The news is largely good in terms of the budget, but in terms of immediate help for our local schools, the good news is limited to the fact that no more money will be cut from the budget this year.
The governor’s budget, after years of cutting from education, presents a plan to increase per pupil funding by 2016-17. But the bulk of that will that will go, not to Davis, but to poor and low performing districts.
Writes the San Francisco Chronicle, “Brown plans an extra $2 billion for public schools, but with a significant condition. He intends to do away with a welter of special payments to school districts and send more Sacramento money to poor, low performing districts. It’s a plan that will likely harm wealthier suburbia and help urban classrooms.”
A local official told the Vanguard that, while the budget at least does not take money away from Davis Schools, it will also not push money our way.
And so, while it is indeed great news that there will be an extra $2 billion for public schools, the new budget does not undo the local funding crisis that Davis faces.
It is, in fact, with a great deal of irony that Jose Granda, the opponent of local parcel taxes and a school board candidate back in November writes, “The election is over but not the issues. Proposition 30 makes $6 billion available for schools, fulfilling the State of California responsibly, curing shortfalls and funding schools well. The big question the School Board must answer to the taxpayers is, why they also need Measure E?”
While the need to have these discussions is important, and the fact that he raises the issues gives us another opportunity to discuss these vital issues, there is a tiresome nature to this contention, as it ignores a whole host of facts and a broader understanding of school financing.
There is a very simple answer to Mr. Granda’s question: we need Measure E because Prop 30 only prevented more cuts, it did not add a single dime to the school district’s budget.
Proposition 30 should have been considered a ballot measure that allows for California to tread water. Without its passage, there would have been trigger cuts that would have slashed an additional $6 billion from schools.
Writes Mr. Granda, “Since Proposition 30 passed, $6 billion are newly available for schools. This has cured the deficit in California and now there are no budget ‘shortfalls.’ “
That is partly correct. The passage of Proposition 30 meant that in the 2012-13 fiscal year, money would not be cut from school districts.
But that is not what Measure E sought to address. Measure E actually was the renewal of Measure A. Measure A was passed in March 2011. That measure dealt with the 2010-11 Fiscal Year in which some money from the state was cut, but more importantly the state once again did not fund COLA (cost-of-living adjustment).
So, when Mr. Granda writes, “Remember the School Board used this as a tactic to pass Measure E. Will they have the honesty to give the money back to the taxpayers?”
He is getting his facts greatly confused. Measure E had two components. The first part renewed Measure A and the second part would have backfilled the district for the loss of the $3.7 million that would have been cut from state funding had Prop 30 not passed.
The result of Prop 30 passing is that the addition $246 will not be levied, but the Measure A renewal goes into effect.
The budget news is getting better. The governor this week issued forth a budget that he believes will be balanced.
According to the governor’s office, the budget maintains long-term fiscal stability by aligning expenditures with revenue, paying down debt and creating a $1 billion reserve.
“This budget provides long-term fiscal stability on a level that California has not enjoyed in more than a decade,” the governor claimed.
Even more, the governor’s office argues that, after years of budget cuts, this budget will significantly increase state funding per student in K-12 schools.
Per pupil funding will increase by about $2,700 by 2016-2017.
This is in line with the analysis from the LAO (Legislative Analyst’s Office) back in November 2012.
They argued that the “budget situation has improved sharply.”
“The state’s economic recovery, prior budget cuts, and the additional, temporary taxes provided by Proposition 30 have combined to bring California to a promising moment: the possible end of a decade of acute state budget challenges,” they write.
They add: “Our economic and budgetary forecast indicates that California’s leaders face a dramatically smaller budget problem in 2013-14 compared to recent years. Furthermore, assuming steady economic growth and restraint in augmenting current program funding levels, there is a strong possibility of multibillion-dollar operating surpluses within a few years.”
Indeed, they argue that “the new Legislature and the Governor will need to address a $1.9 billion budget problem in order to pass a balanced budget by June 2013 for the next fiscal year.”
Unlike other years, clearly that is a manageable factor.
The bad news is that right now it appears most of the money that is going to education is going to the school districts that have been hammered by budget cuts and have not been able to, like Davis, pass parcel taxes.
