The district has to do this. I know some folks think they can still cut more funding, but they cannot. They cut as much of the soft funding as they could. To get to the rest of the savings they would have to cut hard money–programs, facilities, or teachers. And while we could go around in circles, the bottom line is that some program that is helping some kid to get through and get their degree would be cut and that would have a huge detriment.
The real question at this point is how much and what form the new parcel tax should be.
For starters the district will be armed with a phone survey of several hundred Davis residents. Part of their charge was to determine the level of public support for the proposed parcel tax. The public was asked about various amounts of support ranging from 80 to 100 additional per year. The parcel tax will require a two-thirds majority for it to pass.
$80 to $100 is not going to break anyone’s bank. Remember there is a way for people to opt out due to hardship.
One thing that was disappointing was I received a few calls complaining that the district was not forthcoming with information to seniors and others on how to opt out of this year’s parcel tax. That is something that needs to be corrected.
Second, I think the parcel tax would be easier to pass if it were tied directly to fiscal situation of the district rather than a blanket tax. In other words, if the state cuts additional funding next year, the district could receive more in the form of parcel taxes. If it receives more funding from the state, the savings would be passed to the public.
Already included in such a parcel tax is an oversight board. Some have suggested a more independent oversight board with a more open public selection process. I am not sure how that would work at this point, but the more transparency the better.
Parcel tax passage already requires that the district lay out exactly how those funds will be spent, this has been another concern.
School Board President Sheila Allen made some interesting comments in the Davis Enterprise this morning.
The Board President suggested that “the community spoke loud and clear during the past 12 months about what their priorities are”–this in reference to the $1.7 million in donations to the Davis School Foundation.
However, I would caution here from reading too far into that. Most of that money came from parents and involved and concerned citizens. There were a number of really big donations. That does not necessarily mean that two-thirds of the public will approve a new parcel tax.
A final decision will be November of 2008 or March of 2009.
There are positives and negatives for both. Traditionally the district has relied on low turnout events for their parcel tax, believing that those low turnout elections bring out a stronger core of parents and supporters of schools.
There are two concerns expressed in the Davis Enterprise article. First that the school issue might get lost in the tremendous attention given to the Presidential election. Second there is concern about time to organize an effective campaign. There is also a cost issue associated with a larger election.
On other hand, March might prove less expensive but there is also a fear that the awareness of the fiscal plight might decline by next spring.
One thing not mentioned is that if they have an election in the Spring, that will be the fifth election in about 16 months, the electorate will be fatigued and the Presidential excitement will be open.
Personally I think they have to shoot for November. The public needs to weigh in on this in full. The public will have to be organized and mobilized.
There are a lot of issues that need to be covered first.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Yeah, 9 a.m. Monday is not a typical time.
I haven’t finished watching last Wednesday’s meeting, but I think the meeting time has to do with the fact that the polling data and focus group work wasn’t finished by last Wednesday, and at least one or two board members had scheduled to be out of town later in the week.
Other special meetings have been scheduled at times like this in the past for similar reasons.
Yeah, 9 a.m. Monday is not a typical time.
I haven’t finished watching last Wednesday’s meeting, but I think the meeting time has to do with the fact that the polling data and focus group work wasn’t finished by last Wednesday, and at least one or two board members had scheduled to be out of town later in the week.
Other special meetings have been scheduled at times like this in the past for similar reasons.
Yeah, 9 a.m. Monday is not a typical time.
I haven’t finished watching last Wednesday’s meeting, but I think the meeting time has to do with the fact that the polling data and focus group work wasn’t finished by last Wednesday, and at least one or two board members had scheduled to be out of town later in the week.
Other special meetings have been scheduled at times like this in the past for similar reasons.
Yeah, 9 a.m. Monday is not a typical time.
I haven’t finished watching last Wednesday’s meeting, but I think the meeting time has to do with the fact that the polling data and focus group work wasn’t finished by last Wednesday, and at least one or two board members had scheduled to be out of town later in the week.
Other special meetings have been scheduled at times like this in the past for similar reasons.
DPD – you are right in questioning Shelia Allen’s comments that the community was ‘vocal’ in their suppport. The $1.7 million raised, as you correctly pointed out, was largely due to several very big donations. When you look at the total population of Davis, in fact not as many people really stepped forward to help out.
DJUSD needs to be very astute as they go about promoting a parcel tax. The board needs to strongly present their reasons for WHY it’s needed and HOW the money will be applied/utilized. Believing that the people of Davis are going to joyfully step forward to pay more is woefully misguided.
DPD – you are right in questioning Shelia Allen’s comments that the community was ‘vocal’ in their suppport. The $1.7 million raised, as you correctly pointed out, was largely due to several very big donations. When you look at the total population of Davis, in fact not as many people really stepped forward to help out.
DJUSD needs to be very astute as they go about promoting a parcel tax. The board needs to strongly present their reasons for WHY it’s needed and HOW the money will be applied/utilized. Believing that the people of Davis are going to joyfully step forward to pay more is woefully misguided.
DPD – you are right in questioning Shelia Allen’s comments that the community was ‘vocal’ in their suppport. The $1.7 million raised, as you correctly pointed out, was largely due to several very big donations. When you look at the total population of Davis, in fact not as many people really stepped forward to help out.
DJUSD needs to be very astute as they go about promoting a parcel tax. The board needs to strongly present their reasons for WHY it’s needed and HOW the money will be applied/utilized. Believing that the people of Davis are going to joyfully step forward to pay more is woefully misguided.
DPD – you are right in questioning Shelia Allen’s comments that the community was ‘vocal’ in their suppport. The $1.7 million raised, as you correctly pointed out, was largely due to several very big donations. When you look at the total population of Davis, in fact not as many people really stepped forward to help out.
DJUSD needs to be very astute as they go about promoting a parcel tax. The board needs to strongly present their reasons for WHY it’s needed and HOW the money will be applied/utilized. Believing that the people of Davis are going to joyfully step forward to pay more is woefully misguided.
I wouldn’t worry about the public loosing sight of the financial concerns. These are going to be around for a long time and are going to get worse.
We’ve just had the first wedge of recessionary unemployment show it’s face. The next three to five years will be very challenging for even the most fiscally stable of us. Honestly, with the amount of fear that we’ll pass into a long deep recession manifesting, I don’t think a parcel tax has a chance in hell of passing.
I wouldn’t worry about the public loosing sight of the financial concerns. These are going to be around for a long time and are going to get worse.
We’ve just had the first wedge of recessionary unemployment show it’s face. The next three to five years will be very challenging for even the most fiscally stable of us. Honestly, with the amount of fear that we’ll pass into a long deep recession manifesting, I don’t think a parcel tax has a chance in hell of passing.
I wouldn’t worry about the public loosing sight of the financial concerns. These are going to be around for a long time and are going to get worse.
We’ve just had the first wedge of recessionary unemployment show it’s face. The next three to five years will be very challenging for even the most fiscally stable of us. Honestly, with the amount of fear that we’ll pass into a long deep recession manifesting, I don’t think a parcel tax has a chance in hell of passing.
I wouldn’t worry about the public loosing sight of the financial concerns. These are going to be around for a long time and are going to get worse.
We’ve just had the first wedge of recessionary unemployment show it’s face. The next three to five years will be very challenging for even the most fiscally stable of us. Honestly, with the amount of fear that we’ll pass into a long deep recession manifesting, I don’t think a parcel tax has a chance in hell of passing.
anon 9:55
The $1.7 million raised, as you correctly pointed out, was largely due to several very big donations.
There was one $100,000 donation from a Davis individual, $50,000 from a local parent couple, a $40,000 donation from Hanlees, $40,000 from Nugget, ~$30,000 I think from Tandem Properties, maybe 8-9 donations in the neighborhood of $10,000. If I’ve left out any other significant donation, we could lump everything together and come up with ~$500K in big donations.
If what is left is all that is meaningful ($1.2 million) for argument’s sake here, that is impressive fundraising by an educational foundation in California under these conditions. What may be overlooked is that some big contributions really amounted to bundling lots of smaller contributions.
It was a fundraising campaign that was pulled together almost at the last minute, and the first time anything like this had been attempted in Davis.
anon 9:55
The $1.7 million raised, as you correctly pointed out, was largely due to several very big donations.
There was one $100,000 donation from a Davis individual, $50,000 from a local parent couple, a $40,000 donation from Hanlees, $40,000 from Nugget, ~$30,000 I think from Tandem Properties, maybe 8-9 donations in the neighborhood of $10,000. If I’ve left out any other significant donation, we could lump everything together and come up with ~$500K in big donations.
If what is left is all that is meaningful ($1.2 million) for argument’s sake here, that is impressive fundraising by an educational foundation in California under these conditions. What may be overlooked is that some big contributions really amounted to bundling lots of smaller contributions.
It was a fundraising campaign that was pulled together almost at the last minute, and the first time anything like this had been attempted in Davis.
anon 9:55
The $1.7 million raised, as you correctly pointed out, was largely due to several very big donations.
There was one $100,000 donation from a Davis individual, $50,000 from a local parent couple, a $40,000 donation from Hanlees, $40,000 from Nugget, ~$30,000 I think from Tandem Properties, maybe 8-9 donations in the neighborhood of $10,000. If I’ve left out any other significant donation, we could lump everything together and come up with ~$500K in big donations.
If what is left is all that is meaningful ($1.2 million) for argument’s sake here, that is impressive fundraising by an educational foundation in California under these conditions. What may be overlooked is that some big contributions really amounted to bundling lots of smaller contributions.
It was a fundraising campaign that was pulled together almost at the last minute, and the first time anything like this had been attempted in Davis.
anon 9:55
The $1.7 million raised, as you correctly pointed out, was largely due to several very big donations.
There was one $100,000 donation from a Davis individual, $50,000 from a local parent couple, a $40,000 donation from Hanlees, $40,000 from Nugget, ~$30,000 I think from Tandem Properties, maybe 8-9 donations in the neighborhood of $10,000. If I’ve left out any other significant donation, we could lump everything together and come up with ~$500K in big donations.
If what is left is all that is meaningful ($1.2 million) for argument’s sake here, that is impressive fundraising by an educational foundation in California under these conditions. What may be overlooked is that some big contributions really amounted to bundling lots of smaller contributions.
