]btw: I found this link quite interesting: http://dhs.djusd.k12.ca.us/files/admin/index.html [/quote]
Very enlightening. I agree that 3 VPs and an administrative asst seems excessive…
“I agree that 3 VPs and an administrative asst seems excessive… “
Really, did you meet with the district or the individuals to make that determination? Do you know what functions they play on the campus?
MME and Pioneer could probably share a principal. Likewise Korematsu and Birch Lane.
DaVinci, DSIS, and King could probably share a principal. Actually, DSIS could probably run itself with an administrator chosen from among the teachers, as if it were a charter school.
Attendance boundaries for the elementary schools could be equalized, with parents having the right to opt back to the prior school via intradistrict transfer (most probably wouldn’t).
Finally, if the threat is the nuclear option — receivership — you should probably explain that in more detail. I believe it is the county board of education, not the state, that takes fiscal control of the district.
http://dhs.djusd.k12.ca.us/files/counseling/documents/DHS_Guide_V8-final.pdf
on page 9, we see Japanese 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
Chinese 1, 2, 3, 4.
then we have a course called “race and social justice”
(I suppose that too is an aboslutely necessary course to have)
Now how many students do you suppose are enrolled in Japanese 5?
I don’t think there is any point in the public trying to pick and choose which course offerings the district should retain or jettison. If there is enrollment and a qualified teacher, it isn’t a drain on the district. Just for the record: it was Japanese that started my daughter on her career path. And she never would have guessed that when she took it.
Octane: What you have to determine is not how necessary you deem a course to be – my understanding is that the race and social justice course fulfills a requirement and is one of the most popular at the school. Regardless they have to take certain courses to graduate, if you cut one course, they still have to take another.
So, the real question is how many students take a given course, not necessarily what the course is that is being offered. Some of those upper level foreign language courses are probably combined together. For instance, when I graduate from high school, twenty years ago, my high school offered Spanish 1 through 5. But there were only a handful of Spanish 5 students, so they did not have a five student course, instead they sat in the Spanish 4 course and did basically an independent study class.
What would end up happening is that right now there are a certain number of students per teacher in the district. As they have to lay people off that number goes up. So ultimately that is how they save money. Basically they would end up getting rid of all non-Spanish foreign language courses and jack up the number of students in the process.
I agree with Don, that there is no point in the public trying to pick the courses that get eliminated, that is going to be determined by enrollees and district priorities.
“I have not changed my mind. It is going to take years (probably no less then 10 years) for the economy to “recover”.”
That could be correct, though I think ten years from now is too long, perhaps five years from now.
“The economy has taken a “nosedive” from false projections of “recovery” because state budget crises have forced layoffs of those employees in the public sector. “
The economy has not taken a nosedive. That is a false statement.
We have not had a decline in GDP. Nor has there been a month where the number of jobs have declined. So that is false.
What has happened is twofold. First, the job growth has slowed in the last few months. Second, the revenues to the state have not increased as hoped.
Part of the problem is that the budget projections by the legislature and the governor were too rosy and we have not met them. However, in both cases, there has been growth, which nullifies your claim of nosedive.
vanguard: “The economy has not taken a nosedive. That is a false statement. We have not had a decline in GDP. Nor has there been a month where the number of jobs have declined. So that is false.”
that is misleading, because many of the layoffs haven’t taken place yet, but we know they are coming.
vanguard: “Part of the problem is that the budget projections by the legislature and the governor were too rosy and we have not met them. However, in both cases, there has been growth, which nullifies your claim of nosedive.”
actually no it doesn’t. if the projections were too rosy, then the growth claim doesn’t factor those in. You need to look at the “growth” in context with the inflated projections.
btw: I had an argument with Don a few months ago in which he said every economist said we were on a rebound and as it turned out, their projections were also rosy, we got half the number of jobs they collectively projected.
vanguard: “Really, did you meet with the district or the individuals to make that determination? Do you know what functions they play on the campus?”
lol, now really! I know you like to trumpet the district line but this is rediculous.
It’s “rediculous” to actually find out what someone does before advocating that there position be removed?
Medwoman, the people need assurances their money is being well spent.
91 O: [i]on page 9, we see Japanese 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
Chinese 1, 2, 3, 4.[/i]
The DHS catalog lists courses that will be offered if enrollment is high enough. There is no guarantee that any of those courses will run. In many cases, some of those courses are combined into one class, for instance, Japanese 3, 4, & 5 maybe taught in the same period by the same teacher.
vanguard: It’s “rediculous” to actually find out what someone does before advocating that there position be removed?
