In 2007, 2008, 2011 and now twice in 2012 the voters in Davis have stepped up to support quality education. Some people want to suggest that Measure E was a nailbiter. It wasn’t a nailbiter.
As Richard Harris told me on Wednesday morning, by any reasonable measure, 69% is a landslide. We agree and Richard Harris deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing the district to act when they would not have, and seeing it through until the end.
Without Mr. Harris’ impetus there would not have been a Measure E on the November ballot. While it may have been true that the district would have come back this spring, we do not know. What we do know is that 24,000 people cast their ballot this time and 69% of those said yes.
With that said, we believe that the voters and the taxpayers have done their part and it is now time for some other groups to step forward here.
First, there was the commentary yesterday from Bill Storm, Ingrid Salim and Greg Brucker. Let me make this clear, none of these people wanted to write this piece. These are all strong supporters of the union and teachers.
They also did not want the internal politics within the Davis Teachers Association to muck up the Measure E race that all three of them strongly supported.
However, it is clear that there is a problem within the leadership of DTA. I think they are good and well-meaning people, but at the same time, I do not think they are realistic about the budget structure in Davis.
Unfortunately, their refusal to negotiate last spring cost fifty people their jobs. And it could have meant a disaster this fall had Prop 30 not passed. The district averted disaster with the passage of Prop 30, and they can thank the 28% of the electorate that were youth voters who supported the measure at a 65 percent clip.
But the passage of Prop 30 is not a bailout of the mistakes.
The piece we published yesterday had some very modest recommendations, the most basic of which was: “Considering the toxic state of affairs existing between DJUSD and DTA leadership, we strongly request the DTA Executive Board and Negotiators respect the dramatically demonstrated trust placed in Davis teachers by their community and return to communicating with the board of trustees they have elected, and negotiate in good faith and good will.”
Some of these recommendations are common sense. As we have noted, there seems to be a lack of understanding about the budget realities and, toward that end, the piece suggests, “Immediately schedule regular and recurring meetings with the district Chief Business Officer in order to establish a common and ongoing understanding of the state of DJUSD finances.”
Furthermore, there have been questions as to how representative of the overall teacher body the DTA leadership is. Therefore the piece recommends, “Create structures within DTA that guarantee its representatives (Rep Council, Executive Board and the negotiating team) are truly representing the majority. Design and implement regular, transparent surveys to take the measure of what your members think and feel, and make sure policies pursued reflect the majority position, not a vocal minority or the personal position of leadership.”
These are modest, reasonable approaches that could result in improving the representation the DTA provides its membership.
The DTA serves a vital function, both to their membership and the community as a whole, but they do no one any favors if they are out of touch with budgetary realities and perhaps out of touch with their own membership.
In my opinion, the community has stepped up now five times since 2007 to ensure that we have funding, even in the midst of economic crisis. We’re not talking about bare-boned support – we are talking about 69% or more of the public supporting four of these five measures.
And it is worth noting that while *just* 67 percent supported Measure A, that support rose to 69% for Measure E. Moreover, Measure E was a leap of faith because no one knew if Prop 30 was going to pass, no one knew for sure if they were voting for $204 more for their tax bill or $446 more, and they voted for it anyway.
The public has stepped up – we now call on the DTA leadership to do the same.
The voters have placed their faith once again in Susan Lovenburg, and have elected Nancy Peterson for the first time.
We have been so focused on the budget the last five years, but there are issues we need to address. Davis has a growing Title 1 population of students.
Davis is a changing school district. Twenty years ago, 75% of Davis students were white. Now 42% of Davis students are minorities.
While the voters reelected one of the incumbents, what was clear was that there were a whole host of issues that many in this community do not feel was addressed. Nancy Peterson pushed her experience dealing with the Title I population at Montgomery Elementary, a school that is desperately in need of strong leadership.
Issues that Claire Sherman raised about the less achieving students and Alan Fernandes raised about special education, and many raised about job training and vocational education, need to resonate with a school board that in all fairness has been forced to grapple with budget cuts upon budget cuts.