It was a fundraising campaign that was pulled together almost at the last minute, and the first time anything like this had been attempted in Davis.
i was amazed at how small the parcel tax is. given that the median family income in town is $78,4912 (not mean, but median), and that there are opt outs for actual financial hardship, i cannot take complaints about being overtaxed seriously.
such an incredibly low cost for a pretty good school system.
i was amazed at how small the parcel tax is. given that the median family income in town is $78,4912 (not mean, but median), and that there are opt outs for actual financial hardship, i cannot take complaints about being overtaxed seriously.
such an incredibly low cost for a pretty good school system.
i was amazed at how small the parcel tax is. given that the median family income in town is $78,4912 (not mean, but median), and that there are opt outs for actual financial hardship, i cannot take complaints about being overtaxed seriously.
such an incredibly low cost for a pretty good school system.
i was amazed at how small the parcel tax is. given that the median family income in town is $78,4912 (not mean, but median), and that there are opt outs for actual financial hardship, i cannot take complaints about being overtaxed seriously.
such an incredibly low cost for a pretty good school system.
Our School Board majority postures that all our children are equal in their eyes but the closing of Valley Oak compared with the Board majority’s response to the idea of closing Emerson suggests that some Davis families and their children are MORE EQUAL than others.
Our School Board majority postures that all our children are equal in their eyes but the closing of Valley Oak compared with the Board majority’s response to the idea of closing Emerson suggests that some Davis families and their children are MORE EQUAL than others.
Our School Board majority postures that all our children are equal in their eyes but the closing of Valley Oak compared with the Board majority’s response to the idea of closing Emerson suggests that some Davis families and their children are MORE EQUAL than others.
Our School Board majority postures that all our children are equal in their eyes but the closing of Valley Oak compared with the Board majority’s response to the idea of closing Emerson suggests that some Davis families and their children are MORE EQUAL than others.
that should read, $78,491. don’t know where the 2 came from. the figure is from the 2000 census, so it’s probably a fair deal higher these days.
that should read, $78,491. don’t know where the 2 came from. the figure is from the 2000 census, so it’s probably a fair deal higher these days.
that should read, $78,491. don’t know where the 2 came from. the figure is from the 2000 census, so it’s probably a fair deal higher these days.
that should read, $78,491. don’t know where the 2 came from. the figure is from the 2000 census, so it’s probably a fair deal higher these days.
also from that census, check out the change from 1990:
1990 family income: $46,742
2000 family income: $78,491
(the site gives two incomes for 2000, but they’re both in the 70,000 range).
also from that census, check out the change from 1990:
1990 family income: $46,742
2000 family income: $78,491
(the site gives two incomes for 2000, but they’re both in the 70,000 range).
also from that census, check out the change from 1990:
1990 family income: $46,742
2000 family income: $78,491
(the site gives two incomes for 2000, but they’re both in the 70,000 range).
also from that census, check out the change from 1990:
1990 family income: $46,742
2000 family income: $78,491
(the site gives two incomes for 2000, but they’re both in the 70,000 range).
DPD said…
One thing that was disappointing was I received a few calls complaining that the district was not forthcoming with information to seniors and others on how to opt out of this year’s parcel tax. That is something that needs to be corrected.
The information has been available on the frontpage of the district website for a while.
A couple of weeks ago I was sitting in the front lobby at the district offices and watched two senior residents come in, request, and fill out a form at the front reception desk for a Measure Q exemption.
From what I saw, the receptionist was helpful, and there didn’t appear to be any problem.
Are there other issues in play?
I am sure the district would be open to any suggestions. Post them here, as well, because I know at least a couple of board members browse these pages from time to time.
DPD said…
One thing that was disappointing was I received a few calls complaining that the district was not forthcoming with information to seniors and others on how to opt out of this year’s parcel tax. That is something that needs to be corrected.
The information has been available on the frontpage of the district website for a while.
A couple of weeks ago I was sitting in the front lobby at the district offices and watched two senior residents come in, request, and fill out a form at the front reception desk for a Measure Q exemption.
From what I saw, the receptionist was helpful, and there didn’t appear to be any problem.
Are there other issues in play?
I am sure the district would be open to any suggestions. Post them here, as well, because I know at least a couple of board members browse these pages from time to time.
DPD said…
One thing that was disappointing was I received a few calls complaining that the district was not forthcoming with information to seniors and others on how to opt out of this year’s parcel tax. That is something that needs to be corrected.
The information has been available on the frontpage of the district website for a while.
A couple of weeks ago I was sitting in the front lobby at the district offices and watched two senior residents come in, request, and fill out a form at the front reception desk for a Measure Q exemption.
From what I saw, the receptionist was helpful, and there didn’t appear to be any problem.
Are there other issues in play?
I am sure the district would be open to any suggestions. Post them here, as well, because I know at least a couple of board members browse these pages from time to time.
DPD said…
One thing that was disappointing was I received a few calls complaining that the district was not forthcoming with information to seniors and others on how to opt out of this year’s parcel tax. That is something that needs to be corrected.
The information has been available on the frontpage of the district website for a while.
A couple of weeks ago I was sitting in the front lobby at the district offices and watched two senior residents come in, request, and fill out a form at the front reception desk for a Measure Q exemption.
From what I saw, the receptionist was helpful, and there didn’t appear to be any problem.
Are there other issues in play?
I am sure the district would be open to any suggestions. Post them here, as well, because I know at least a couple of board members browse these pages from time to time.
WDF: I had a conversation with one of the board members this morning about this, we’re going to try to find out what happened.
WDF: I had a conversation with one of the board members this morning about this, we’re going to try to find out what happened.
WDF: I had a conversation with one of the board members this morning about this, we’re going to try to find out what happened.
WDF: I had a conversation with one of the board members this morning about this, we’re going to try to find out what happened.
Joyous over supporting schools? Good! Get ready for a substantial UUT that should be coming down the pike very soon to pay for PD, FD and other city pay increases, pensions and retiree medical. Still feel good about paying and paying, etc?? If ANYONE with the City had a spine, they would terminate the cafeteria benefit plan when the current contract ends. We are the only city I can find that STILL has this sort of fringe benefit! Nice…
Joyous over supporting schools? Good! Get ready for a substantial UUT that should be coming down the pike very soon to pay for PD, FD and other city pay increases, pensions and retiree medical. Still feel good about paying and paying, etc?? If ANYONE with the City had a spine, they would terminate the cafeteria benefit plan when the current contract ends. We are the only city I can find that STILL has this sort of fringe benefit! Nice…
Joyous over supporting schools? Good! Get ready for a substantial UUT that should be coming down the pike very soon to pay for PD, FD and other city pay increases, pensions and retiree medical. Still feel good about paying and paying, etc?? If ANYONE with the City had a spine, they would terminate the cafeteria benefit plan when the current contract ends. We are the only city I can find that STILL has this sort of fringe benefit! Nice…
Joyous over supporting schools? Good! Get ready for a substantial UUT that should be coming down the pike very soon to pay for PD, FD and other city pay increases, pensions and retiree medical. Still feel good about paying and paying, etc?? If ANYONE with the City had a spine, they would terminate the cafeteria benefit plan when the current contract ends. We are the only city I can find that STILL has this sort of fringe benefit! Nice…
Again, in my conversations with community members, many Davis residents are apprehensive about paying more for the schools. Right or wrong, the thinking of many people is that they already ponied up for Measure Q back in November. Then they got hit up by the DSF fundraising, which again, didn’t truly raise as MUCH money as it sounds when you subtract the large donations. Given the number of Davis families with kids in schools, $1.7 million (or $1.2 million as one poster stated, after large donations) is NOT that impressive. I know so many families that did not donate, largely because they question the fiscal solvency and decision-making process of DJUSD.
Here are some issues that need to be addressed in laying out the parcel tax:
1. What EXACTLY will it pay for?
2. How EXACTLY will it be used?
3. Will EMERSON remain open?
4. Will a 7 period day at DHS remain?
5. Will DHS go 9-12 or stay 10-12?
In particular, the Emerson issue is going to be the next big challenge. With small enrollment, plus an aging facility that needs millions of dollars in renovation, the board needs to look carefully at how to deal with the junior high school scenario. Closing Emerson won’t go down as easy at Valley Oak (and that didn’t exactly do down easy). The board needs to be upfront and direct in their plan.
Hint: close Emerson, lose your parcel tax. West Davis will not forgive on that one.
So in thinking that Davis people will willingly step forward and open their pocketbooks, I believe that we need to have a reality check: It won’t be that easy. Even though DPD is correct in saying that $80-100 a year is a small price to pay to sustain our schools, there are many others out there who are thinking “I just voted for Measure Q and a library tax last year. Now the schools need more money?” Add to that gas prices that are flirting with the $5 range and food prices that aren’t going down (expect to see milk go up 20 cents in July), and you have a scenario that is not as favorable as some of you might think.
Again, in my conversations with community members, many Davis residents are apprehensive about paying more for the schools. Right or wrong, the thinking of many people is that they already ponied up for Measure Q back in November. Then they got hit up by the DSF fundraising, which again, didn’t truly raise as MUCH money as it sounds when you subtract the large donations. Given the number of Davis families with kids in schools, $1.7 million (or $1.2 million as one poster stated, after large donations) is NOT that impressive. I know so many families that did not donate, largely because they question the fiscal solvency and decision-making process of DJUSD.
Here are some issues that need to be addressed in laying out the parcel tax:
1. What EXACTLY will it pay for?
2. How EXACTLY will it be used?
3. Will EMERSON remain open?
4. Will a 7 period day at DHS remain?
5. Will DHS go 9-12 or stay 10-12?
In particular, the Emerson issue is going to be the next big challenge. With small enrollment, plus an aging facility that needs millions of dollars in renovation, the board needs to look carefully at how to deal with the junior high school scenario. Closing Emerson won’t go down as easy at Valley Oak (and that didn’t exactly do down easy). The board needs to be upfront and direct in their plan.
Hint: close Emerson, lose your parcel tax. West Davis will not forgive on that one.
So in thinking that Davis people will willingly step forward and open their pocketbooks, I believe that we need to have a reality check: It won’t be that easy. Even though DPD is correct in saying that $80-100 a year is a small price to pay to sustain our schools, there are many others out there who are thinking “I just voted for Measure Q and a library tax last year. Now the schools need more money?” Add to that gas prices that are flirting with the $5 range and food prices that aren’t going down (expect to see milk go up 20 cents in July), and you have a scenario that is not as favorable as some of you might think.
Again, in my conversations with community members, many Davis residents are apprehensive about paying more for the schools. Right or wrong, the thinking of many people is that they already ponied up for Measure Q back in November. Then they got hit up by the DSF fundraising, which again, didn’t truly raise as MUCH money as it sounds when you subtract the large donations. Given the number of Davis families with kids in schools, $1.7 million (or $1.2 million as one poster stated, after large donations) is NOT that impressive. I know so many families that did not donate, largely because they question the fiscal solvency and decision-making process of DJUSD.
