On Monday, October 1, 2012, the Davis Vanguard and Davis Media Access (DMA) will be hosting a candidates forum for the Davis School Board candidates to be held in the Harper Junior High Multipurpose room. The doors open at 6:30 PM and the forum begins at 7:00 PM.
The forum will have a unique setup in that candidates will be seated facing each other in a discussion format. Each of the five candidates will ask one question to be answered by themselves and the other candidates, and then there will be time at the end for question and answer of the candidates.
The Vanguard Editorial Board, drawing on questions received from the community, also submitted eight written questions. We have broken the responses down into two parts. The first four will be published today and the rest tomorrow.
1. In reviewing how the board has handled balancing the budget since 2008, what would you have done differently to balance the budget if you had been on the board?
SUSAN LOVENBURG: I have served as a trustee of the Davis Joint Unified School District since 2007. During that time, the Board addressed the continued erosion of state funding with a multi-pronged approach which I will continue to support:
- Increased efficiency and seeking new ways to deliver services
- Community donations
- Parcel taxes approved by two-thirds of Davis voters
- Negotiated salary concessions in exchange for furlough days
- Program reductions, when necessary
I believe community priorities should guide the Board’s budget decisions and the Board should be proactive in soliciting their input. Together with community volunteers and district staff, I created www.DistrictDollars.org a web-based, interactive program to explain the DJUSD budget situation and provide opportunity for the public to ask questions and share their own values about education priorities.
CLAIRE SHERMAN: Since 2008, the School Board has used the same tactics to balance the school budget: parcel tax measures, donations from the community, and concessions from the teachers, staff and administration. When sufficient funds were still not secured, then teacher, staff and administration layoffs commenced to ensure that the DJUSD would meet its financial obligations.
A large percentage of school district budgets are salaries and benefits, which leaves a small amount of room for cutting budgets. Some ideas regarding budget cuts would include sharing services with other school districts and bulk purchasing (perhaps in conjunction with other school districts). Administrative costs would need to be assessed to determine whether it may be easier to outsource their services (where no benefits are paid). Finally, I would engage the community to volunteer. With fewer teachers and, as a result, larger class sizes, there is less individual attention being paid to each student. With volunteers, students are likely to be better served in the classroom and be provided with the attention and support that they may need.
Another method to infuse money into the DJUSD is via grants. Recently, the UC Davis C-STEM Center received a 2-year grant of $300,000 from the National Science Foundation to study collaborative mathematics learning with robots. DJUSD is on the receiving end of this grant in that students will take part in this program. However, such grants are not limited to universities. There are many members of the Davis community whose livelihood depends upon their ability to fund their research programs. The Davis community has the expertise, so the Board needs to determine how to best tap into this resource.
JOSE GRANDA: I am not going to play Monday morning quarter back and second guess what I would have done without having the complete picture as to why one decision was made one way or the other. What I can tell you is that if I get elected, I would make decisions learning not only what the district staff wants me to believe but what on my own find out what the facts are before I make a decision.
ALAN FERNANDES: The fiscal crisis began in 2008 and the economic recovery has been slow. However, district has just recently created a fiscal crisis committee for the purposes of getting input on how to balance the budget should the propositions and measures fail in November. Were I on the board in 2008 I would have began this process of reaching out to the community earlier so that the community is both informed and consulted about the various budget options that exist with the goal of achieving community oriented solutions for balancing the budget in future years.
NANCY PETERSON: The District has been carrying a structural deficit for quite some time. Bringing the budget into alignment with actual revenue is far overdue. As with any household, we must start living within our means. Unfortunately, those means have been in a state of continual decline, and thus a moving target.
Cuts to Californian education have been considerable and the negative impact is being felt throughout our district and all around the state. In Davis, we have been fortunate to mitigate some of the effects through the community’s generous donations and the continued approval of several parcel taxes. The basis for these measures, however, ignored economic forecasts of prolonged hardship. Rather than delivering the hard truth about what is needed for program sustenance, we have woven a threadbare patchwork quilt of local financing.