The students in Davis have a community behind them, but we need to do better. It is inexcusable in this community that we would have such a pervasive achievement gap.
We have not adequately addressed the achievement gap in the six years that I have been closely following the school district. We need to understand why it is that the African-American and Latino kids of college-educated parents would achieve markedly lower than their Asian and Caucasian counterparts.
The community has given the school district a pass on these issues for too long now, and they have stepped up each time that they have been asked to. We now ask for the DTA leadership and the school district to reciprocate.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]These are modest, reasonable approaches that . . .[/i]
. . . are all in print in the current [url]DTA Bylaws[/url].
“Unfortunately, their refusal to negotiate last spring cost fifty people their jobs.”
When extra money comes into the district, improving teacher compensation is not the Board’s first priority. The Board immediately adds program/classes. In fact even when no new money comes into the district they add new program. So when the state cuts our funding why does the Board come to teachers and ask us for our hard earned money? Money that we’ve had to negotiate and fight to get. Why don’t they pare back on the program that they added when times were flush? That’s where they spent the largesse in the first place.
As individuals in a struggling economy, teachers have their own bills to pay, children to educate, etc. Why ask us to give up on our own children and responsibilities because the district does not want to scale back on their spending? And cutting out essential staff, CSEA and others, stripping school site funds and other infrastructure cuts are not prudent fiscal measures and are not a replacement for regulating program impacts on the budget.
I might add that the cuts made in recent years, especially class size reduction, have had the most deleterious impact on our struggling achievement gap students. Loss of small classes at the primary grades and in the remedial high school classes put the burden on the students least able to shoulder them. Vo-tech programs have been slashed in a district where UC admissions seem to be the only goal of the high school program.
We are such a program rich district that there is plenty of room to ease back on offerings and still have a strong academic program and provide support for our neediest children.
Steve,
You state this: “And cutting out essential staff, CSEA and others, stripping school site funds and other infrastructure cuts are not prudent fiscal measures and are not a replacement for regulating program impacts on the budget”
and then you state this:
“We are such a program rich district that there is plenty of room to ease back on offerings and still have a strong academic program and provide support for our neediest children. “
As head negotiator of our union, it is incredibly disappointing that you are advocating for the firing of some teachers to help support other teachers. You, as a leader in the union, should be standing up for ALL teachers, always.
As you also state concern about cuts that have affected the students, it should be stated that last year, the union did NOTHING to stop the loss of 45 teaching positions, allowing for the situation that as you state, has negatively affected our students.
There seems to be confusion about what ‘program’ costs. Our students from elementary to secondary receive the exact same ‘amount’ of education in terms of minutes and classes that they have all along. Our parcel taxes, paid for by our community, allow for an extra class at the secondary level, and pay for some elective programs, by hiring specific teachers for pullouts, at the elementary. For awhile they paid to lower class sizes. I have never understood what DTA meant by ‘adding program’ that somehow cost monies that could have gone to something else. If another elective class is offered at the secondary, or a different level of English is created, is just means that students shift from one class to another, and a teacher is paid for teaching that class, rather than another. There is no net cost.
I urge DTA leaders to examine what they mean by ‘increasing program’ and to identify increased costs they believe are associated with those programs, in order to then advocate for programs they recommend should be eliminated. I content that almost all or all of their examples will result in saved money simply through increased class size — which is exactly what happened last spring through the reduction of 45 FTE, and which folks are complaining about now.
Kelleher: [i]The Board immediately adds program/classes.[/i]
This is a common complaint I hear from some elementary teachers (which is what I understand you are) of the secondary program. When I hear it at first blush, I think I’m supposed to be appalled at the irresponsibility. But when I think about it further and ask around, I can’t figure out why exactly this is a problem. I think your parroting this reflexively without thinking it through. Maybe you could give specific examples.
Because the way I see it, it is something of a zero sum game. Students are filling schedules of six and seven classes. For instance, maybe the board decides that computer technology, web and graphic design is becoming an important and desired skill, so they add a class or two that address those skills. But then at the same time, students are no longer signing up to take shorthand and typing. Mandarin classes get added, but then students are no longer signing up for Latin. Maybe they add a new voc-tech class that’s a little more relevant than another.