Here are some issues that need to be addressed in laying out the parcel tax:
1. What EXACTLY will it pay for?
2. How EXACTLY will it be used?
3. Will EMERSON remain open?
4. Will a 7 period day at DHS remain?
5. Will DHS go 9-12 or stay 10-12?
In particular, the Emerson issue is going to be the next big challenge. With small enrollment, plus an aging facility that needs millions of dollars in renovation, the board needs to look carefully at how to deal with the junior high school scenario. Closing Emerson won’t go down as easy at Valley Oak (and that didn’t exactly do down easy). The board needs to be upfront and direct in their plan.
Hint: close Emerson, lose your parcel tax. West Davis will not forgive on that one.
So in thinking that Davis people will willingly step forward and open their pocketbooks, I believe that we need to have a reality check: It won’t be that easy. Even though DPD is correct in saying that $80-100 a year is a small price to pay to sustain our schools, there are many others out there who are thinking “I just voted for Measure Q and a library tax last year. Now the schools need more money?” Add to that gas prices that are flirting with the $5 range and food prices that aren’t going down (expect to see milk go up 20 cents in July), and you have a scenario that is not as favorable as some of you might think.
Again, in my conversations with community members, many Davis residents are apprehensive about paying more for the schools. Right or wrong, the thinking of many people is that they already ponied up for Measure Q back in November. Then they got hit up by the DSF fundraising, which again, didn’t truly raise as MUCH money as it sounds when you subtract the large donations. Given the number of Davis families with kids in schools, $1.7 million (or $1.2 million as one poster stated, after large donations) is NOT that impressive. I know so many families that did not donate, largely because they question the fiscal solvency and decision-making process of DJUSD.
Here are some issues that need to be addressed in laying out the parcel tax:
1. What EXACTLY will it pay for?
2. How EXACTLY will it be used?
3. Will EMERSON remain open?
4. Will a 7 period day at DHS remain?
5. Will DHS go 9-12 or stay 10-12?
In particular, the Emerson issue is going to be the next big challenge. With small enrollment, plus an aging facility that needs millions of dollars in renovation, the board needs to look carefully at how to deal with the junior high school scenario. Closing Emerson won’t go down as easy at Valley Oak (and that didn’t exactly do down easy). The board needs to be upfront and direct in their plan.
Hint: close Emerson, lose your parcel tax. West Davis will not forgive on that one.
So in thinking that Davis people will willingly step forward and open their pocketbooks, I believe that we need to have a reality check: It won’t be that easy. Even though DPD is correct in saying that $80-100 a year is a small price to pay to sustain our schools, there are many others out there who are thinking “I just voted for Measure Q and a library tax last year. Now the schools need more money?” Add to that gas prices that are flirting with the $5 range and food prices that aren’t going down (expect to see milk go up 20 cents in July), and you have a scenario that is not as favorable as some of you might think.
If you are interested in California K-12 public education from a state perspective, there is a program scheduled to air on PBS, Channel 6, at 3:30 a.m. and 2 p.m. tomorrow (Monday), called California Schools: America’s Future.
Link takes you to a website about this and other programs on public education. There may be a podcast of this program available soon.
The program mentions this year’s May revise, so this is still current. From viewing this program, it becomes clear that this is just as much a statewide issue as a local Davis issue.
If you are interested in California K-12 public education from a state perspective, there is a program scheduled to air on PBS, Channel 6, at 3:30 a.m. and 2 p.m. tomorrow (Monday), called California Schools: America’s Future.
Link takes you to a website about this and other programs on public education. There may be a podcast of this program available soon.
The program mentions this year’s May revise, so this is still current. From viewing this program, it becomes clear that this is just as much a statewide issue as a local Davis issue.
If you are interested in California K-12 public education from a state perspective, there is a program scheduled to air on PBS, Channel 6, at 3:30 a.m. and 2 p.m. tomorrow (Monday), called California Schools: America’s Future.
Link takes you to a website about this and other programs on public education. There may be a podcast of this program available soon.
The program mentions this year’s May revise, so this is still current. From viewing this program, it becomes clear that this is just as much a statewide issue as a local Davis issue.
If you are interested in California K-12 public education from a state perspective, there is a program scheduled to air on PBS, Channel 6, at 3:30 a.m. and 2 p.m. tomorrow (Monday), called California Schools: America’s Future.
Link takes you to a website about this and other programs on public education. There may be a podcast of this program available soon.
The program mentions this year’s May revise, so this is still current. From viewing this program, it becomes clear that this is just as much a statewide issue as a local Davis issue.
anon 1:30
4. Will a 7 period day at DHS remain?
Measure Q funds a certain number of 7th period classes at DHS and, I believe also, the JH campuses. So if they come up short there next year or the following three years, I hope we can count on you to point that out to us.
At present, the other items you list still require communication/action from the board.
anon 1:30
4. Will a 7 period day at DHS remain?
Measure Q funds a certain number of 7th period classes at DHS and, I believe also, the JH campuses. So if they come up short there next year or the following three years, I hope we can count on you to point that out to us.
At present, the other items you list still require communication/action from the board.
anon 1:30
4. Will a 7 period day at DHS remain?
Measure Q funds a certain number of 7th period classes at DHS and, I believe also, the JH campuses. So if they come up short there next year or the following three years, I hope we can count on you to point that out to us.
At present, the other items you list still require communication/action from the board.
anon 1:30
4. Will a 7 period day at DHS remain?
Measure Q funds a certain number of 7th period classes at DHS and, I believe also, the JH campuses. So if they come up short there next year or the following three years, I hope we can count on you to point that out to us.
At present, the other items you list still require communication/action from the board.
Wu Ming;
Was that $78,491 after or before taxes? That stat you quoted was for the year 2000. You stated that it, income, has probably gone up since then. How in the hell do you arrive at that? Was that $78,491 after housing payments, gas, food and other expenses for a family?
How about single parents? How about those that are on fixed income? How about you and david greenwald not espousing what’s good for others until you walk in a lot more shoes. People like you and david sure seem to whats best for everyone, NOT.
Wu Ming;
Was that $78,491 after or before taxes? That stat you quoted was for the year 2000. You stated that it, income, has probably gone up since then. How in the hell do you arrive at that? Was that $78,491 after housing payments, gas, food and other expenses for a family?
How about single parents? How about those that are on fixed income? How about you and david greenwald not espousing what’s good for others until you walk in a lot more shoes. People like you and david sure seem to whats best for everyone, NOT.
Wu Ming;
Was that $78,491 after or before taxes? That stat you quoted was for the year 2000. You stated that it, income, has probably gone up since then. How in the hell do you arrive at that? Was that $78,491 after housing payments, gas, food and other expenses for a family?
How about single parents? How about those that are on fixed income? How about you and david greenwald not espousing what’s good for others until you walk in a lot more shoes. People like you and david sure seem to whats best for everyone, NOT.
Wu Ming;
Was that $78,491 after or before taxes? That stat you quoted was for the year 2000. You stated that it, income, has probably gone up since then. How in the hell do you arrive at that? Was that $78,491 after housing payments, gas, food and other expenses for a family?
How about single parents? How about those that are on fixed income? How about you and david greenwald not espousing what’s good for others until you walk in a lot more shoes. People like you and david sure seem to whats best for everyone, NOT.
that should have read, seem to know.
that should have read, seem to know.
that should have read, seem to know.
that should have read, seem to know.
Wu ming, said “such an incredibly low cost for a pretty good school system.” 6/22/08 11:59 AM
Davis does have a pretty good school system for those who live in a certain part of town and those in higher income brackets.
It’s not a good school system for the lower-income children who had their school closed (Valley Oak).
Welcome to the real world.
Wu ming, said “such an incredibly low cost for a pretty good school system.” 6/22/08 11:59 AM
Davis does have a pretty good school system for those who live in a certain part of town and those in higher income brackets.
It’s not a good school system for the lower-income children who had their school closed (Valley Oak).
Welcome to the real world.
Wu ming, said “such an incredibly low cost for a pretty good school system.” 6/22/08 11:59 AM
Davis does have a pretty good school system for those who live in a certain part of town and those in higher income brackets.
It’s not a good school system for the lower-income children who had their school closed (Valley Oak).
Welcome to the real world.
Wu ming, said “such an incredibly low cost for a pretty good school system.” 6/22/08 11:59 AM
Davis does have a pretty good school system for those who live in a certain part of town and those in higher income brackets.
It’s not a good school system for the lower-income children who had their school closed (Valley Oak).
Welcome to the real world.
What’s wrong with the schools that the Valley Oak kids will go to next year?
What’s wrong with the schools that the Valley Oak kids will go to next year?
What’s wrong with the schools that the Valley Oak kids will go to next year?
What’s wrong with the schools that the Valley Oak kids will go to next year?
“disappointed said…
It’s not a good school system for the lower-income children who had their school closed (Valley Oak).
Welcome to the real world.”
Are you one of the people on the immigration thread who argues strongly for keeping out illegals? How many poor Mexican illegal alians went to Valley Oak for their fine ELD program? It was probably good to close Valley Oak after all to be consistent with a strong anti-illegal immigrant policy.
“disappointed said…
It’s not a good school system for the lower-income children who had their school closed (Valley Oak).
Welcome to the real world.”
Are you one of the people on the immigration thread who argues strongly for keeping out illegals? How many poor Mexican illegal alians went to Valley Oak for their fine ELD program? It was probably good to close Valley Oak after all to be consistent with a strong anti-illegal immigrant policy.
“disappointed said…
It’s not a good school system for the lower-income children who had their school closed (Valley Oak).
Welcome to the real world.”
Are you one of the people on the immigration thread who argues strongly for keeping out illegals? How many poor Mexican illegal alians went to Valley Oak for their fine ELD program? It was probably good to close Valley Oak after all to be consistent with a strong anti-illegal immigrant policy.
“disappointed said…
It’s not a good school system for the lower-income children who had their school closed (Valley Oak).
Welcome to the real world.”
Are you one of the people on the immigration thread who argues strongly for keeping out illegals? How many poor Mexican illegal alians went to Valley Oak for their fine ELD program? It was probably good to close Valley Oak after all to be consistent with a strong anti-illegal immigrant policy.
As a teacher at the high school, I have been privvy to some meetings where it has been brought up that Measure Q is supposed to fund a 7th period. Some of you might find it interesting to know that the some of the ‘higher powers that be’ do not necessarily see it that way and has been putting forward the idea of cutting out 7th period and going with a 1-6 instead. This DESPITE the fact that Measure Q was passed with the understanding that it funds a 7 period day.