Don’t play dumb. You “investigage” when it suits you and you parrot the line when it suits you. Notice 3 vps slip the vanguards radar screen.
I asked a simple question.
91 O: [i]this is what the district calls cutting to the bone: three vice principals and one administrative assistant to the vice principal.[/i]
There are 2 1/2 vice principals at DHS. Stacy Desideri doubles as a librarian at DHS.
Each JH has a VP, collectively coming close to three VP’s managing about as many students as 2 1/2 VP’s manages at the HS. Cutting back on VP’s affects the ability of the school and district to respond to significant student discipline and emergency issues. Personally, I would rather have an administrator deal with discipline issues and leave teachers to teach.
Administrative Assistants are Secretaries, classified employees, with multiple responsibilities along with supporting the VPs.
I’m sensing some inconsistency (will not call it ‘hypocrisy’, yet)…
[quote]”I agree that 3 VPs and an administrative asst seems excessive… “
[b]Really, did you meet with the district or the individuals to make that determination? Do you know what functions they play on the campus?[/b] [/quote]Yet, you seem to have little problem (except for timing) for the 29 positions proposed for cuts in the City budget. I would mirror your question back to yourself.
David, you call for significant concessions from City employees (in [u]addition[/u] to the proposed layoffs). Yet I see no calls for that from DJUSD teachers/administrators or staff. But I understand they are all “mission critical” in your belief system, and besides, the teachers are underpaid, under-compensated, over-worked, and under-appreciated.
Perhaps, in your view, City employees should be asked to give up even more than the City currently proposes, and use the difference to loan (at no interest, and an indefinite payback period) City funds to the district, to help DJUSD bridge the gap, compensate teacher better, make sure your nephew gets all the assistance that he needs, etc.
Don Shor: [i]MME and Pioneer could probably share a principal. Likewise Korematsu and Birch Lane.
DaVinci, DSIS, and King could probably share a principal. Actually, DSIS could probably run itself with an administrator chosen from among the teachers, as if it were a charter school.[/i]
Da Vinci HS & JH also share a principal, with Emerson’s principal helping out when the DV JH principal isn’t onsite. I don’t think DSIS principal is staffed full-time, either, and may double up on managing curricula; I have to check on that.
The ability to share a principal is probably based in part on enrollment. The two lowest enrolled elementary schools (apart from Fairfield) are Montgomery and Patwin. Fairfield and Patwin share a principal.
I don’t have an administrative perspective to know for certain, but I think Montgomery should have a full-time principal. It is in program improvement and has students with a lot of needs and family stress issues connected with poverty and ELL situations, and its projected enrollment is expected to have more such lower income students with the impending opening of the New Harmony project.
All of the other elementary schools have enrollments in excess of 500 students, and Birch Lane and Chavez have enrollments in excess of 600 students.
Also, I need to thank and commend you and your family, David…
[quote]We agreed to take in kids that otherwise would have been living on the public dime.[/quote]It is noble that you have done this, without availing yourself of the public dime by accepting foster care payments, medical/dental benefits, food stamps, tax deductions/credits, etc. Truly unselfish and noble.
DSIS and King HS share a principle
91Octane: [i]I had an argument with Don a few months ago in which he said every economist said we were on a rebound and as it turned out, their projections were also rosy, we got half the number of jobs they collectively projected.[/i]
[url]http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/economic_outlook/[/url]
[quote]The economy has not taken a nosedive. That is a false statement.
We have not had a decline in GDP. Nor has there been a month where the number of jobs have declined. So that is false.
What has happened is twofold. First, the job growth has slowed in the last few months. Second, the revenues to the state have not increased as hoped.
Part of the problem is that the budget projections by the legislature and the governor were too rosy and we have not met them. However, in both cases, there has been growth, which nullifies your claim of nosedive.[/quote]
Sorry I was so subtle – did you notice the word “nosedive” was in quotes? The economy went south in 2008, and has IMO not really “recovered”, despite self-serving media stories to the contrary. Gov’t and the media can take snapshots of whatever statistic they want, but that doesn’t necessarily give the public or anyone the entire picture. What I said at the time, and still contend, is that if the public sector keeps laying people off, it will result in a constant downward spiral of layoffs and lowering of tax revenues. If that continues to be the case, the economy will not “recover”. And that is precisely what is happening. The fact that at a particular point in time some statistic takes an uptick from rock bottom is not necessarily indicative of “recovery”. An “uptick” in and of itself means nothing – it has to be taken in the larger context of the cyclical nature and fluctuations of various gov’t benchmark statistics.