That means that, while Measure C which renewed Measures Q and W, and Measure E which renewed Measure A, will remain in effect for the next four years, right now, and it is not clear that the district will receive a bump in money between now and then.
So, the state budget crisis and schools crisis appear to be over, but locally it might take another half decade before we see state monies restore us to previous levels.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The bad news is that right now it appears most of the money that is going to education is going to the school districts that have been hammered by budget cuts that have not been able to, like Davis, pass parcel taxes.”
So, the question is if Davis hadn’t passed the school parcel taxes would we have been in line to receive more state money? When doling out funds does the state consider how much school districts are getting from homeowners?
rusty: [i]So, the question is if Davis hadn’t passed the school parcel taxes would we have been in line to receive more state money?[/i]
The way I understand it, no. It is based on measurements of income/SES.
And performance.
With a couple of children in the Davis schools, the liberal David has always been deaf to the argument that all California children should have equal access to educational resources and that the way the state and the nation funds its school systems is both archaic and “savagely unequal” to borrow from the title of Jonathan Kozol’s important book on the subject.
…which consistently correlate.
Herman: I can’t speak for David, but I would favor a statewide solution, if it were possible. But I don’t expect one because it has proven consistently to be very dysfunctional. Even with whatever Gov. Brown might do to move things in a positive direction, I don’t expect any change to be fast enough, to have enough impact, nor to be a stable enough plan to last more than three years before the next crisis torpedoes it.
I only have limited years on Earth, and I don’t want to spend it bitching and moaning about how terrible our education system is and do nothing about it. 42,000 Davis voters are not going to have a major influence on statewide policy in education compared to what tens of millions of California voters want. But we can do something locally and define we want our education system to be and possibly hold it up as a living example to emulate elsewhere, if the results are worth considering.
Local school parcel taxes are not the most ideal mechanism, but it is the best mechanism that is available to us right now. Without them, then you would see greater disparities in access and results within Davis.
“The Shame of the Nation ” is “must” reading for anyone concerned about the state of public education .
THe new water project rates are going to decimate the DJUSD budget; irrigation will take large percentage.
For years, the City’s rate structures have hugely subsidized the large irrigators, most especially the school fields and grounds. Thanks to the new water project that is on the March 5 ballot, the subsidy ends.
Where is the school district going to get money this summer to water those playing fields? Cuts to classroom education, again?
And, when the District gets around to replumbing so its using nonpotable well water to water those playing fields and grounds, guess what?
Our residential and commercial bills will skyrocket? Why? Simple math.
If you borrow $1,000, and you have 10 people on the hook to pay it back, each is responsible for $100, right?
Well, what if you have 10 debtors, and suddenly 3 of them walk away from the $1000? The other 7 are left holding the bag.
When the school district (and the city parks and greenbelts) switch to their own systems, and remove themselves from the pool of ratepayers servicing the debt on the water plant’s new $115 million, then the rest of us have to pony up the difference.
And it’s going to be a huge increase for all of us, on top of the 3-4 x more the city is admitting our bills are going up.
Dear School Board: all of you should be fighting to push back the water plant, while you get your irrigation systems overhauled, replumbed, and some kind of sane fiscal plan in place.
I searched “Shame of the nation” and Biddlin you are exactly right. Jerry Brown putting more money into these schools is the Governor’s attempt to address the issue of affluent people abandoning the public schools or moving out to places like Davis and supplementing their local schools while inner city schools are underfunded. Don’t forget Brown’s tenure as mayor of Oakland allowed him to see at the granular level how policy plays out on the local level. This probably accounts for his desire to get rid of redevelopment, and now, the underfunding of inner city schools.
I think what the governor is proposing is a crucial reform and long overdue. Excerpted from the San Rafael Patch:
“Brown proposed a similar plan last year: a so-called “weighted student formula” that gets rid of a lot of special programs and allots money at a flat rate per student, giving an extra 35 percent for low-income students and English learners. The idea, however, was ultimately trimmed from the budget.
This year, he’s calling it “local flexibility,” and it’s designed to be implemented in phases. The plan would give more money to school districts that have at least 50 percent of their population as poor or English learners.
However, suburban schools – which have been hurting financially along with the rest of the state – may ultimately get pinched. Brown said he was OK with that.