As a teacher at the high school, I have been privvy to some meetings where it has been brought up that Measure Q is supposed to fund a 7th period. Some of you might find it interesting to know that the some of the ‘higher powers that be’ do not necessarily see it that way and has been putting forward the idea of cutting out 7th period and going with a 1-6 instead. This DESPITE the fact that Measure Q was passed with the understanding that it funds a 7 period day.
As a teacher at the high school, I have been privvy to some meetings where it has been brought up that Measure Q is supposed to fund a 7th period. Some of you might find it interesting to know that the some of the ‘higher powers that be’ do not necessarily see it that way and has been putting forward the idea of cutting out 7th period and going with a 1-6 instead. This DESPITE the fact that Measure Q was passed with the understanding that it funds a 7 period day.
As a teacher at the high school, I have been privvy to some meetings where it has been brought up that Measure Q is supposed to fund a 7th period. Some of you might find it interesting to know that the some of the ‘higher powers that be’ do not necessarily see it that way and has been putting forward the idea of cutting out 7th period and going with a 1-6 instead. This DESPITE the fact that Measure Q was passed with the understanding that it funds a 7 period day.
anon. 5:05 – that was the median family income, before taxes. note the near-doubling of the numbers since 1990. personally, i pull down a hell of a lot less than the median, and am well aware of the increasing cost of living. 70,000 is a pretty nice income no matter how you count it, well above the state and national median income, and there is no way that taxes rank as a major expense for someone making that much, to say nothing of a flat fee $340 once a year parcel tax.
median doesn’t get to be median unless it’s the most common family income in town, top of the bell curve. davis is a very affluent community, far more than it used to be. whinging about paying $200 a year when you’re pulling down $70,000 is a bit revealing, IMO. there’s an opt-out for actual financial hardship, but my guess is that most of the people complaining about it aren’t the ones who are actually in such a situation.
disappointed –
as a former valley oak dragon, while i agree that that neighborhood got screwed, the school system as a whole is still quite good, across all neighborhoods. not that there isn’t a whole lot more that needs to be done to reform the school district, but on the whole they deliver a pretty admirably high level of education on a pretty modest level of funding. what’s your point of comparison?
anon. 5:05 – that was the median family income, before taxes. note the near-doubling of the numbers since 1990. personally, i pull down a hell of a lot less than the median, and am well aware of the increasing cost of living. 70,000 is a pretty nice income no matter how you count it, well above the state and national median income, and there is no way that taxes rank as a major expense for someone making that much, to say nothing of a flat fee $340 once a year parcel tax.
median doesn’t get to be median unless it’s the most common family income in town, top of the bell curve. davis is a very affluent community, far more than it used to be. whinging about paying $200 a year when you’re pulling down $70,000 is a bit revealing, IMO. there’s an opt-out for actual financial hardship, but my guess is that most of the people complaining about it aren’t the ones who are actually in such a situation.
disappointed –
as a former valley oak dragon, while i agree that that neighborhood got screwed, the school system as a whole is still quite good, across all neighborhoods. not that there isn’t a whole lot more that needs to be done to reform the school district, but on the whole they deliver a pretty admirably high level of education on a pretty modest level of funding. what’s your point of comparison?
anon. 5:05 – that was the median family income, before taxes. note the near-doubling of the numbers since 1990. personally, i pull down a hell of a lot less than the median, and am well aware of the increasing cost of living. 70,000 is a pretty nice income no matter how you count it, well above the state and national median income, and there is no way that taxes rank as a major expense for someone making that much, to say nothing of a flat fee $340 once a year parcel tax.
median doesn’t get to be median unless it’s the most common family income in town, top of the bell curve. davis is a very affluent community, far more than it used to be. whinging about paying $200 a year when you’re pulling down $70,000 is a bit revealing, IMO. there’s an opt-out for actual financial hardship, but my guess is that most of the people complaining about it aren’t the ones who are actually in such a situation.
disappointed –
as a former valley oak dragon, while i agree that that neighborhood got screwed, the school system as a whole is still quite good, across all neighborhoods. not that there isn’t a whole lot more that needs to be done to reform the school district, but on the whole they deliver a pretty admirably high level of education on a pretty modest level of funding. what’s your point of comparison?
anon. 5:05 – that was the median family income, before taxes. note the near-doubling of the numbers since 1990. personally, i pull down a hell of a lot less than the median, and am well aware of the increasing cost of living. 70,000 is a pretty nice income no matter how you count it, well above the state and national median income, and there is no way that taxes rank as a major expense for someone making that much, to say nothing of a flat fee $340 once a year parcel tax.
median doesn’t get to be median unless it’s the most common family income in town, top of the bell curve. davis is a very affluent community, far more than it used to be. whinging about paying $200 a year when you’re pulling down $70,000 is a bit revealing, IMO. there’s an opt-out for actual financial hardship, but my guess is that most of the people complaining about it aren’t the ones who are actually in such a situation.
disappointed –
as a former valley oak dragon, while i agree that that neighborhood got screwed, the school system as a whole is still quite good, across all neighborhoods. not that there isn’t a whole lot more that needs to be done to reform the school district, but on the whole they deliver a pretty admirably high level of education on a pretty modest level of funding. what’s your point of comparison?
as for my hunch that income had gone up since 2000, a 2006 survey by money magazine pegged davis’ median family income at $82,149. contrast that with woodland in the same survey, where the median family income was $53,769.
single parent families and fixed incomes are included in that median income. davis is an affluent city, and most households are not going to struggle to pay this parcel tax.
as for my hunch that income had gone up since 2000, a 2006 survey by money magazine pegged davis’ median family income at $82,149. contrast that with woodland in the same survey, where the median family income was $53,769.
single parent families and fixed incomes are included in that median income. davis is an affluent city, and most households are not going to struggle to pay this parcel tax.
as for my hunch that income had gone up since 2000, a 2006 survey by money magazine pegged davis’ median family income at $82,149. contrast that with woodland in the same survey, where the median family income was $53,769.
single parent families and fixed incomes are included in that median income. davis is an affluent city, and most households are not going to struggle to pay this parcel tax.
as for my hunch that income had gone up since 2000, a 2006 survey by money magazine pegged davis’ median family income at $82,149. contrast that with woodland in the same survey, where the median family income was $53,769.
single parent families and fixed incomes are included in that median income. davis is an affluent city, and most households are not going to struggle to pay this parcel tax.
There will be 7 periods next year. I know that. But the ultimate proof will be what happens the first day of school.
There will be 7 periods next year. I know that. But the ultimate proof will be what happens the first day of school.
There will be 7 periods next year. I know that. But the ultimate proof will be what happens the first day of school.
There will be 7 periods next year. I know that. But the ultimate proof will be what happens the first day of school.
American Community survey, part of the US Census, gives these numbers for 2000.
Median household income 42,454
Median family income 74,051
Per capita income 22,937
Average household size 2.50
Average family size 3.00
Wage increases have been small to non existant in the last 8 years except in cases like senior management. The wage increases the PD and FD saw were not seen by the majority of the population.
Individuals below poverty level
14,101 24.5%
American Community survey, part of the US Census, gives these numbers for 2000.
Median household income 42,454
Median family income 74,051
Per capita income 22,937
Average household size 2.50
Average family size 3.00
Wage increases have been small to non existant in the last 8 years except in cases like senior management. The wage increases the PD and FD saw were not seen by the majority of the population.
Individuals below poverty level
14,101 24.5%
American Community survey, part of the US Census, gives these numbers for 2000.
Median household income 42,454
Median family income 74,051
Per capita income 22,937
Average household size 2.50
Average family size 3.00
Wage increases have been small to non existant in the last 8 years except in cases like senior management. The wage increases the PD and FD saw were not seen by the majority of the population.
Individuals below poverty level
14,101 24.5%
American Community survey, part of the US Census, gives these numbers for 2000.
Median household income 42,454
Median family income 74,051
Per capita income 22,937
Average household size 2.50
Average family size 3.00
Wage increases have been small to non existant in the last 8 years except in cases like senior management. The wage increases the PD and FD saw were not seen by the majority of the population.
Individuals below poverty level
14,101 24.5%
Measure Q implementation was voted on at the last Wednesday board meeting. If you want to see what Measure Q funds, go to link. You can see that 7th period is included for this document that was approved at the meeting. Bruce Colby summarized Measure Q and probably submitted the document, so I presume that this is exactly what he and the district staff understand it to be.
If you have a genuine interest or problem with these issues, then show up at board meetings and make your views known during public comment.
I just note that no one spoke at school board meeting last Wednesday on Measure Q or on the CFD’s, although they were posted agenda items.
Measure Q implementation was voted on at the last Wednesday board meeting. If you want to see what Measure Q funds, go to link. You can see that 7th period is included for this document that was approved at the meeting. Bruce Colby summarized Measure Q and probably submitted the document, so I presume that this is exactly what he and the district staff understand it to be.
If you have a genuine interest or problem with these issues, then show up at board meetings and make your views known during public comment.
I just note that no one spoke at school board meeting last Wednesday on Measure Q or on the CFD’s, although they were posted agenda items.
Measure Q implementation was voted on at the last Wednesday board meeting. If you want to see what Measure Q funds, go to link. You can see that 7th period is included for this document that was approved at the meeting. Bruce Colby summarized Measure Q and probably submitted the document, so I presume that this is exactly what he and the district staff understand it to be.
If you have a genuine interest or problem with these issues, then show up at board meetings and make your views known during public comment.
I just note that no one spoke at school board meeting last Wednesday on Measure Q or on the CFD’s, although they were posted agenda items.
Measure Q implementation was voted on at the last Wednesday board meeting. If you want to see what Measure Q funds, go to link. You can see that 7th period is included for this document that was approved at the meeting. Bruce Colby summarized Measure Q and probably submitted the document, so I presume that this is exactly what he and the district staff understand it to be.
If you have a genuine interest or problem with these issues, then show up at board meetings and make your views known during public comment.
I just note that no one spoke at school board meeting last Wednesday on Measure Q or on the CFD’s, although they were posted agenda items.
PRED Old Timer said…
Individuals below poverty level
14,101 24.5%
Thanks for the info.
Do you happen to know what number of that refers to single adults without kids vs. parents? It means one thing to be at poverty level as a college student (depending on loans, scholarships, or family funds, in part); it means something else to be raising children while at the poverty level. Being a college town, it is expected that there would be a high level of the former in Davis.
PRED Old Timer said…
Individuals below poverty level
14,101 24.5%
Thanks for the info.