We should have planned for a longer period of economic downturn with decreased revenue to the State and ultimately the District. This begins with honest community discussions and strong long-term strategic planning. Had we done that, we could have reduced the number of times we have turned to the community for help. Parcel tax fatigue is a real concern as we move towards Measure E and urge voters to once again support our public education system.
2. For a long time now, some teachers have been advocating for the Board to “re-evaluate our district’s programs through the lens of reduced funding,” as a means to meet the budget – moving forward how do you see the district addressing school program priorities in an era of reduced revenue?
SUSAN LOVENBURG: I am an advocate for adequately funded, high-quality public education. California ranks 47th in the nation in how much it spends per student – $8,667 when adjusted for regional cost differences, about $3,000 below the national average of $11,665. I do not believe quality education can be achieved through reduction in funding, program cuts or salary reductions.
That said, we must continually evaluate whether we are using our limited resources as wisely as possible and make adjustments as needed. The Board has requested a full review of programs, facilities and boundaries in the coming year. I welcome the input of teachers, staff and community members with suggestions for improvement.
CLAIRE SHERMAN: While we are rightfully proud of our greatest success stories, raising the bar can’t apply only to the top 2%, and programs can’t be prioritized based upon the most vocal and most successful at fundraising parent groups. Balance and equity are key when determining program priorities. The youngest children need the most attention in the classrooms: the oldest and most advanced children in high school can be taught more if treated as de facto college students. Teachers are the most important resources the district has, and if there are budget shortfalls cuts must be weighted toward administration. There is no justification for paying administrators 3 or 4 times what teachers make. Instead, administrator salaries should be no more than a certain percentage above what the highest paid teachers in the district earn. School curriculum should be tailored to the needs of all students, and not so focused on the highest achievers who are college bound. Besides meeting the State’s mandatory requirements, a curriculum should prepare all students for a successful life following high school, even if they do not plan to seek further postsecondary education.
NANCY PETERSON: Fiscal volatility is reality for the foreseeable future. Our district has depended on hope, year after year, without durable strategic planning. I believe we must rely on long-term visioning and establish priorities as one community. The foundation of our decision-making must always be centered on children with a goal that each student becomes a life-long learner. As no program exists in isolation, we must carefully consider the district-wide impact of every decision on all students.
JOSE GRANDA: Of course, at this time all needs to be on the table for discussion including the reevaluation of district programs to be able to financially operate efficiently and provide excellence in education to Davis children and teenagers. I have set up clearly my priorities for programs in my platform. Please find them at www.electjose.org
ALAN FERNANDES: If elected I will work hard to pursue alternative sources of funding to maintain the many programs offered at our schools. For example, I would like to our district increase focus on forming stronger partnerships with the University, and our exceptional supporting school foundations, to seek funding for our many educational programs.
3. What steps, if any, do you think should be taken to address enrollment issues at Montgomery?
SUSAN LOVENBURG: As of September, the enrollment at Montgomery elementary was 404 students. The enrollment last year was 410 students. We have achieved some stability in numbers through the expansion of the Spanish Immersion program. Federal (Title 1) funding has been used to provide additional supports for students who need them. STAR scores demonstrate that these interventions are proving successful.
I support the continued exploration of a dual immersion program at Montgomery, to serve both neighborhood and immersion families. To be successful, the program would need to have the support of the Montgomery community.
CLAIRE SHERMAN: First and foremost, intra-district transfers from Montgomery should only be permitted for students that will continue in the Spanish Immersion Program at Cesar Chavez or those students that qualify for GATE. All other transfers should be denied. This would not just be a policy for Montgomery students but for students throughout the DJUSD, with the only exceptions being GATE-identified students and students with the desire to pursue project-based learning at Da Vinci Charter Academy. The situation at Montgomery Elementary within the DJUSD is not unique to school districts around the United States. There is much to be learned from other school districts that have successfully navigated from Program Improvement status. Short-term strategies should initially be adopted to demonstrate early student achievement gains, which will provide the momentum necessary to carry out long-term strategies.
NANCY PETERSON: Montgomery Elementary faces a multitude of challenging issues that have built up over the last decade. Although Montgomery is not currently alone, it was the first in Davis to be designated a school in Program Improvement, in accordance with the No Child Left Behind Act.