“Our future depends on it. If we don’t invest adequate funds in our children and their education, we will not have the economic well-being in future years,” he said. Aging suburbanites need a strong, younger work force to support them.
“One of the most important ways we do that is to invest in schools and disproportionately invest in those schools where there is greater difficulty in learning,” he said. “I think the majority of the people are going to see that. “
He pointed out that schools in Beverly Hills and Los Gatos are far better off than those in Compton or Richmond.
…
The budget proposed by Brown also increases per-student funding for all levels of education. By the 2016-17 school year, K-12 schools would see a $2,681 increase in spending for each student. At the CSU and UC levels, spending would increase by about $2,000 and $2,500 by 2016-17, respectively.”
Nearly every assertion made by Mike Harrington above is false. At this point I’ll leave it to others to refute them.
The education system as designed does not work. In cities like Davis our statistical education outcomes are great by comparison, but the benchmarks are very low. We are clearly failing our children in a big way. We need a complete education transformation… one where our methods, tools, structures, goals and performance measures are all focused on preparing our kids for a successful transition to their next step. And that next step needs to be determined as part of the education process.
These new taxes will benefit the education system employees much more that it will the students. I will put money on the bet that we will not see much change in dropout rates, test scores, the numbers of kids that go to college or get good paying jobs having work-related skills.
Ediucation costs keep escalating, but the quality is not improving… in fact it is falling relative to what is really needed to produce qualified workers in this modern age.
I laugh at liberal progressives demanding a march forward in demanding copious services for poor and forced social change so that every individual is embraced and accepted no matter what their circumstance and behavior. They support a President that says he wants to transform America. Yet these same people defend the current dinosaur of a an education system with all the vigor of the NRA fedending gun rights. The only difference is that guns kill and injure many fewer people than does the crappy public education system. The majority of incarcerated violent criminals are high school dropouts. Yet, the liberal progressive platform is that we reduce sentencing rules to correct this problem. Astounding.
If the left would get their head out of their ass and really match their label as progressive, they would join with conservative demanding a complete education transformation. Yet, what we get is the same political defense of the unions that pump money into the Democrat campaign coffers. It is teachers unions and Democrats against the welfare of the kids, and Democrats just keep demaning more welfare to hide the fact.
Mr. T: [i]…the issue of affluent people abandoning the public schools or moving out to places like Davis and supplementing their local schools while inner city schools are underfunded.[/i]
When discussing affluence, Davis definitely doesn’t represent a top tier of affluence. The top tier communities are typically defined as “basic aid” districts, that are capable of funding their local school district entirely on local property taxes, without any help at all from the state. Communities such as Carmel, Piedmont, Beverly Hills, Woodside, and about 20-30 others. Many of those districts will also pass parcel taxes on top of that. Davis is far from being a basic aid district.
There is also a significant lower SES population in Davis that is capable of living here because they can take advantage of UCD college student – type living accommodations, food, and sometimes the bicycle friendly infrastructure to raise a family. They are often here because it is safer, the schools are perceived to be better, and the economics work.
JB: [i]These new taxes will benefit the education system employees much more that it will the students.[/i]
But you did declare your support for Prop. 30.
[i] I will put money on the bet that we will not see much change in dropout rates, [b]test scores[/b], the numbers of kids that go to college or get good paying jobs having work-related skills. [/i]
[url]http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr12/yr12rel79.asp[/url]
“PASADENA—The 2012 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test results marked the ninth straight year California students improved their performance on annual statewide mathematics and English-language arts exams, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson announced.”
[i]But you did declare your support for Prop. 30.[/i]
Yup, I voted for it because the education establishment would have punished the kids and students if it had not passed.
Brown has come out swinging against the state college system for pricing students out of it, and for not more aggressively implementing technology delivery systems to lower costs and improve quality. He gets kudos from me for this. However, he hasn’t embraced similar measures for K-12.
“The education system as designed does not work.”
Certainly this blanket kind of assertion falls apart on even the most cursory examination. There are millions of children in public schools in California and for many our system performs fabulously. Jerry Brown’s attempt to help those who are disadvantaged is a commendable attempt to try to improve things. The idea that we should throw out the whole system and start over only demonstrates a level of naivete that disqualifies the commenter from being taken seriously. Can we improve things? Of course. Can we scale up those improvements? Hopefully. But the idea that we should throw out the entire system and start over shows a complete lack of understanding of the realities of governance.