Do you happen to know what number of that refers to single adults without kids vs. parents? It means one thing to be at poverty level as a college student (depending on loans, scholarships, or family funds, in part); it means something else to be raising children while at the poverty level. Being a college town, it is expected that there would be a high level of the former in Davis.
PRED Old Timer said…
Individuals below poverty level
14,101 24.5%
Thanks for the info.
Do you happen to know what number of that refers to single adults without kids vs. parents? It means one thing to be at poverty level as a college student (depending on loans, scholarships, or family funds, in part); it means something else to be raising children while at the poverty level. Being a college town, it is expected that there would be a high level of the former in Davis.
PRED Old Timer said…
Individuals below poverty level
14,101 24.5%
Thanks for the info.
Do you happen to know what number of that refers to single adults without kids vs. parents? It means one thing to be at poverty level as a college student (depending on loans, scholarships, or family funds, in part); it means something else to be raising children while at the poverty level. Being a college town, it is expected that there would be a high level of the former in Davis.
as i understand it, college students are counted in the poverty stats.
as i understand it, college students are counted in the poverty stats.
as i understand it, college students are counted in the poverty stats.
as i understand it, college students are counted in the poverty stats.
How long is this going to go on? We just passed a parcel tax! We are in a slumping economy, water/sewer fees going through the roof, gasoline to reach 5, maybe 6 dollars a gallon? Excuse me, but does anyone else here think the school board needs to learn how to budget like the rest of us? My salary does not go up on a whim.
Second, I thought Valley Oak needed to go to save $ and lower enrollment? Now they are re-opening it?!
Excuse me, but a prerequisite to my support for their tax is transparency.
How long is this going to go on? We just passed a parcel tax! We are in a slumping economy, water/sewer fees going through the roof, gasoline to reach 5, maybe 6 dollars a gallon? Excuse me, but does anyone else here think the school board needs to learn how to budget like the rest of us? My salary does not go up on a whim.
Second, I thought Valley Oak needed to go to save $ and lower enrollment? Now they are re-opening it?!
Excuse me, but a prerequisite to my support for their tax is transparency.
How long is this going to go on? We just passed a parcel tax! We are in a slumping economy, water/sewer fees going through the roof, gasoline to reach 5, maybe 6 dollars a gallon? Excuse me, but does anyone else here think the school board needs to learn how to budget like the rest of us? My salary does not go up on a whim.
Second, I thought Valley Oak needed to go to save $ and lower enrollment? Now they are re-opening it?!
Excuse me, but a prerequisite to my support for their tax is transparency.
How long is this going to go on? We just passed a parcel tax! We are in a slumping economy, water/sewer fees going through the roof, gasoline to reach 5, maybe 6 dollars a gallon? Excuse me, but does anyone else here think the school board needs to learn how to budget like the rest of us? My salary does not go up on a whim.
Second, I thought Valley Oak needed to go to save $ and lower enrollment? Now they are re-opening it?!
Excuse me, but a prerequisite to my support for their tax is transparency.
I told you so..
I told you When P/Q passed the mismanagement would give us measure R (another tax) and I was right on target.. someone asked me what measure R was.. it’s the measure that is imminent.
Notice how the school board was so quick to decide on how much to ask for another parcel tax without any assurances upfront or any desire to assuage people’s concerns about fiscal mismanagement?
I told you so..
I told you When P/Q passed the mismanagement would give us measure R (another tax) and I was right on target.. someone asked me what measure R was.. it’s the measure that is imminent.
Notice how the school board was so quick to decide on how much to ask for another parcel tax without any assurances upfront or any desire to assuage people’s concerns about fiscal mismanagement?
I told you so..
I told you When P/Q passed the mismanagement would give us measure R (another tax) and I was right on target.. someone asked me what measure R was.. it’s the measure that is imminent.
Notice how the school board was so quick to decide on how much to ask for another parcel tax without any assurances upfront or any desire to assuage people’s concerns about fiscal mismanagement?
I told you so..
I told you When P/Q passed the mismanagement would give us measure R (another tax) and I was right on target.. someone asked me what measure R was.. it’s the measure that is imminent.
Notice how the school board was so quick to decide on how much to ask for another parcel tax without any assurances upfront or any desire to assuage people’s concerns about fiscal mismanagement?
Excuse me.. said…
Excuse me, but does anyone else here think the school board needs to learn how to budget like the rest of us?
Unlike our State and Federal Government, our school board has a balanced budget (assuming the state follows through on its financial commitment) passed on time.
To me that act alone is modelling good fiscal practice that is sorely lacking in other parts of government.
Second, I thought Valley Oak needed to go to save $ and lower enrollment? Now they are re-opening it?!
Existing programs are being moved there from other parts of the district. Are you suggesting that it would be more responsible behavior to spend the money to tear down that building or let it sit vacant when other existing programs are residing in portables?
Excuse me, but a prerequisite to my support for their tax is transparency.
They have been just about as transparent as one can be for a public entity. The budget is available for you to see at the district office (and at the public library, I think). Public comment for this budget has been solicited for months at board meetings and online.
Excuse me.. said…
Excuse me, but does anyone else here think the school board needs to learn how to budget like the rest of us?
Unlike our State and Federal Government, our school board has a balanced budget (assuming the state follows through on its financial commitment) passed on time.
To me that act alone is modelling good fiscal practice that is sorely lacking in other parts of government.
Second, I thought Valley Oak needed to go to save $ and lower enrollment? Now they are re-opening it?!
Existing programs are being moved there from other parts of the district. Are you suggesting that it would be more responsible behavior to spend the money to tear down that building or let it sit vacant when other existing programs are residing in portables?
Excuse me, but a prerequisite to my support for their tax is transparency.
They have been just about as transparent as one can be for a public entity. The budget is available for you to see at the district office (and at the public library, I think). Public comment for this budget has been solicited for months at board meetings and online.
Excuse me.. said…
Excuse me, but does anyone else here think the school board needs to learn how to budget like the rest of us?
Unlike our State and Federal Government, our school board has a balanced budget (assuming the state follows through on its financial commitment) passed on time.
To me that act alone is modelling good fiscal practice that is sorely lacking in other parts of government.
Second, I thought Valley Oak needed to go to save $ and lower enrollment? Now they are re-opening it?!
Existing programs are being moved there from other parts of the district. Are you suggesting that it would be more responsible behavior to spend the money to tear down that building or let it sit vacant when other existing programs are residing in portables?
Excuse me, but a prerequisite to my support for their tax is transparency.
They have been just about as transparent as one can be for a public entity. The budget is available for you to see at the district office (and at the public library, I think). Public comment for this budget has been solicited for months at board meetings and online.
Excuse me.. said…
Excuse me, but does anyone else here think the school board needs to learn how to budget like the rest of us?
Unlike our State and Federal Government, our school board has a balanced budget (assuming the state follows through on its financial commitment) passed on time.
To me that act alone is modelling good fiscal practice that is sorely lacking in other parts of government.
Second, I thought Valley Oak needed to go to save $ and lower enrollment? Now they are re-opening it?!
Existing programs are being moved there from other parts of the district. Are you suggesting that it would be more responsible behavior to spend the money to tear down that building or let it sit vacant when other existing programs are residing in portables?
Excuse me, but a prerequisite to my support for their tax is transparency.
They have been just about as transparent as one can be for a public entity. The budget is available for you to see at the district office (and at the public library, I think). Public comment for this budget has been solicited for months at board meetings and online.
“Existing programs are being moved there from other parts of the district. Are you suggesting that it would be more responsible behavior to spend the money to tear down that building or let it sit vacant when other existing programs are residing in portables?”
The school board made precisely that claim. They argued they were unable to keep it open, the enrollment figures and the need to save $ prevented them from doing so.
Now they re-open it, arguing there are enough students with enough programs to keep it open.
Now they want to close Emerson too.
Notice also how quick they are to point the finger at the state and Federal govt. and absolve themselves of all responsibility.
“Existing programs are being moved there from other parts of the district. Are you suggesting that it would be more responsible behavior to spend the money to tear down that building or let it sit vacant when other existing programs are residing in portables?”
The school board made precisely that claim. They argued they were unable to keep it open, the enrollment figures and the need to save $ prevented them from doing so.
Now they re-open it, arguing there are enough students with enough programs to keep it open.
Now they want to close Emerson too.
Notice also how quick they are to point the finger at the state and Federal govt. and absolve themselves of all responsibility.
“Existing programs are being moved there from other parts of the district. Are you suggesting that it would be more responsible behavior to spend the money to tear down that building or let it sit vacant when other existing programs are residing in portables?”
The school board made precisely that claim. They argued they were unable to keep it open, the enrollment figures and the need to save $ prevented them from doing so.
Now they re-open it, arguing there are enough students with enough programs to keep it open.
Now they want to close Emerson too.
Notice also how quick they are to point the finger at the state and Federal govt. and absolve themselves of all responsibility.
“Existing programs are being moved there from other parts of the district. Are you suggesting that it would be more responsible behavior to spend the money to tear down that building or let it sit vacant when other existing programs are residing in portables?”
The school board made precisely that claim. They argued they were unable to keep it open, the enrollment figures and the need to save $ prevented them from doing so.
Now they re-open it, arguing there are enough students with enough programs to keep it open.
Now they want to close Emerson too.
Notice also how quick they are to point the finger at the state and Federal govt. and absolve themselves of all responsibility.
“Excuse me, but a prerequisite to my support for their tax is transparency.”
I agree with this statement. However, there is a larger problem evident in this latest school financial “crisis” that causes me to reject any additional parcel tax. The education system lacks any fiscal contraction ability, plus there is no plan or acceptance for increasing performance. Because of this the system will always expand to absorb as much funding as it can acquire without any expectation for improvement. So, we feed it when it is hungry, but it never get’s full and it never grows stronger. The teachers are always under-paid and the students are always in need of more text books. We never hear how things will get better when asked to pony up more taxes; instead it is always a fear-driven plea to prevent things from getting worse. There is never a rainy-day fund because this demonstrates the system has the ability to operate with less and the spending maniacs in State government raid the cookie jar.
The education system’s system of performance incentives and motivation is broken. Davis schools are pretty good, but mostly because we have so many hyper-educated parents contributing to the student gene pool. So, yes, we have something positive to maintain; but the Davis schools cannot continue to be successful with their request for more funding by forever riding that same PR pony.