For instance, it has been long known that the gov’t unemployment statistics hugely undercount the number of unemployed. In fact, it does not count the number of unemployed who can no longer receive unemployment but are still unemployed. It does not count the young adults fresh out of college who cannot find work, so are still at home living w their parents. Nor does it count the underemployed. In and of itself, it is a rather meaningless statistic in the context of an economic “recovery”…
Furthermore, a true “recovery” is going to entail some real soul searching and doing things differently. All I have seen from CA is a lot of handwringing, but not much in the way of reform. This state is difficult to govern, to be sure, but nevertheless did you really believe Gov. Brown’s rosy projections would come to pass? I sure as heck did not believe them (and said so), and neither did officials at the county level.
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would think three VPs were “necessary” to run a high school the size of DHS… only in Davis…
[quote]DSIS and King HS share a principle [/quote]Would hope so. It’s good that they share a principal, as well [sorry, I just needed to ‘lighten up’]
Or perhaps not only in Davis, but it is a practice that will most likely have to be done away with – and I’m sure the schools will survive it…
91 Octane
[quote]Medwoman, the people need assurances their money is being well spent.[/quote]
I agree with this statement. And to be assured, people need to make clear what it is that they would find reassuring. This involves a knowledge of what it actually takes to run a school. What personel are critical, what is the optimum number, which positions could be shared and which need direct on sight presence full time.
Those of us who do not have experience or recent experience within the public school system frequently make judgements based on how things were when we were in school or when our adult children were in school.
This frequently shows a lack of awareness of what changes and progress have been made in the schools and the benefit ( or lack thereof) of classes that may seem superfluous to us which may be of real value to many.
To get the assurances you need ( if you do not already) I would strongly recommend attending school board meetings, make your questions and preferences known. I had no idea until my son reached high school just how much energy and time it took not only me but the school counselors, vice principles, principle ( at the time Matt Best who has my complete respect and trust since I largely credit him and the DaVinci staff, including the “secretary” for saving my sons life) in keeping just one non trouble making kid from self destructing. When you multiply this by all the kids who end up with challenges during their school years, you start to appreciate just what it takes to do all these jobs and to realize that most of the time, our money is well spent. My assurance came through many hours of volunteering in the schools and through watching the wonderful team at DaVinci literally turn my sons life around. But there are many other ways to get the assurance you seek.
Greg K: [i]”The fundamental point is that California runs its public schools on the cheap.”[/i]
California pays its teachers and administrators more than most states do; and as a result, we have the 2nd largest number of students per teacher (only Utah has more). Here is what the NEA report ([url]http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/NEA_Rankings_and_Estimates010711.pdf[/url]) says: [quote] The U.S. average public school teacher salary for 2009–10 was $55,202. State average public school teacher salaries ranged from those in New York ($71,633), Massachusetts ($69,273), and [b]California ($68,203) at the high end[/b] to South Dakota ($38,837), North Dakota ($42,964), and Missouri ($45,317) at the low end (C-11).[/quote] The NEA report notes that California is on the high end of having a large share of our population in the K-12 age range, and that makes funding schools more difficult, economic woes aside: [quote] [b]POPULATION AGES 5–17 AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION, 2008[/b]
1. UTAH 21.2
2. TEXAS 19.3
3. IDAHO 19.1
…
8. CALIFORNIA 18.1
…
49. HAWAII 15.4
49. MAINE 15.4
51. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 12.8 [/quote] California is also among the lowest states by percentage of residents over age 65. We are 46th out of 51 (includes DC). The downside of that is older adults have a lot more money than younger adults and thus can be a good source of tax money for schools. Our high income tax rates also have given wealthy seniors an incentive to retire in other states, while poor seniors have no reason to leave.
ERM: [i]It is hard for me to believe that anyone would think three VPs were “necessary” to run a high school the size of DHS… only in Davis…[/i]
Perhaps it may not be your personal preference, but there is a constituency in Davis that feels that it is important to have *2 1/2* VP’s at the HS. That constituency is making its feelings known to school board members and to the Davis Schools Foundation. A couple of years ago, DSF’s fundraising drive covered Desideri’s 50% position because the DSF board noted community interest in maintaining that position. Measure A continued to fund what DSF supported, and Measure A expires after next school year. The school board is in the process of discussing a parcel tax that renews Measure A, and maybe voted on by next Thursday. If you really feel strongly about this, then I suggest you make your views known to the school board members who have the power to decide what to fund and not fund.
The voting public isn’t as completely exposed to discipline issues, because they involve minors. The school board discusses discipline issues in closed session before each school board meeting. In open session at the end of certain meetings, the board actually votes on expulsion/reinstatement issues, but each student is given a code number, and the specifics of the case are not discussed (only in closed session). So that’s the piece that you may not know about (those kinds of discussions).