Montgomery’s low enrollment is a critical issue of sustainability and results from a series of factors, a major contributor being intra-district transfers away from MME. Lack of long-term planning and a series of forsaken programs have left the community frustrated. We must rebuild the community’s sense of confidence and trust by first establishing a sustainable long-term plan. Critical to the plan is the institution of district-wide standards for remediation and intervention for students at risk.
Without a doubt, Montgomery’s issues are intense, but we should not fool ourselves into believing these challenges are unique to one site. We have struggling students across the district and families seeking to find the school that will provide the best quality education for their student. In response, we must strengthen our neighborhood schools with equitable access to resources, strong programming, and well-supported teachers. Parents should not have to shop for a school to be assured their child will receive a quality education.
JOSE GRANDA: This is an issue that prior to knowing the options and information available to a board member is not available to a candidate in order to tell you what to do. I have read unfortunate comments regarding the enrollment. We need to be sensitive and also address the overcrowded classes. Bringing children from other cities from families who do not pay the parcel taxes does not help the enrollment problems at any of the Davis schools.
ALAN FERNANDES: What is happening at Montgomery is actually a district wide issue, as there are now other schools in Davis that are or will be soon designated as Program Improvement schools under Federal law. The challenge in addressing the enrollment problem exists, in part, because of the requirements of Federal law and so these issues are not unique to Davis. I believe the board and district should look to how other districts are handling these challenges and solving these problems. Only after considering how other communities have attempted to solve similar issues can we make an informed decision on what steps should be taken in our community.
4. The rates of undiagnosed and diagnosed anxiety disorders, depression, and other mental health issues in school aged children (who are not severe enough qualify for special education under the “emotional disturbance” category) have been on the rise nationally and locally. This affects the ability of a child to learn. What will you do to learn more about the mental health needs of our children and families if you are elected?
SUSAN LOVENBURG: My own family has experienced the challenges of anxiety, so I am familiar with how it impacts children and their behaviors, as well as the treatments available. The experience of others always offers new insights.
I follow this topic in the press and recommend The Price of Privilege: How Parental Pressure and Material Advantage are Creating a Generation of Disconnected and Unhappy Kids by Madeline Levine and Doing School: How We Are Creating a Generation of Stressed Out, Materialistic, and Miseducated Kids by Denise Clark Pope. I also support and attend the Davis parent community’s efforts to better inform ourselves through parent education forums.
CLAIRE SHERMAN: The U.S. Surgeon General reports that 10% of children and adolescents in the U.S. suffer from serious emotional and mental disorders that cause significant functional impairment in their day-to-day lives at home, in school, and with peers. It is important for the DJUSD School Board, administration, and teachers to determine what services are available to support these children’s needs and provide them in a timely fashion. In addition, strategies need to be developed to support their academic and social skills in the classroom. This will undoubtedly be a learning experience for all and will require greater collaboration.
NANCY PETERSON: The needs of all children concern me and those with mental health needs are no exception. I would apply the same principles and work ethic towards learning that I do with all issues: listening, researching, assimilating, and collaborating toward workable goals.
There are multiple resources, including the National Alliance on Mental Illness, for learning more about the varying mental health issues confronting some of our students and families. It is also essential to gain perspective from families, insightful teachers and support staff.
Because DJUSD is the largest service provider to Davis families, there must be greater connections between the district and external services. Each school site should be able to provide information and referrals to parents.
JOSE GRANDA: I am completely open minded on this issue. I am a teacher and I have had students with several disabilities, some mental some physical. I know what learning difficulties are when I see them. What I would do if asked is learn the particular case, consult the experts (more than one) and then give my opinion.
ALAN FERNANDES: Davis is a diverse, unique and wonderful place for many reasons. Where we are different than many other communities is the extensive resources we have available to us such as a world class university, statewide policy experts because of our proximity to the Capitol, and our community which continually supports our schools. We need to do a better job to harness these resources to help educate the district and our community about the best strategies to employ to ensure we meet the mental health needs of our children. I am very concerned about the stress many of our students are under with increased testing and pressure to achieve and I will be committed to continually educate myself on these issues if elected.
From reading these responses it is obvious that Lovenburg’s experience on the board has given her practical experience that the others lack. As an incumbent that has been there through tough times she deserves our support since she is willing to continue her service on behalf of the children of this community.