I always expect more for my money. But when I am asked to pay more, I absolutely expect more. If you want me to pay higher taxes, you must certainly be transparent; but you also need to come to the table offering something in return. How about this… the school system commits to implementing a performance management system that rewards the best teachers and terminates the worst teachers. In good times the low performers get to keep their jobs. But when fiscal contraction is required the low performers get the pink slips. Then we reduce a few less-popular programs and ask the remaining teachers to step up. Poor performers are generally just people in the wrong job, so this does everyone a favor. The net effect will be a stronger teacher talent pool when funding expansion happens again. We would, in effect, be getting more for our money.
You could quadruple my education bond and parcel tax payments to fund this type of improvement program. And don’t tell me it can’t be done, because models for effective performance management exist in many organizations with more complex business models than schools (check out what hospitals have been doing for years). In any case, I am through buying into the “blackmail” of fear of impacts to the kids if the schools don’t get the cash. My wife and I contributed $15k to the latest funding drive to save music programs for junior high kids. We won’t do it again unless performance, and not seniority, becomes the primary criteria to determine which teacher gets a pink slip.
“Excuse me, but a prerequisite to my support for their tax is transparency.”
I agree with this statement. However, there is a larger problem evident in this latest school financial “crisis” that causes me to reject any additional parcel tax. The education system lacks any fiscal contraction ability, plus there is no plan or acceptance for increasing performance. Because of this the system will always expand to absorb as much funding as it can acquire without any expectation for improvement. So, we feed it when it is hungry, but it never get’s full and it never grows stronger. The teachers are always under-paid and the students are always in need of more text books. We never hear how things will get better when asked to pony up more taxes; instead it is always a fear-driven plea to prevent things from getting worse. There is never a rainy-day fund because this demonstrates the system has the ability to operate with less and the spending maniacs in State government raid the cookie jar.
The education system’s system of performance incentives and motivation is broken. Davis schools are pretty good, but mostly because we have so many hyper-educated parents contributing to the student gene pool. So, yes, we have something positive to maintain; but the Davis schools cannot continue to be successful with their request for more funding by forever riding that same PR pony.
I always expect more for my money. But when I am asked to pay more, I absolutely expect more. If you want me to pay higher taxes, you must certainly be transparent; but you also need to come to the table offering something in return. How about this… the school system commits to implementing a performance management system that rewards the best teachers and terminates the worst teachers. In good times the low performers get to keep their jobs. But when fiscal contraction is required the low performers get the pink slips. Then we reduce a few less-popular programs and ask the remaining teachers to step up. Poor performers are generally just people in the wrong job, so this does everyone a favor. The net effect will be a stronger teacher talent pool when funding expansion happens again. We would, in effect, be getting more for our money.
You could quadruple my education bond and parcel tax payments to fund this type of improvement program. And don’t tell me it can’t be done, because models for effective performance management exist in many organizations with more complex business models than schools (check out what hospitals have been doing for years). In any case, I am through buying into the “blackmail” of fear of impacts to the kids if the schools don’t get the cash. My wife and I contributed $15k to the latest funding drive to save music programs for junior high kids. We won’t do it again unless performance, and not seniority, becomes the primary criteria to determine which teacher gets a pink slip.
“Excuse me, but a prerequisite to my support for their tax is transparency.”
I agree with this statement. However, there is a larger problem evident in this latest school financial “crisis” that causes me to reject any additional parcel tax. The education system lacks any fiscal contraction ability, plus there is no plan or acceptance for increasing performance. Because of this the system will always expand to absorb as much funding as it can acquire without any expectation for improvement. So, we feed it when it is hungry, but it never get’s full and it never grows stronger. The teachers are always under-paid and the students are always in need of more text books. We never hear how things will get better when asked to pony up more taxes; instead it is always a fear-driven plea to prevent things from getting worse. There is never a rainy-day fund because this demonstrates the system has the ability to operate with less and the spending maniacs in State government raid the cookie jar.
The education system’s system of performance incentives and motivation is broken. Davis schools are pretty good, but mostly because we have so many hyper-educated parents contributing to the student gene pool. So, yes, we have something positive to maintain; but the Davis schools cannot continue to be successful with their request for more funding by forever riding that same PR pony.
I always expect more for my money. But when I am asked to pay more, I absolutely expect more. If you want me to pay higher taxes, you must certainly be transparent; but you also need to come to the table offering something in return. How about this… the school system commits to implementing a performance management system that rewards the best teachers and terminates the worst teachers. In good times the low performers get to keep their jobs. But when fiscal contraction is required the low performers get the pink slips. Then we reduce a few less-popular programs and ask the remaining teachers to step up. Poor performers are generally just people in the wrong job, so this does everyone a favor. The net effect will be a stronger teacher talent pool when funding expansion happens again. We would, in effect, be getting more for our money.
You could quadruple my education bond and parcel tax payments to fund this type of improvement program. And don’t tell me it can’t be done, because models for effective performance management exist in many organizations with more complex business models than schools (check out what hospitals have been doing for years). In any case, I am through buying into the “blackmail” of fear of impacts to the kids if the schools don’t get the cash. My wife and I contributed $15k to the latest funding drive to save music programs for junior high kids. We won’t do it again unless performance, and not seniority, becomes the primary criteria to determine which teacher gets a pink slip.
“Excuse me, but a prerequisite to my support for their tax is transparency.”
I agree with this statement. However, there is a larger problem evident in this latest school financial “crisis” that causes me to reject any additional parcel tax. The education system lacks any fiscal contraction ability, plus there is no plan or acceptance for increasing performance. Because of this the system will always expand to absorb as much funding as it can acquire without any expectation for improvement. So, we feed it when it is hungry, but it never get’s full and it never grows stronger. The teachers are always under-paid and the students are always in need of more text books. We never hear how things will get better when asked to pony up more taxes; instead it is always a fear-driven plea to prevent things from getting worse. There is never a rainy-day fund because this demonstrates the system has the ability to operate with less and the spending maniacs in State government raid the cookie jar.
The education system’s system of performance incentives and motivation is broken. Davis schools are pretty good, but mostly because we have so many hyper-educated parents contributing to the student gene pool. So, yes, we have something positive to maintain; but the Davis schools cannot continue to be successful with their request for more funding by forever riding that same PR pony.
I always expect more for my money. But when I am asked to pay more, I absolutely expect more. If you want me to pay higher taxes, you must certainly be transparent; but you also need to come to the table offering something in return. How about this… the school system commits to implementing a performance management system that rewards the best teachers and terminates the worst teachers. In good times the low performers get to keep their jobs. But when fiscal contraction is required the low performers get the pink slips. Then we reduce a few less-popular programs and ask the remaining teachers to step up. Poor performers are generally just people in the wrong job, so this does everyone a favor. The net effect will be a stronger teacher talent pool when funding expansion happens again. We would, in effect, be getting more for our money.
You could quadruple my education bond and parcel tax payments to fund this type of improvement program. And don’t tell me it can’t be done, because models for effective performance management exist in many organizations with more complex business models than schools (check out what hospitals have been doing for years). In any case, I am through buying into the “blackmail” of fear of impacts to the kids if the schools don’t get the cash. My wife and I contributed $15k to the latest funding drive to save music programs for junior high kids. We won’t do it again unless performance, and not seniority, becomes the primary criteria to determine which teacher gets a pink slip.
excuse me too said…
plus there is no plan or acceptance for increasing performance.
How would you define those increased performance standards?
The education system’s system of performance incentives and motivation is broken. Davis schools are pretty good, but mostly because we have so many hyper-educated parents contributing to the student gene pool. So, yes, we have something positive to maintain; but the Davis schools cannot continue to be successful with their request for more funding by forever riding that same PR pony.
….How about this… the school system commits to implementing a performance management system that rewards the best teachers and terminates the worst teachers. In good times the low performers get to keep their jobs. But when fiscal contraction is required the low performers get the pink slips. Then we reduce a few less-popular programs and ask the remaining teachers to step up. Poor performers are generally just people in the wrong job, so this does everyone a favor. The net effect will be a stronger teacher talent pool when funding expansion happens again. We would, in effect, be getting more for our money.
I really appreciate that you offer ideas. So many other critical comments don’t offer constructive alternative solutions. It turns the whole experience on the blog into a bitching session.
What you propose is a fine idea, and I would be inclined to buy into it. The person to talk to about this in the district is Kevin French, the administrator in charge of Human Resources. District number is 757-5300. You will have to ask for the extension. I don’t know it.
I think the answer that you will get is that the seniority system is statewide policy. Other districts use the same seniority system.
It’s still worth chatting with Mr. French about it, because there may be some possibilities.
One other question: how could you standardize performance across different disciplines or academic levels? For instance, how do you measure performance of a teacher charged with AP Calculus with highly motivated students versus a teacher given remedial math and possibly unmotivated students?
Or how would you compare or standardize performance between music and science?
My wife and I contributed $15k to the latest funding drive to save music programs for junior high kids. We won’t do it again unless performance, and not seniority, becomes the primary criteria to determine which teacher gets a pink slip.
Thank you, sir. As a parent, I really appreciate your generosity. It was more than I was able to contribute at the time.
See my comment below for additional background.
excuse me too said…
plus there is no plan or acceptance for increasing performance.
How would you define those increased performance standards?
The education system’s system of performance incentives and motivation is broken. Davis schools are pretty good, but mostly because we have so many hyper-educated parents contributing to the student gene pool. So, yes, we have something positive to maintain; but the Davis schools cannot continue to be successful with their request for more funding by forever riding that same PR pony.
….How about this… the school system commits to implementing a performance management system that rewards the best teachers and terminates the worst teachers. In good times the low performers get to keep their jobs. But when fiscal contraction is required the low performers get the pink slips. Then we reduce a few less-popular programs and ask the remaining teachers to step up. Poor performers are generally just people in the wrong job, so this does everyone a favor. The net effect will be a stronger teacher talent pool when funding expansion happens again. We would, in effect, be getting more for our money.
I really appreciate that you offer ideas. So many other critical comments don’t offer constructive alternative solutions. It turns the whole experience on the blog into a bitching session.
What you propose is a fine idea, and I would be inclined to buy into it. The person to talk to about this in the district is Kevin French, the administrator in charge of Human Resources. District number is 757-5300. You will have to ask for the extension. I don’t know it.
I think the answer that you will get is that the seniority system is statewide policy. Other districts use the same seniority system.
It’s still worth chatting with Mr. French about it, because there may be some possibilities.
One other question: how could you standardize performance across different disciplines or academic levels? For instance, how do you measure performance of a teacher charged with AP Calculus with highly motivated students versus a teacher given remedial math and possibly unmotivated students?
Or how would you compare or standardize performance between music and science?
My wife and I contributed $15k to the latest funding drive to save music programs for junior high kids. We won’t do it again unless performance, and not seniority, becomes the primary criteria to determine which teacher gets a pink slip.