[quote]I laugh at liberal progressives demanding a march forward in demanding copious services for poor and forced social change so that every individual is embraced and accepted no matter what their circumstance and behavior.[/quote]
Again Jeff, you seem to dream up a version of what a liberal must believe providing no evidence that this is the case, so that you can reject your own fiction. I consider myself about as liberal as they come, and I have never once advocated embracing or accepting every individual no matter what their circumstance or behavior. As a matter of fact, I have pointed out many times that I consider myself even more invested in personal responsibility than you seem to be from your writings, since I would extend personal responsibility beyond responsibility for oneself and ones family to include responsibility for one’s positive contribution to the society as a whole.
This is something that as best I can tell, you have never chosen to address. I think that this is especially pertinent to a conversation regarding education. I am very much in favor of Governor Browns emphasis on providing help to the schools most in need of the resources. It does not trouble me if Davis is not a recipient of such help given that as a community we have been able to ( and chosen to ) support our local schools consistently.
For those of us who are concerned about the quality of local education, we can as individuals have a very direct impact on improvement on our local schools by volunteering in the schools, in after school programs or in partnering at the senior high level with the internship program through DaVinci Academy. I am sure there are many other opportunities to improve the local schools of which I am not aware.
On other threads we have demonstrated that nearly all of the technological advances that Jeff advocates are being implemented in school districts, that teachers and their unions are not necessarily impediments to reform, and that charter and voucher options don’t necessarily yield better outcomes.
At the local level, we have repeatedly pointed to DaVinci as an example of the exact sort of educational template that he wants to see. We have shown that they use some of the exact same resources that he thinks should be applied, literally pointing to the same web site that he linked at one point.
Jeff’s statements about the failure of the current system are not supported by facts. His generalizations are either inarguable (too vague or subjective) or unsupported. There are pages and pages of discussion on this topic on the Vanguard Bulletin Board.
So it’s clear to me that Jeff had not talked to any teachers, has not been in a classroom recently, has no familiarity with DJUSD programs, and isn’t interested in the actual current state of education locally. His virulent hostility to teachers unions, and to unions in general, makes it impossible for him to see any value or worth in the current system.
In a threat that didn’t even mention unions, we get things like this: [i]”… what we get is the same political defense of the unions that pump money into the Democrat campaign coffers.”[/i]
So it’s hard to have a rational fact-based discussion about the education system in California when there is such an overlay of ideology getting in the way.
Although I am happy that I live in Davis, which although not top tier affluent, is education affluent in that our community consistently passes parcel taxes and community fundraising-the many successful School Foundation campaigns.
I have felt that this ability is very unfair to the poorer communities who cannot afford either parcel tax or fundraising as we do AND I think these two avenues which has given us more money for our schools, is fundamentally unfair.
I think of my daughter’s kids who now go to Danville schools where there is much money and parent volunteering and their old school in Redwood City where a single parent volunteer is providing all the art in one case and all the music enrichment in another case because the school community does not have the same ability to fundraise…..comments?
[quote][b]By FERMIN LEAL / THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER[/b] Nov. 1, 2011
California has again scored among the worst in the U.S. for reading and math skills, but local and state educators say elements of the test known as the Nation’s Report Card call into question the accuracy of the ranking.
Twenty-five percent of fourth-graders and 24 percent of eighth-graders tested proficient in reading while 34 percent of fourth-graders and 25 percent of eighth-graders were proficient in math on the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP.
The results, about the same as the previous test, ranked California only above Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and the District of Columbia.[/quote]
From a Rand study in 2005, here is a summary of factors affecting California’s school performance. Their data were from 1990 – 2003.
At the time of the study California ranked 48th out of 50 on average NAEP score across all test categories. By that time test scores had begun to improve to 45th in reading and math. As noted above, scores continue to rise slowly and steadily, but many of these factors still pertain and, according to Jeff’s link above, California remains at about 45th.
Compared to other states, RAND identified California has having:
Higher population of English learners causes increased costs for school districts.
Worsening trend of children living in poverty.
School districts affected by extreme fluctuations in revenues.
Growing share of education dollars in the form of categorical ie restricted funding.