Currently my scorecard reads:
Lovenburg-yes, absolutely
Granda-no, nunca, never
Fernandes- Maybe, young, smart, willing to learn.
Peterson-Maybe, seems like a quick learner who could come up to speed in short order.
Sherman- Maybe but seems to have some unrealistic notions. As an example paying administrators a set amount above teachers shows a lack of understanding. Administrators make more because they are at school more hours each day and more days each year. Break it down by the hour and the differentials decline towards zero.
Granda: [i]JOSE GRANDA: I am not going to play Monday morning quarter back and second guess what I would have done without having the complete picture as to why one decision was made one way or the other. What I can tell you is that if I get elected, I would make decisions learning not only what the district staff wants me to believe but what on my own find out what the facts are before I make a decision.[/i]
For someone who has been involved with these issues for at least a couple of years in opposing parcel taxes, this is a surprising punt. Either he hasn’t been engaged, or is afraid to take a stance.
I get sucked into issues reading this site that I normally would not. The striking thing to me is how thin all of Granda’s answers are, although I did not take the bait and jump to his site.
[i]”All other transfers should be denied. This would not just be a policy for Montgomery students but for students throughout the DJUSD…”[/i]
Wow. She just disqualified herself from the School Board.
Disqualified? Or you disagree?
I strongly disagree with taking away the right of parents to transfer their students within the district.
You’re certainly entitled to your personal opinion, but that doesn’t disqualify a candidate.
***Nancy Peterson had inadvertently left off her answer to question one, I just received and posted it.
Siegel: you are correct. I should have put an [i]IMO[/i] in front of my comment.
I think Don probably speaks for a lot of voters in his assessment. Does that make it a correct assessment? I honestly do not know, but feel that drilling down into the data that documents the history of intra district transfers should be illuminating.
– I’d be looking to find out where the students are transferring from and where they are transferring to.
– I’d also be looking for trends in those patterns.
– Are transfers increasing?
– Is there consistency in the destination schools?
– Is there consistency in the source schools?
– Is transferring contributing in the decline in biking to school proportions?
– What reasons are parents giving on their request to transfer application?
– What screening criteria does the district have for approving or denying a transfer?
Nancy Peterson may well have disqualified herself if her answer was one that was “shooting from the hip” but if she has asked herself the kind of questions I’ve lisred above, and then formulated her position, then I don’t think she will have disqualified herself at all.
Speaking of biking to school, should each grade a student gets have a “healthy student” component to the grade?
One way to get students healthier is to have them walk/bike to school rather than being driven in a car. Perhaps five points on each assignment and test should be awarded only If a student can demonstrate that they are working toward being a “healthy student” by biking or walking to school.
There would have to be exceptions for children with medical conditions that prevent them from safely walking or biking, but such a program would seem to be good for both the students and the community.
Dear Practical and others,
Please review Nancy Peterson’s response to question 3 regarding Montgomery Elementary. She does not call for an end to intra-district transfers. I believe the candidate you’re referring to is Claire Sherman. Nancy was a founding parent of MME and served its Site Council for multiple years. One of her children still attends the school. She is extremely well versed on the questions you pose and more. Feel free to contact her directly at 574-5622
Heidy is correct. I was responding to Claire Sherman’s statement. IMO Nancy Peterson gave an excellent answer to the same question.
Heidy, thank you for catching that. I was reacting to Don’s comment “Wow. She just disqualified herself from the School Board” and was trying to make the point that if the person had specific information to back up that position, then no disqualification would be warranted in my opinion. I don’t know why I associated the comment with Nancy Peterson, but I did, and I was wrong. As you pointed out the words Don quoted were by Claire Sherman.
Regardless, my point stands irrespective of which candidate said made the point. If the candidate has done their homework and the data supports the position taken, then I see no reason the candidate should be disqualified just because the parents don’t like the position just because it isn’t convenient for them.
[quote]Heidy is correct. I was responding to Claire Sherman’s statement. IMO Nancy Peterson gave an excellent answer to the same question.[/quote]
Don, do you think Claire’s answer is bad? Or is it just inconvenient?