Thank you, sir. As a parent, I really appreciate your generosity. It was more than I was able to contribute at the time.
See my comment below for additional background.
excuse me too said…
plus there is no plan or acceptance for increasing performance.
How would you define those increased performance standards?
The education system’s system of performance incentives and motivation is broken. Davis schools are pretty good, but mostly because we have so many hyper-educated parents contributing to the student gene pool. So, yes, we have something positive to maintain; but the Davis schools cannot continue to be successful with their request for more funding by forever riding that same PR pony.
….How about this… the school system commits to implementing a performance management system that rewards the best teachers and terminates the worst teachers. In good times the low performers get to keep their jobs. But when fiscal contraction is required the low performers get the pink slips. Then we reduce a few less-popular programs and ask the remaining teachers to step up. Poor performers are generally just people in the wrong job, so this does everyone a favor. The net effect will be a stronger teacher talent pool when funding expansion happens again. We would, in effect, be getting more for our money.
I really appreciate that you offer ideas. So many other critical comments don’t offer constructive alternative solutions. It turns the whole experience on the blog into a bitching session.
What you propose is a fine idea, and I would be inclined to buy into it. The person to talk to about this in the district is Kevin French, the administrator in charge of Human Resources. District number is 757-5300. You will have to ask for the extension. I don’t know it.
I think the answer that you will get is that the seniority system is statewide policy. Other districts use the same seniority system.
It’s still worth chatting with Mr. French about it, because there may be some possibilities.
One other question: how could you standardize performance across different disciplines or academic levels? For instance, how do you measure performance of a teacher charged with AP Calculus with highly motivated students versus a teacher given remedial math and possibly unmotivated students?
Or how would you compare or standardize performance between music and science?
My wife and I contributed $15k to the latest funding drive to save music programs for junior high kids. We won’t do it again unless performance, and not seniority, becomes the primary criteria to determine which teacher gets a pink slip.
Thank you, sir. As a parent, I really appreciate your generosity. It was more than I was able to contribute at the time.
See my comment below for additional background.
excuse me too said…
plus there is no plan or acceptance for increasing performance.
How would you define those increased performance standards?
The education system’s system of performance incentives and motivation is broken. Davis schools are pretty good, but mostly because we have so many hyper-educated parents contributing to the student gene pool. So, yes, we have something positive to maintain; but the Davis schools cannot continue to be successful with their request for more funding by forever riding that same PR pony.
….How about this… the school system commits to implementing a performance management system that rewards the best teachers and terminates the worst teachers. In good times the low performers get to keep their jobs. But when fiscal contraction is required the low performers get the pink slips. Then we reduce a few less-popular programs and ask the remaining teachers to step up. Poor performers are generally just people in the wrong job, so this does everyone a favor. The net effect will be a stronger teacher talent pool when funding expansion happens again. We would, in effect, be getting more for our money.
I really appreciate that you offer ideas. So many other critical comments don’t offer constructive alternative solutions. It turns the whole experience on the blog into a bitching session.
What you propose is a fine idea, and I would be inclined to buy into it. The person to talk to about this in the district is Kevin French, the administrator in charge of Human Resources. District number is 757-5300. You will have to ask for the extension. I don’t know it.
I think the answer that you will get is that the seniority system is statewide policy. Other districts use the same seniority system.
It’s still worth chatting with Mr. French about it, because there may be some possibilities.
One other question: how could you standardize performance across different disciplines or academic levels? For instance, how do you measure performance of a teacher charged with AP Calculus with highly motivated students versus a teacher given remedial math and possibly unmotivated students?
Or how would you compare or standardize performance between music and science?
My wife and I contributed $15k to the latest funding drive to save music programs for junior high kids. We won’t do it again unless performance, and not seniority, becomes the primary criteria to determine which teacher gets a pink slip.
Thank you, sir. As a parent, I really appreciate your generosity. It was more than I was able to contribute at the time.
See my comment below for additional background.
In spite of the above disparaging comment above (“Notice also how quick they are to point the finger at the state and Federal govt. and absolve themselves of all responsibility.“), it is, in fact, a problem compounded by state and federal funding issues.
Prop. 13, passed in 1978, limited the ability of school districts and their communities to control what kind of schools they wanted. Local taxes were rolled back and the state had to step in and supplement funding to keep schools at a consistent level.
Ultimately the state took over funding all of the California schools, because of it. Because the state wants certain accountability for the money it distributes to the public schools, they make up all the rules as a condition for accepting their money — state standards, regulations, categorical funds, etc.
Other states do not have the regular fiscal crises in their schools that we have in California, in part, because they do not have as restricted a property tax base.
Prop 13 may have been good in some ways, especially for fixed income seniors. But no workable alternative for stable funding for education has been proposed since then 1978.
Before Prop 13, Davis schools used to have full time librarians in every school, a general music program for every elementary school (now there are high school seniors who don’t know any of the words to the “Star Spangled Banner” or could identify a Stephen Foster song, “Oh, Susanna” for instance), and a much better funded athletics program. Now these are the kinds of programs we fight tooth and nail for in arguing over $8-$9/month.
In spite of the above disparaging comment above (“Notice also how quick they are to point the finger at the state and Federal govt. and absolve themselves of all responsibility.“), it is, in fact, a problem compounded by state and federal funding issues.
Prop. 13, passed in 1978, limited the ability of school districts and their communities to control what kind of schools they wanted. Local taxes were rolled back and the state had to step in and supplement funding to keep schools at a consistent level.
Ultimately the state took over funding all of the California schools, because of it. Because the state wants certain accountability for the money it distributes to the public schools, they make up all the rules as a condition for accepting their money — state standards, regulations, categorical funds, etc.
Other states do not have the regular fiscal crises in their schools that we have in California, in part, because they do not have as restricted a property tax base.
Prop 13 may have been good in some ways, especially for fixed income seniors. But no workable alternative for stable funding for education has been proposed since then 1978.
Before Prop 13, Davis schools used to have full time librarians in every school, a general music program for every elementary school (now there are high school seniors who don’t know any of the words to the “Star Spangled Banner” or could identify a Stephen Foster song, “Oh, Susanna” for instance), and a much better funded athletics program. Now these are the kinds of programs we fight tooth and nail for in arguing over $8-$9/month.
In spite of the above disparaging comment above (“Notice also how quick they are to point the finger at the state and Federal govt. and absolve themselves of all responsibility.“), it is, in fact, a problem compounded by state and federal funding issues.
Prop. 13, passed in 1978, limited the ability of school districts and their communities to control what kind of schools they wanted. Local taxes were rolled back and the state had to step in and supplement funding to keep schools at a consistent level.
Ultimately the state took over funding all of the California schools, because of it. Because the state wants certain accountability for the money it distributes to the public schools, they make up all the rules as a condition for accepting their money — state standards, regulations, categorical funds, etc.
Other states do not have the regular fiscal crises in their schools that we have in California, in part, because they do not have as restricted a property tax base.
Prop 13 may have been good in some ways, especially for fixed income seniors. But no workable alternative for stable funding for education has been proposed since then 1978.
Before Prop 13, Davis schools used to have full time librarians in every school, a general music program for every elementary school (now there are high school seniors who don’t know any of the words to the “Star Spangled Banner” or could identify a Stephen Foster song, “Oh, Susanna” for instance), and a much better funded athletics program. Now these are the kinds of programs we fight tooth and nail for in arguing over $8-$9/month.
In spite of the above disparaging comment above (“Notice also how quick they are to point the finger at the state and Federal govt. and absolve themselves of all responsibility.“), it is, in fact, a problem compounded by state and federal funding issues.
Prop. 13, passed in 1978, limited the ability of school districts and their communities to control what kind of schools they wanted. Local taxes were rolled back and the state had to step in and supplement funding to keep schools at a consistent level.
Ultimately the state took over funding all of the California schools, because of it. Because the state wants certain accountability for the money it distributes to the public schools, they make up all the rules as a condition for accepting their money — state standards, regulations, categorical funds, etc.
Other states do not have the regular fiscal crises in their schools that we have in California, in part, because they do not have as restricted a property tax base.
Prop 13 may have been good in some ways, especially for fixed income seniors. But no workable alternative for stable funding for education has been proposed since then 1978.
Before Prop 13, Davis schools used to have full time librarians in every school, a general music program for every elementary school (now there are high school seniors who don’t know any of the words to the “Star Spangled Banner” or could identify a Stephen Foster song, “Oh, Susanna” for instance), and a much better funded athletics program. Now these are the kinds of programs we fight tooth and nail for in arguing over $8-$9/month.
“The school board made precisely that claim. They argued they were unable to keep it open, the enrollment figures and the need to save $ prevented them from doing so.
Now they re-open it, arguing there are enough students with enough programs to keep it open.”
Because the district closed Valley Oak, it does not have to pay for its principal, secretarial staff, librarian, library technician, nurse, counselor, custodial staff, yard duty staff, crossing guard, cafeteria staff, and probably a few other costs not in that list.
Most of the fine teachers who want to stay in the district will find employment at another campus.
“The school board made precisely that claim. They argued they were unable to keep it open, the enrollment figures and the need to save $ prevented them from doing so.
Now they re-open it, arguing there are enough students with enough programs to keep it open.”
Because the district closed Valley Oak, it does not have to pay for its principal, secretarial staff, librarian, library technician, nurse, counselor, custodial staff, yard duty staff, crossing guard, cafeteria staff, and probably a few other costs not in that list.
Most of the fine teachers who want to stay in the district will find employment at another campus.
“The school board made precisely that claim. They argued they were unable to keep it open, the enrollment figures and the need to save $ prevented them from doing so.
Now they re-open it, arguing there are enough students with enough programs to keep it open.”
Because the district closed Valley Oak, it does not have to pay for its principal, secretarial staff, librarian, library technician, nurse, counselor, custodial staff, yard duty staff, crossing guard, cafeteria staff, and probably a few other costs not in that list.
Most of the fine teachers who want to stay in the district will find employment at another campus.
“The school board made precisely that claim. They argued they were unable to keep it open, the enrollment figures and the need to save $ prevented them from doing so.
Now they re-open it, arguing there are enough students with enough programs to keep it open.”
Because the district closed Valley Oak, it does not have to pay for its principal, secretarial staff, librarian, library technician, nurse, counselor, custodial staff, yard duty staff, crossing guard, cafeteria staff, and probably a few other costs not in that list.
Most of the fine teachers who want to stay in the district will find employment at another campus.