If you aren’t more specific, then I don’t think this point will go anywhere.
[i]Why don’t they pare back on the program that they added when times were flush? That’s where they spent the largesse in the first place.[/i]
So in other words, cut the graphics design and Mandarin teacher(s) in my example above because those were the last classes added? But possibly save the shorthand, typing, and Latin classes? What if students are enrolling in the newer classes at higher rates than the older ones?
It seems like an exercise in trying to figure out whom to throw under the bus rather than looking at a more shared sacrifice model. To quote Winston Smith in 1984, it seems like you are saying, “Do it to Julia!” when the rats come too close to your face.
[i]As individuals in a struggling economy, teachers have their own bills to pay, children to educate, etc.[/i]
Okay, fair enough, I suppose. My mom was a 3rd grade teacher, and I totally see what we went through growing up.
[i]I might add that the cuts made in recent years, especially class size reduction, have had the most deleterious impact on our struggling achievement gap students. Loss of small classes at the primary grades and in the remedial high school classes put the burden on the students least able to shoulder them.[/i]
Okay. But you were just arguing that you didn’t think teachers should take cuts in salary, so at some point you have to increase class sizes.
What you are missing here is that it is not DTA that sets a budget….it is the Board of Education.
DTA has the interest of the teachers and what you also must look at is that the three “teachers” that wrote that piece, two are secondary teachers and one is at the district office – none are at any elementary sites. At the elementary sites, our programs are being decimated. Our classrooms are impacted, our sites overcrowded and we are having to teach to all students….even when our programs have been flagged by the Federal Government for not “hitting” the target and now our sites are in Program Improvement.
The secondary programs are bloated…enriched….and students are taking more that enough classes to graduate….these are what the Board and the parents in this town want and have voted on……this is not the policy of the DTA. Even our Superintendent has said there is “nothing” we can do about this.
DTA tried to negotiate with the District for 5% pay cut and 5 furlough days……the Board and the District said no….telling us …”we teachers are the problem”….hey how about cutting some of these programs and bloated secondary courses? How about cutting AP this, AP that, Junior College level classes to help us elementary classes cut our class sizes down? How about teaching six periods instead of five? How about cutting seventh period? How about helping out with reading aids, EL specialists? What do you think will happen in a few years when our elementary students (who haven’t had the low class sizes) are in secondary? Do you think they will be prepared for these advanced classes?
Budgetary policy is not DTA’s function….that is the Board’s function…..DTA’s function is to help teachers…….
To “A Classroom Teacher” :
Your post is a perfect example of the problem that our leadership presents.
[quote]What you are missing here is that it is not DTA that sets a budget….it is the Board of Education. [/quote]
I’m not sure David ever said that the DTA sets the budget–you may want to re-read the piece. So to argue this point is like getting mad because you have to tell someone the sky is blue when they are stating that there are clouds outside.
[quote]DTA has the interest of the teachers and what you also must look at is that the three “teachers” that wrote that piece, two are secondary teachers and one is at the district office – none are at any elementary sites.[/quote]
If the DTA has the interest of the teachers, why did the DTA let 45 teaching positions go away last year, by refusing to allow for the possibility for concessions? Why did the DTA let 45 positions go, allowing class size to increase? What did the DTA do to help save jobs last year in a real time of need?
As well, you speak here as if aiming to deny the reality that secondary teachers are teachers also, and that Bill was a teacher for 20 years or more at the elementary level. To put teachers in quotes is to act as if we are not teachers. How condescending and degrading? And you say that the DTA has the interest of the teachers? How can you say that in the same sentence you aim to degrade 3 teachers who have been quite successful during their teaching careers?
[quote] At the elementary sites, our programs are being decimated. [/quote]
Decimated? Really? How? The class sizes are larger, yes. They are too large, yes. But decimated? To use that word to inflate the reality does a huge disservice to your argument.