Significant number of new teachers not fully trained or certified.
Lower teacher qualification requirements than other states.
Concentration of less qualified teachers in urban districts and low-performing schools.
High pupil to teacher ratios.
Unmet facility needs.
SODA: I think Redwood City would benefit from more discretionary funds than Danville.
Yes Don, I agree and hope we agree….the inequality was my point…
“Twenty-five percent of fourth-graders and 24 percent of eighth-graders tested proficient in reading while 34 percent of fourth-graders and 25 percent of eighth-graders were proficient in math on the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP.”
So i guess it is then working well for some.
With all the references to the testing I became very curious about what the questions are like. So I took a look at the NAEP website and they do have sample questions. I am glad to find that (at least in my opinion) they are really quite appropriate to the 4th and 8th grade levels. That said, it is quite catastrophic that only 25-35% of students, depending on the subject, show proficiency. So I guess we are left with measuring improvement, as in the glass is 30% full but hopefully getting fuller.
JB quote: [i]Twenty-five percent of fourth-graders and 24 percent of eighth-graders tested proficient in [b]reading[/b] while 34 percent of fourth-graders and 25 percent of eighth-graders were proficient in [b]math[/b] on the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP.[/i]
And this is the problem with this perspective. We/you are obsessed with standardized test scores in English and math. Using those scores to measure the quality of educational outcomes is like using prescribed body-mass index (BMI) figures and body temperature as the sole indicators of a person’s health.
Sure, those two numbers (BMI, temperature) can provide indication of good health, but there are various ways you can arrive at ideal numbers (if we even establish what is truly ideal), and some ways are better than others. In one case you can eat a healthy diet and get plenty of sleep and exercise, which would be preferred. In another case you can gorge or starve yourself until you arrived at the proper weight, and take tylenol anytime temperature deviates from ideal. The second scenario would probably be the most efficient and cost effective way to achieve that measured “success”, but we’d all agree that we’re missing the bigger point. Nevertheless, the U.S. education system has been obligated to take the approach of getting those ideal numbers (test scores) by any means necessary.
This is why NCLB is a failure. When a school doesn’t achieve the mandated scores in math and reading, then they pile on additional reading and math instruction during school hours, and cut back on art, music, P.E./sports, school plays, recess, assemblies, field trips, voc/tech programs, and anything else that might be worthwhile in school education experience. The teachers hate it (but who cares what they think, after all they’re nearly all union members) and the students hate it.
This is why ideas of using standardized test scores to measure teacher effectiveness is useless, as currently conceived.
I doubt that when you consider potential employees to hire that you even evaluate their standardized test scores to determine proficiency in English and math. Then why, JB, do you use those (low) test scores to argue that California education sucks? It’s because people like you insist on having those scores as high as possible for your arguments about education, regardless of any context, that the current education system sucks. Sir Ken Robinson would not approve.
If you care about the test scores, the way to increase the statewide average is to focus resources on the poorer-performing schools and districts that are pulling the test scores down.
If you care about results as measured by graduation rates and college/vocational entrance after graduation, the way to improve those results is to focus resources on the schools and districts that have poorer outcomes.
RAND identified the factors that produce lower test scores and poorer outcomes. They overlap considerably, and the answer is the same. And that is exactly what the governor is doing by restoring funding and directing it proportionately in terms of need. Contrary to what Jeff repeatedly says, it will take money to get better results. The important thing is to direct that money to things that will help students.
If increased funding just goes to increased pay and benefits, then he will be correct that it won’t yield better outcomes. If it goes to increased teacher/pupil ratios, or better teacher training, then it probably will yield better outcomes.
And the flipside of all this is that reducing funding to schools, whether by cutting the state budget or implementing voucher programs, will not improve outcomes and would likely cause things to deteriorate.
And, I am sorry all, but I simply cannot stop myself. Students who are hungry or ill are unlikely to learn and perform at their best. Yes, yes, I know. It is their parents responsibility to provide for them. But, if they can’t or won’t, can we at least acknowledge that we will not have the strongest performance possible from students whose basic needs are not being met by family and/or charity, and resolve to step up and provide the basics ?
And now the governor takes on the university system: [url]http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/13/5110838/jerry-brown-pressing-for-efficiencies.html[/url]