As a parent, I have had a child involved with discipline issues both as a perpetrator and as a victim of another’s aggression. It involved my meeting with a vice principal (but did not rise to the level of requiring school board discussion). I appreciated the fact that meetings were scheduled quickly and to accommodate everyone’s schedule, and seemed designed to produce a resolution where the students could get on with their school lives.
At some level, budget stress might dictate that it would be appropriate not to fund that position (the 50% DHS VP). I don’t think we’re there yet. I think that Steve Kelleher, an elementary teacher in the district and a DTA official, has publicly criticized the district on this blog for keeping the 50% VP position. I question his motivations some, though, because if the district were to cut that position, then maybe it frees up money to go to teachers. While that might be a good thing in one respect, it might also leave more discipline issues left unresolved for longer, which might then intrude on classroom learning.
Rifkin: [i]California pays its teachers and administrators more than most states do; and as a result, we have the 2nd largest number of students per teacher (only Utah has more).[/i]
We may disagree on the nuances, but I would rephrase it this way: “California has the 2nd largest number of students per teacher. As a result California pays its teachers more than most states do.”
The same holds for administrators, too. California staffs its schools with more students per administrator than most states.
What distinguishes California from Utah is that California has a higher childhood poverty rate.
wdf1: What distinguishes California from Utah is that California has a higher childhood poverty rate.
What I should have added is that typically poorer students require more teacher services and attention than middle/upper income students.
vanguard: “I asked a simple question.”
and it appears you yourself answered it:
Octane: “How many VP’s per school? One per grade level?”
vanguard: “We don’t have anything close to one per grade level, nor should we.”
Your original question was general, I assumed you meant district wide. Am I now to infer you only meant at the high school level?
cut the crap.
91 O: [i]cut the crap.[/i]
Is anyone here up for singing Kumbayah with me? 😉
actually, I wanted to take a different track since we got on it. what exactly constitutes an “economic recovery”? how would we know? would Rifkin, the lexicon artist like to take a crack at that?
There is an official term for an economic recovery, and we’re in it: two consecutive quarters of economic growth. The question is how strong it is. That is what economists and policy-makers have had difficulty projecting.
More relevant to us with this particular issue in California is that the state unemployment continued to decline in May ([url]http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-cal-jobs-unemployment-20120615,0,1781109.story[/url]), even if it didn’t happen nationally.
Think I heard some definitions, in the past:
Recession: when a good friend or family member loses their job &/or has severe cut-backs in income.
Depression: when you lose your job &/or has severe cut-backs in income.
‘Correction’: you & your friends & loved ones are “good”, and someone else is taking it in the crotch.
There is an official term for an economic recovery, and we’re in it: two consecutive quarters of economic growth.
and how do you define “economic growth?” number of jobs created > number of jobs lost? GDP? unemployment rates? or a combination?
And btw: when we do talk about those things do we factor in other data like the negative projections of budgets – as in what we have now?
one other thing: I notice my other post was deleted and that is fine. That’s my way of saying “I just caught you out in doublespeak.”
lol hpierce.
[i]”More relevant to us with this particular issue in California is that the state unemployment continued to decline in May, even if it didn’t happen nationally.”[/i]
The declining “California Unemployment rate – Seasonally Adjusted ([url]http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=state:ST060000&ifdim=country&tstart=633081600000&tend=1337756400000&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&q=california+unemployment+rate[/url])” gives you a good idea that the economy in California is growing. But it does not mean, of course, that we are in good shape.
[img]http://www.oceconomy.org/wibmeasures/pop12-5-1.jpg[/img]
[quote]As a parent, I have had a child involved with discipline issues both as a perpetrator and as a victim of another’s aggression. It involved my meeting with a vice principal (but did not rise to the level of requiring school board discussion). I appreciated the fact that meetings were scheduled quickly and to accommodate everyone’s schedule, and seemed designed to produce a resolution where the students could get on with their school lives. [/quote]
I had dealings w the VP at DHS, long since gone thank goodness, that wasn’t worth a plug nickel. In fact she was part of the problem. THis VP housed a gang member, and that gang member felt impervious to discipline bc of her position in the VP’s household. The gang member then wreaked havoc on many innocent students. It spilled over into after school incidents, and finally involved the police. Fortunately the police and then the court system took care of the problem that started in the schools and was never addressed. The gang member ended up in jail. My contention is that the number of VP’s is not as important as WHO is VP…
[quote]There is an official term for an economic recovery, and we’re in it: two consecutive quarters of economic growth. The question is how strong it is. That is what economists and policy-makers have had difficulty projecting.[/quote]
Sorry, I don’t buy the gov’ts self-serving def’n, never have. Secondly, if the country is starting from rock bottom, then there is no way but up. But up doesn’t mean much if it is not very far up. Then it becomes almost a meaningless blip on the radar screen.