[quote]
Our classrooms are impacted, our sites overcrowded and we are having to teach to all students….even when our programs have been flagged by the Federal Government for not “hitting” the target and now our sites are in Program Improvement. [/quote]
This is happening all around the district right now. All of our class sizes are larger. In fact, one of my classes is the largest in the junior highs (59 students). At DHS, classes have around 40 students average. So to claim that the troubles are only at the elementary level is to ignore reality. Program Improvement has nothing to do with class sizes. What does is the fact that the state gave districts the ability to not abide by prop 98’s class size reductions (which I personally believe to the be wrong move, as those funds to lower the class size came from the state).
[quote]The secondary programs are bloated…enriched….and students are taking more that enough classes to graduate….these are what the Board and the parents in this town want and have voted on……this is not the policy of the DTA. Even our Superintendent has said there is “nothing” we can do about this[/quote]
Program are bloated? Really? Which ones? We lost teaching positions in almost all areas last year, and it was advocated for by the dta leadership in the idea that the dta leadership wanted those cuts to happen to help fix the budget structural deficit. The district cut those positions, the DTA did nothing to stop the loss of those positions, and here we are today with too large of class sizes worse working conditions.
So, also, lets evaluate your next point here…the parents of the town voted on extra funding to allow for certain programs to continue. Are you acting as if the DTA is against the extra funding of programs and bringing extra money into the schools to keep our well rounded educational offerings intact? Further, it is indeed correct that there is nothing the district can do to get rid of those positions because they were voted in by the public, and it would be WRONG to go against the public’s wishes by cutting jobs where they were put in place by city vote (and a 2/3s + supermajority vote at that).
So, here, you are basically advocating to get rid of the teaching positions accounted for in the parcel taxes. SHAME ON YOU for not taking into account the desires of this community, and SHAME ON YOU for advocating for the firing of some teachers to support other teachers.
Part two of this reply coming in a moment…..
[quote]DTA tried to negotiate with the District for 5% pay cut and 5 furlough days……the Board and the District said no….[/quote]
It sounds like here, you don’t know what actually is going on, and on the worst end, this is completely disingenuous. The district asked for a 10 day furlough, or about 5.5% of our yearly salary. The DTA offered 5 days in return, or 2.7% of our salary. The board wouldn’t accept the 5 day offer by DTA because it doesn’t account for the fair share of what the DTA should give back compared to admin and the CSEA. The are facts and truths to back up the district’s case. There are no facts and no truths to back up the DTA’s case. That is a fact and a very sad reality for the DTA.
[quote]
telling us …”we teachers are the problem”…[/quote]
really? when did they say that? As a member of the Yes on Measure E committee and main volunteer base, it was the board of education members that were some of the strongest advocates to help save teachers’ jobs and to help protect teachers’ pay through trying to get this passed. To lie about the attitude of the board is part of the problem that exists with the leadership of the DTA. The board does not think we are the problem at all, and to make that statement proves the shameful “us vs. them” mentality that defined the George W. Bush presidency, and we all know where that got us. The board is on our side and care about the conditions of the schools. They also have to deal with very tough budget situations and I would challenge you to show me in the budget and in text where the board is calling teachers the problem.
In fact, it sounds like, with your post, that you say that secondary teachers are the problem and that some should be fired so others can have an advantage.
[quote].hey how about cutting some of these programs and bloated secondary courses? How about cutting AP this, AP that, Junior College level classes to help us elementary classes cut our class sizes down?[/quote]
So you are advocating firing secondary teachers here? Why are you advocating for the firing of any teachers? Do you care about your fellow teachers? It sure sounds like you could care less about the secondary teachers and programs and are ok with getting rid of them to benefit you (as you come across as an elementary teacher).
[quote]
How about teaching six periods instead of five? How about cutting seventh period? How about helping out with reading aids, EL specialists? [/quote]
This is all contained in the moneys produced by parcel taxes. Further, I cannot believe that you are stating that the older students don’t deserve to have an education with electives. Why do you hate electives? Do you think they aren’t part of a good education? I simply don’t understand your logic or your anti-teacher philosophy.