What are legitimate reasons for requesting an intra-district transfer?
Yes, Claire Sherman is the one who wants to keep people from transferring out of Montgomery according to her statement. While reducing transfers from a school that is having problems is a laudable goal the way to do it is not by keeping people in against their will. Notice she makes an exemption for Gate but I wonder why? Why not have them attend Gate at that site? If you want to close the gate why the exemption for Gate?
The obvious answer is that you can’t really close the gate on Gate or anyone else in Davis because if people want their kid out badly enough they will find a way out be it through home schooling or private schools. The parents of Davis are not above ex-urban flight. The way to reverse the trends at Montgomery are the same as the way to attract people to any school; good administrative implementation and dedicated quality teachers with the right skill sets housed in a safe environment.
Practical: [i]What are legitimate reasons for requesting an intra-district transfer? [/i]
There are a lot of sensible ones — for starters, bullying/personality issues, perhaps a sibling is attending GATE at another site
But legally, intradistrict transfers are permitted from Montgomery because it is in “program improvement”. It maybe her opinion that intradistrict transfers should be restricted, but if she is aware of the PI rule, it would help to clarify her answer to acknowledge that fact.
“One way to get students healthier is to have them walk/bike to school rather than being driven in a car. Perhaps five points on each assignment and test should be awarded only If a student can demonstrate that they are working toward being a “healthy student” by biking or walking to school.”
I get the drive behind a statement like this, and I am totally on board with having students bike or walk as much as possible. But this would unfairly penalize students that, for example, attend Da Vinci junior high and live in the extreme south of Davis. That could end up being close to a 45-minute bike ride for some of them.
I think there might be other incentives that could work instead of those that would affect grades.
Practical:
I think it represents a very disquieting viewpoint about parental choice within the district. There are many reasons parents might have for requesting intradistrict transfers. I think a more valid question would be what are [i]illegitimate[/i] reasons. Perhaps Claire would like to elaborate as to why she thinks parents should not be able to make these decisions with and for their children.
Thanks for the response Don. Perhaps I am a disquiet person, but when I went to school we went down to the bus stop and the bus took us to the school whose catchment area included our house. There never was any question of where we would go. Of course the kinds of immersion programs that exist now did not exist then, and I can certainly see that there are programatic academic reasons that would warrant a transfer request, but wouldn’t that request be to transfer into the program rather than into the specific school?
It would seem that the questions I asked above would be ones that the district should be asking when they look at the transfers in total, and also be asking when they set up specific academic programs. Tat way the number of transfers could be kept to a bare minimum.
Don, said another way, one illegitimate reason would be “because that is where my child’s friends go to school.”
Another illegitimate reason would be “because the children in that school are smarter than the children in the school we live near.”
I realize my opinion is not going to sit well with some parents, but it is my opinion nonetheless.
[i]”because that is where my child’s friends go to school.”
[/i]
Why is that illegitimate? What if it’s the child’s sibling?
[quote]I get the drive behind a statement like this, and I am totally on board with having students bike or walk as much as possible. But this would unfairly penalize students that, for example, attend Da Vinci junior high and live in the extreme south of Davis. That could end up being close to a 45-minute bike ride for some of them.
I think there might be other incentives that could work instead of those that would affect grades[/quote]
There would clearly need to be a variance policy put in place, and the example you give would seem to qualify for special dispensation, and special focus schools like Da Vinci would be likely to spawn variances more than neighborhood elementary schools for example. On the other hand, my bus trip to school used to take at least 45 minutes thanks in part to the hilly terrain, so I’m wondering if 45 minutes of aerobic exercise wouldn’t result in an alert mind when the child arrived in his/her first class each day. Some days would be problematic if there were homework assignment materials that were too bulky to safely ride a bicycle, but the intent is to create a paradigm shif in the minds of the students.
With that said, is there any better way to get the attention of students and parents than grades?
If I were proposing a solution to declining enrollment at MM (assuming it still is declining), I would propose expanding the school’s boundaries toward Pioneer, but allowing any intradistrict transfer for any reason that a parent has. The majority of parents will accept their child’s assigned school. Those who choose otherwise would be free to do so. Just keep expanding the boundary until the enrollments stabilize.