[quote]Think I heard some definitions, in the past:
Recession: when a good friend or family member loses their job &/or has severe cut-backs in income.
Depression: when you lose your job &/or has severe cut-backs in income.
‘Correction’: you & your friends & loved ones are “good”, and someone else is taking it in the crotch.[/quote]
LOL Very well said! I’m sure all the unemployed or underemployed right now across this country are hardly impressed w gov’t statistics showing the economy is “recovering”!
Maybe the school district and the City of Davis could model themselves after Sandy Springs Georgia. Just thinking outside the box….
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/business/a-georgia-town-takes-the-peoples-business-private.html?ref=business
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/business/a-georgia-town-takes-the-peoples-business-private.html?ref=business[/url]
It isn’t “the gov’ts self-serving def’n.”. Most economists defer to the NEBR, which is private, as to when a recession begins or ends.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–2012_global_recession[/url]
[quote]It isn’t “the gov’ts self-serving def’n.”. Most economists defer to the NEBR, which is private, as to when a recession begins or ends.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…c_Research [/quote]
Don, here is a direct quote from the article referenced in your link. Notice the last sentence. I rest my case!
[quote]For example, the NBER may declare not a recession simply because of two quarters of very slight negative growth, but rather an economic stagnation.[8] However, they do not precisely define what is meant by “a significant decline,” but rather determine if one has exoisted on a case by case basis after examining their catalogued factors which have no defined grade scale or weighting factors. The subjectivity of the determination has led to criticism and accusations committee members can “play politics” in their determinations.[/quote]
To Don: Also see [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/business/economy/26zarnowitz.html?_r=1[/url]
This was an article about a esteemed member of the NBER, who had this to say:
[quote]While Dr. Zarnowitz’s lifelong studies pointed to shortcomings in economic forecasting, they did hold that it was not always fair to criticize the forecasters for their miscues, particularly because their predictions were sometimes based on faulty data about things that had already happened.
Still, in a conclusion that seems prescient today, Dr. Zarnowitz said in 1966, “The record of predicting turning points — changes in the direction of economic activity — is on the whole poor.”[/quote]
To Don: Here’s another gem at [url]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1094/is_n1_v29/ai_15140858/[/url]
[quote]THOSE RESPONSIBLE for business cycle dating have always had the thankless task of evaluating economic data and declaring the direction of economic activity. The role of the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is similar to that of an economic commentator. In fulfilling that role, the Dating Committee is merely expressing expert opinion on momentum shifts in economic activity.
The political ramifications of this role are better understood in light of the recent experience in calling an end to the 1990-91 recession. The Dating Committee waited approximately eighteen months before they were willing to specify March 1991 as the trough in the downturn that began in August 1990. The timing of the decision was questioned in Republican circles, since it was made after the November election. Of course, an earlier decision would have been interpreted by the Democrats as an attempt to help reelect the incumbent. Given the long delay, information on the dating of the recession’s trough was of little use to policy makers and business planners. While it is doubtful that the delay had any significant effect on business activity, an earlier call might have saved President Bush from the sharp criticism of the media when he claimed in early 1992 that the recession was over.[/quote]
thank you elaine. in other words, whether we are recovering or not depends on where you are in the political spectrum. put another way is hpierce’s 02:13 PM. lol.
We already give $1000 a year or more extra to the schools through parcel taxes, donations to the classroom and the Davis Schools Foundation. If you put these all together into the parcel tax it would be fine by me. Remember education is cheaper than ignorance.
“The declining “California Unemployment rate – Seasonally Adjusted” gives you a good idea that the economy in California is growing.” – Rifkin
Not at all. Typically, an expansion is marked by an increase in State economic production. There could be any number of reasons for the decline in State unemployment (long term unemployed no longer reflected in the statistics, under-employed, etc.).
Don, you seem not to distinguish between national, state, and regional economies in your comments. Our region is projected to continue to be hard hit by a wave of governmental layoffs. These layoffs will likely impact our city and school budgets. We had an exchange earlier in the week, or perhaps it was last week, regarding whether the city’s revenue projections were too optimistic. You kept pointing to projections of national economic growth. Shortly thereafter, the Fed reduced its projections from 2.5% to 2.0%. Keeping in mind that CA’s economy is weaker than the national economy, how much should we be lowering State projections? How much should we be lowering the city projections?
-Michael Bisch