[quote]What do you think will happen in a few years when our elementary students (who haven’t had the low class sizes) are in secondary? Do you think they will be prepared for these advanced classes?[/quote]
Honestly, because we have such great teachers at the elementary level, we know we will be receiving students that are prepared and ready for junior high for the most part. There are always students behind, and I am in agreement that one of the first things we should do with any extra funding we receive outside of what we already have due to parcel taxes and the regular budget, is to help offset the larger class sizes in the lowest grades.
[quote]
Budgetary policy is not DTA’s function….that is the Board’s function…..DTA’s function is to help teachers……. [/quote]
So again, you’ve only proven that the DTA hasn’t helped teachers and in fact, is advocating for some to be fired to benefit others, and as well, your comment on budgetary policy being not the dta’s function isn’t an arguable point.
To finish: It is a shameful that we have teachers that speak in the way that you do, advocating for the firing of teachers, while spinning truths to fit a certain story and furthering the faulty divisive “us vs them” attitude against the board.
And at the same time, I thank you for being a perfect example of the problems with DTA leadership and why we are speaking out against the “argument” you are pushing.
If you want to have this discussion further, you know how to find me in the district. You are welcome to email me.
Thanks,
-Greg Brucker
Classroom Teacher: [i]How about cutting AP this, AP that, Junior College level classes to help us elementary classes cut our class sizes down?[/i]
So you have students take regular government instead of AP government. Have students take regular chemistry instead of AP chemistry. Have students take regular English instead of AP English. How does this save money?
[i]How about cutting seventh period?[/i]
That Measure C & E fund the ability for the district to offer 7 periods in secondary grades. I suppose the district could do it, but then it would violate the terms of the school parcel taxes and invite further mistrust, and possibly legal action. Seven periods for secondary grades is common in many other states, but not as common in California, because the state doesn’t typically provide enough funding for it. When I went to school outside of California, we had 7 periods in secondary grades.
Also, it’s probably bad policy internally within the DTA to go around and advocate that someone else get cut instead of you. It only brings bad kharma back to you as someone else will argue that you lose your job to save his/her position. I appreciate that you believe in the worth of your profession. Keep in mind that the teachers holding the positions that you suggest cutting also believe in the mission of their life’s work, too.
Greg, your comments have focused on job security, and that DTA didn’t focus on improving teachers’ compensation or working conditions. It was absent of what the STUDENTS need or what parent’s expect. You have little to no credibility now.
hpierce, I’m a bit confused again by your comments.
[quote]Greg, your comments have focused on job security, [/quote]
I guess that’s one way to frame it. I was countering the philosophy that our leadership has that we should be firing some teachers to support others. I don’t think we should be holding some teachers as more important than others, and that some are more deserving than others.
[quote] and that DTA didn’t focus on improving teachers’ compensation or working conditions. [/quote] I didn’t say anything about improving compensation. Where did you get that from? This isn’t the time to be advocating for higher pay, as there isn’t the money to pay for it. As well, I mentioned that conditions are worse due to the situation. What the leadership should have done was work to keep our working conditions where they were, or as close possible. What happened was that they got worse for most/all teachers due to a lack of action by the leadership. I would love to improve working conditions for all. That didn’t happen from last year to this year.
[quote]
It was absent of what the STUDENTS need or what parent’s expect. You have little to no credibility now. [/quote]
This comment is out of left field. What the students need are smaller class sizes and a great variety of learning options so that we can give ALL students the opportunity to succeed and find their strengths. That is what this town has also voted to support over the years (which I know you are against, which means that you want to see teachers fired rather than stay employed, and in that you would allow for higher class sizes and worse working conditions—at least that is how you’ve consistently advocated for a long time here–you are anti-parcel tax and pro-higher class sizes and less opportunity, and you are welcome to have that opinion. It is your right as an American).