But the district should consider that a school with a high number of outbound intradistrict students has a problem. You don’t solve the problem by prohibiting the actions that tell you there is a problem. That is like banning opinion polls because you don’t like the results. It isn’t the parents that have the problem. It may be perception, or it may be reality. Long-term solutions probably involve magnet programs, among other things that I believe are already under consideration.
[quote]Why is that illegitimate? What if it’s the child’s sibling?[/quote]
Why would a child’s sibling be going to a different school than the child would be going to?
Practical: [i]Why would a child’s sibling be going to a different school than the child would be going to?[/i]
One child might be in GATE (GATE starts in 4th grade) or Montessori (a strand is at Birch Lane) and the other not.
“Why would a child’s sibling be going to a different school than the child would be going to? “
A different answer… We just moved across town. Our third grader wanted to remain in the same school he had be going with all his friends. When our daughter starts school, if we still live there, we intend for her to go the neighborhood school. So they would be going to different schools.
Lots of kids go to Willett who lost the lottery and have younger siblings that got into Chavez who won.
David, wanting to remain in the same school is a “nice to have” but I would argue that your third grader will develop more robust social interaction skills if you choose not to make that request. Further, you child’s circle of friends will actually double if you bring her to the new school. Finally, your child will get to know the kids in your new neighborhood much better if they all attend school together. Life is full of “nice to have” opportunities, but sometimes the short term pain of the tougher decision will produce more long term gain.
wdf1, fair enough, but applying for GATE is a voluntary [u]individual child[/u] decision on the part of the parents. Why should that voluntary decision include an incremental enrollment imposition on the school district for the GATE applicant’s siblings?
[quote]Lots of kids go to Willett who lost the lottery and have younger siblings that got into Chavez who won.[/quote]
Okay, but in that situation a request by the parents to have the two siblings go to the same school would appear to be an attempt to by pass the lottery system. Is that what you are trying to say? Or are you simply giving an example?
Practical: You really don’t know the full story from my brief description, but the situation is far far more complex than that. This is a kid that was pulled out of a very bad situation and he has a lot of challenges. He has a good support system in place at that school and he doesn’t respond well to change. There are reasons why parents need to be able to make these kinds of decisions, not strangers.
David, what you are describing sounds like it would be a situation where the teachers and administrators would support your request on the merits, and it certainly does not sound like a “nice to have” situation.
1) I would be interested to know more about what teachers are looking at in “re-evaluat(ing) our district’s programs through the lens of reduced funding.
2) Margarete Montgomery has a very weak PTA, so is at a disadvantage when it comes to fundraising, etc. compared to schools with more affluent parents. The district should hire a volunteer coordinator that would do nothing else and could work to involve MME parents in a meaningful way, within their means, and could be the liaison between teachers and community groups that want to help. Increasing the strength of the school community (students, teachers, parents, community volunteers) would help in stemming the flow of students away from the school.
3) I would like to know how recently signed legislation directed at reducing suspensions and expulsions will impact how the district will discipline students (with an administrator who has a history of suspending students for truancy). How will the School Board monitor this to make sure that the spirit of the legislation is being followed.
Not to be blunt, but isn’t the worry that white parents are pulling their kids from the school, i.e., that racism is a factor? At least, that is what I remember reading. That would be an illegitimate reason, I would think.
Really, it is nobody’s business why parents looks for better placement for their children. I see an awful lot of top-down ‘this would be better for you if you do what I think’ going on here.
There are lots of reasons a particular school might not be working out. I had to push to get my kid’s placement changed. The school district doesn’t always know best.
Even preferring another school because of better test scores has validity. Test scores may be considered, by some parents, as indicators of the quality of education their child would receive. People often buy houses in Davis partly because of the schools, as measured by the test scores.
Practical: [i]wdf1, fair enough, but applying for GATE is a voluntary individual child decision on the part of the parents. Why should that voluntary decision include an incremental enrollment imposition on the school district for the GATE applicant’s siblings?[/i]
Parents can work late and have kids in CDC after school. It would be preferable to have kids in proximity to each other for emotional support, in addition to making one trip to one school rather than a trip each to two different schools. At some point, it can become an access issue.
[quote]Really, it is nobody’s business why parents looks for better placement for their children. I see an awful lot of top-down ‘this would be better for you if you do what I think’ going on here.
There are lots of reasons a particular school might not be working out. I had to push to get my kid’s placement changed. The school district doesn’t always know best.
Even preferring another school because of better test scores has validity. Test scores may be considered, by some parents, as indicators of the quality of education their child would receive. People often buy houses in Davis partly because of the schools, as measured by the test scores. Why wouldn’t they look at how individual schools are performing in the same way?[/quote]
Don, if I have the correct information I believe you are a parent who pays tuition in order for your children to attend Davis schools. As such I can see how your placement argument would have a different slant to it. If you are going to pay tuition, then having a say about the school your child attends makes a lot of sense. However, paying tuition isn’t a reality that appears to pertain to Davis residents.
I completely agree with you that many people factor school catchment areas into their house buying or apartment renting decisions, but isn’t that where the school designation preference should be acted upon? If they are giving that consideration during their housing choice process, then I would certainly expect them to consider test scores and lots of other data, but I also believe they should complete that schools evaluation before they make their housing choice rather than after it.
[quote]Parents can work late and have kids in CDC after school. It would be preferable to have kids in proximity to each other for emotional support,[/quote]True enough… but if these children are accommodated, and another child is ‘displaced’ because their parents were not “activist” enough, where is the justice?
[quote]Parents can work late and have kids in CDC after school. It would be preferable to have kids in proximity to each other for emotional support, in addition to making one trip to one school rather than a trip each to two different schools. At some point, it can become an access issue.[/quote]
If the children do the healthy thing and bike/walk to school, then the number of trips to school by the parents would be reduced to zero and be a non-factor. After all, we made this city bicycle friendly for a lot of reasons, one of which was to support children biking and walking to school. That community design decision was/is the ultimate access solution. In addition as they go to and from school each day they will no doubt be presented with significantly greater opportunity to get to know the other children whose daily biking/walking route coincides with theirs. In the process we will build stronger neighborhood closeness and enhanced interpersonal communication skills in our children.
[quote]Not to be blunt, but isn’t the worry that white parents are pulling their kids from the school, i.e., that racism is a factor? At least, that is what I remember reading. That would be an illegitimate reason, I would think.[/quote]
Agreed 100%
I agree with Don. I found that administrators will often advise what is expedient for the district, rather than what is best for the child – forget anything about what is best for the family. Some educational situations that are fabulous for one child may be poisonous for another child due to a teacher, administrator, other children, or even another parent. In these situations, the parent is the only advocate for the child. It would be hard to come up with a blanket policy that would not harm children who need flexibility in school assignments.
“If the children do the healthy thing and bike/walk to school, then the number of trips to school by the parents would be reduced to zero and be a non-factor.”
My kids walk to school and i walk with them. I don’t know any elementary school kids that walk or bike alone. So walking or biking doesn’t reduce parent trips to school.
2. For a long time now, some teachers have been advocating for the Board to “re-evaluate our district’s programs through the lens of reduced funding,” as a means to meet the budget – moving forward how do you see the district addressing school program priorities in an era of reduced revenue?
[quote][/quote]
I don’t think any of the candidates answered the question. Claire Sherman may have started to. I would like confirmation that the school board can legally use cutting programs to balance the budget, as well as teacher tenure. Also, a definition of “program.” Are the only programs that could be cut the ones designated as “programs” on the DJUSD web-site, i.e. language learners, Spanish Immersion, GATE, Montessori, and special education? Are there are disporportionate number of older tenured teachers in these programs, where laying off 2 teachers in these programs means you can keep 3 in the regular program? Does the high-school have any “programs”? Is the accelerated cirriculum a “program?” Would re-focusing DJUSD on age-appropriate education save money? For example, make algebra a 9th grade class (not 7th or 8th grade), biology a 10th grade class (not 9th), etc.
With respect to No. 4. — IMO, if the cirriculum was skewed towards being age-appropriate, rather than skewed towards completing the first year of college while in high school, many of our children wouldn’t be so stressed out. That’s something the DJUSD Board can influence.