Further, given that you aren’t a teacher and are against parcel taxes which go to support the students’ needs and the parents expectations, it is interesting that you choose to make a case about my credibility. I don’t think you’re in any place to judge that. Plus, your statement is a way to just dismiss what I stated without actually addressing any of the points I made. If you want to address the points I made, please do so. Otherwise, it is not the best move to simply dismiss everything I say by stating that it is your opinion that I have no credibility based on what the rest of your comment, which is quite out of left field.
As well, this is also a major shift from what you wrote yesterday, in which you basically state that I have credibility as a teacher and advocate: [quote]I thank you both for your service to the community, and have hopes that for both public and private sector employees that better times are ahead. [/quote] (https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5844:davis-teachers-go-public-with-their-discontent-with-dta-leadership&catid=68:budgettaxes&Itemid=119&cpage=0 your 12:34 PM post)
Thanks,
Greg
The comments here continue to resonate for myself and the authors of our blog.
There is still confusion about what changes to ‘program’ constitutes a savings. Others have questioned this, and I would love to figure out a way to answer this for folks. We have, for a couple of decades, offered a 7 period day to all of our secondary students. This is paid for by the parcel tax. As several writers pointed out, there is no negotiation on this as the community has decided to pay for it. Had the parcel tax not passed, that 7th period would have disappeared, and those secondary layoffs would have happened (of course, many of them would have displaced primary teachers, due to seniority). But there would be no change in class size, at either level. Yes elementary classes are higher than they have been for the current generation of teachers. However, they have been here before. Right now, secondary classes are staffed at 37:1, which means there is, of course, a range of class sizes. But they are still quite a bit higher than elementary. Clearly, elementary teachers are not feeling so equipped on how to teach to classes larger than they are used to, but while I know many are expressing that, I also have talked to many who understand that the numbers are a product of a budget that had to be cut, and not because secondary is somehow getting prioritization. Certainly, the majority of elementary teachers I have talked to would find it absurd t suggest that their secondary counterparts work a different contract (6 periods instead of 5, i.e., lay off the rest), and I’m proud of that fact. They have noted that, if we really wanted class size reduction, we should have agreed to that last year. Had we actually considered that route, I believe that secondary teachers would have been willing to take that salary hit to keep classes lower in the elementary grades. But we weren’t asked that question in reasonable ways. Instead, our negotation team and DTA leadership took an opening request that we consider a 5.5%
cut (DTA added ‘permanent’ on to that, when that was not part of the original language) and turned what should have been a reasonable discussion into a very public, and spectacled ‘no.’ It is this behavior, and the lack of creating a space for a reasonable conversation, which just have a resulted in some furlough days for this year and no increase in class size, that we are protesting.
With our blog, we are protesting, not a majority rejection of concessions or sacrifice, but the unwillingness of the leadership to truly discover the will of their members. We know that DTA is there primarily to serve the interests of teachers, and that is its role. We protest that the interests do not clearly serve the majority of teachers, but the minority arguments of a few. We are calling on them, as leaders, to seek with integrity the views of their members and to represent those views, not their own.
We are protesting as well the proclivity on the part of DTA leadership to make these calls on their own, without consulting the membership in a real way, and then to spin the budget or other facts in such a way that justifies their position. Rationally, their arguments simply to not back their positions, but more importantly, their mandate is to represent ALL teachers, and the structure and means for soliciting that input is currently just not working.
No longer am I worried about any consequences that the “fiscal cliff” will have on local school funding. I do appreciate the lengths that people will go to in order to guarantee appropriate funding of nation’s schools.
[quote]The Onion, 11/20/12: Secretary Of Education Forced To Take Up Stripping To Put Nation Through School ([url]http://www.theonion.com/articles/secretary-of-education-forced-to-take-up-stripping,30456/[/url])
TAMPA, FL—Saying it was his only real option to earn much-needed cash, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan told reporters Tuesday he had been forced to start working as an erotic dancer at the local strip club Peaches in order to put the nation’s students through school.
etc.
[img]http://o.onionstatic.com/images/18/18808/16×9/635.jpg?4694[/img][/quote]I hope posting the image isn’t considered inappropriate.