So, we feed it when it is hungry, but it never get’s full and it never grows stronger. The teachers are always under-paid and the students are always in need of more text books. We never hear how things will get better when asked to pony up more taxes; instead it is always a fear-driven plea to prevent things from getting worse.
couldn’t have said it better.
wdf: you are an apologist for the school board it’s not even funny.
“Prop. 13, passed in 1978, limited the ability of school districts and their communities to control what kind of schools they wanted. Local taxes were rolled back and the state had to step in and supplement funding to keep schools at a consistent level.”
excuse me, but that was how many years ago? Something happens in 1978 lets the school board off the hook for poor planning and spending choices 30 years later?
They built Margaret Mongomery knowing they didn’t have funds to run an additional school. So they close Valley Oak, and try to chop Emerson. Then they want to re-open Valley Oak, chop Emerson, but want more tax revenue.
Neither WDF or the school board are willing to admit Poor planning led to this problem.
But hopefully Shiela Allen will shed more tears when Emerson closes. That is the important thing.
So, we feed it when it is hungry, but it never get’s full and it never grows stronger. The teachers are always under-paid and the students are always in need of more text books. We never hear how things will get better when asked to pony up more taxes; instead it is always a fear-driven plea to prevent things from getting worse.
couldn’t have said it better.
wdf: you are an apologist for the school board it’s not even funny.
“Prop. 13, passed in 1978, limited the ability of school districts and their communities to control what kind of schools they wanted. Local taxes were rolled back and the state had to step in and supplement funding to keep schools at a consistent level.”
excuse me, but that was how many years ago? Something happens in 1978 lets the school board off the hook for poor planning and spending choices 30 years later?
They built Margaret Mongomery knowing they didn’t have funds to run an additional school. So they close Valley Oak, and try to chop Emerson. Then they want to re-open Valley Oak, chop Emerson, but want more tax revenue.
Neither WDF or the school board are willing to admit Poor planning led to this problem.
But hopefully Shiela Allen will shed more tears when Emerson closes. That is the important thing.
So, we feed it when it is hungry, but it never get’s full and it never grows stronger. The teachers are always under-paid and the students are always in need of more text books. We never hear how things will get better when asked to pony up more taxes; instead it is always a fear-driven plea to prevent things from getting worse.
couldn’t have said it better.
wdf: you are an apologist for the school board it’s not even funny.
“Prop. 13, passed in 1978, limited the ability of school districts and their communities to control what kind of schools they wanted. Local taxes were rolled back and the state had to step in and supplement funding to keep schools at a consistent level.”
excuse me, but that was how many years ago? Something happens in 1978 lets the school board off the hook for poor planning and spending choices 30 years later?
They built Margaret Mongomery knowing they didn’t have funds to run an additional school. So they close Valley Oak, and try to chop Emerson. Then they want to re-open Valley Oak, chop Emerson, but want more tax revenue.
Neither WDF or the school board are willing to admit Poor planning led to this problem.
But hopefully Shiela Allen will shed more tears when Emerson closes. That is the important thing.
So, we feed it when it is hungry, but it never get’s full and it never grows stronger. The teachers are always under-paid and the students are always in need of more text books. We never hear how things will get better when asked to pony up more taxes; instead it is always a fear-driven plea to prevent things from getting worse.
couldn’t have said it better.
wdf: you are an apologist for the school board it’s not even funny.
“Prop. 13, passed in 1978, limited the ability of school districts and their communities to control what kind of schools they wanted. Local taxes were rolled back and the state had to step in and supplement funding to keep schools at a consistent level.”
excuse me, but that was how many years ago? Something happens in 1978 lets the school board off the hook for poor planning and spending choices 30 years later?
They built Margaret Mongomery knowing they didn’t have funds to run an additional school. So they close Valley Oak, and try to chop Emerson. Then they want to re-open Valley Oak, chop Emerson, but want more tax revenue.
Neither WDF or the school board are willing to admit Poor planning led to this problem.
But hopefully Shiela Allen will shed more tears when Emerson closes. That is the important thing.
I am very glad to see folks hesitant to pony up for another parcel tax without accountability. It is also recognized the next move by the School Board is most likely going to be the closing of Emerson – after the lesson of Valley Oak. Seems most people get that WDF is an apologist for the School Board, and tries to use smoke and mirrors to cover over the obvious.
Bottom line, if everyone forks over more money, it will not result in better fiscal management. It will mean business as usual – the School Board will make a mess of things. Frankly, charter schools are looking like a better alternative – take the money out of the hands of the School Board/District and put it in the hands of the parents and teachers.
I am very glad to see folks hesitant to pony up for another parcel tax without accountability. It is also recognized the next move by the School Board is most likely going to be the closing of Emerson – after the lesson of Valley Oak. Seems most people get that WDF is an apologist for the School Board, and tries to use smoke and mirrors to cover over the obvious.
Bottom line, if everyone forks over more money, it will not result in better fiscal management. It will mean business as usual – the School Board will make a mess of things. Frankly, charter schools are looking like a better alternative – take the money out of the hands of the School Board/District and put it in the hands of the parents and teachers.
I am very glad to see folks hesitant to pony up for another parcel tax without accountability. It is also recognized the next move by the School Board is most likely going to be the closing of Emerson – after the lesson of Valley Oak. Seems most people get that WDF is an apologist for the School Board, and tries to use smoke and mirrors to cover over the obvious.
Bottom line, if everyone forks over more money, it will not result in better fiscal management. It will mean business as usual – the School Board will make a mess of things. Frankly, charter schools are looking like a better alternative – take the money out of the hands of the School Board/District and put it in the hands of the parents and teachers.
I am very glad to see folks hesitant to pony up for another parcel tax without accountability. It is also recognized the next move by the School Board is most likely going to be the closing of Emerson – after the lesson of Valley Oak. Seems most people get that WDF is an apologist for the School Board, and tries to use smoke and mirrors to cover over the obvious.
Bottom line, if everyone forks over more money, it will not result in better fiscal management. It will mean business as usual – the School Board will make a mess of things. Frankly, charter schools are looking like a better alternative – take the money out of the hands of the School Board/District and put it in the hands of the parents and teachers.
Charter schools are anethema to the School Board. Maybe the threat to start instituting them would be enough to scare them straight! Let’s start with Emerson and Valley Oak. If you doubt the wisdom of charter schools, wait until Emerson ends up on the chopping block.
Charter schools are anethema to the School Board. Maybe the threat to start instituting them would be enough to scare them straight! Let’s start with Emerson and Valley Oak. If you doubt the wisdom of charter schools, wait until Emerson ends up on the chopping block.
Charter schools are anethema to the School Board. Maybe the threat to start instituting them would be enough to scare them straight! Let’s start with Emerson and Valley Oak. If you doubt the wisdom of charter schools, wait until Emerson ends up on the chopping block.
Charter schools are anethema to the School Board. Maybe the threat to start instituting them would be enough to scare them straight! Let’s start with Emerson and Valley Oak. If you doubt the wisdom of charter schools, wait until Emerson ends up on the chopping block.
Turns out, if anyone was paying close attention, transportation funding is going to be cut for Unitrans routes designed to carry the public school kids. Rouste R and T I believe (not sure about the letters). So much for the School Board’s claim that if Emerson is closed, the kids can hop Unitrans. What other claims have they made, that haven’t been honored?
Turns out, if anyone was paying close attention, transportation funding is going to be cut for Unitrans routes designed to carry the public school kids. Rouste R and T I believe (not sure about the letters). So much for the School Board’s claim that if Emerson is closed, the kids can hop Unitrans. What other claims have they made, that haven’t been honored?
Turns out, if anyone was paying close attention, transportation funding is going to be cut for Unitrans routes designed to carry the public school kids. Rouste R and T I believe (not sure about the letters). So much for the School Board’s claim that if Emerson is closed, the kids can hop Unitrans. What other claims have they made, that haven’t been honored?
Turns out, if anyone was paying close attention, transportation funding is going to be cut for Unitrans routes designed to carry the public school kids. Rouste R and T I believe (not sure about the letters). So much for the School Board’s claim that if Emerson is closed, the kids can hop Unitrans. What other claims have they made, that haven’t been honored?
wdf: you are an apologist for the school board it’s not even funny.
…
Neither WDF or the school board are willing to admit Poor planning led to this problem.
I’m really not into the dismissive retorts or in shouting down dissent that seems to entertain you.
I sense that you grab at all nuggets that sound conveniently critical of DJUSD without lifting a finger to check if they’re true or not. It makes this place feel like the Fox News of Davis.
For the record, at least one or two blog discussions ago on this topic, I said, ‘of course the district did lousy planning when they proposed to build two elementaries and a JH.’ They planned for growth that never happened. I never said otherwise. Murphy and co. were a part of the group that spearheaded that effort. They’re gone, good riddance. The board can speak for itself.
That’s one example of misinformation on your part.
Other bits of recent misinformation mentioned without bothering to check:
–that 7th period would be eliminated next year
–that Measure Q will teach kids to grow 35 pound cabbages
–that eliminating Montessori, Spanish Immersion, and Da Vinci will save the district money
–that DJUSD staff don’t talk to Woodland JUSD staff
–that Woodland JUSD is a model of fiscal responsibility that DJUSD should follow (here’s a nugget for you; it makes this discussion right here a true love-fest by comparison)
All of these were not hard to check to maintain the integrity of your information.
The board will decide what it will decide about a parcel tax. If they propose it for November, that would be best. If it passes great. If not, well that’s fine, too. No one has to wonder if we should have put up a parcel tax, and we move on to other options.
In the meantime, if you offer up additional misinformation, I will take the time to clarify or correct it, as I see it. If that makes me an apologist, so be it.
If you think that DJUSD really has nothing good to offer, then go check out Napa Valley Language Academy. I spoke to one of its first principals a couple of weeks ago. They used Davis’ Cesar Chavez Elementary as a model.
wdf: you are an apologist for the school board it’s not even funny.
…
Neither WDF or the school board are willing to admit Poor planning led to this problem.
I’m really not into the dismissive retorts or in shouting down dissent that seems to entertain you.
I sense that you grab at all nuggets that sound conveniently critical of DJUSD without lifting a finger to check if they’re true or not. It makes this place feel like the Fox News of Davis.
For the record, at least one or two blog discussions ago on this topic, I said, ‘of course the district did lousy planning when they proposed to build two elementaries and a JH.’ They planned for growth that never happened. I never said otherwise. Murphy and co. were a part of the group that spearheaded that effort. They’re gone, good riddance. The board can speak for itself.
That’s one example of misinformation on your part.
Other bits of recent misinformation mentioned without bothering to check:
–that 7th period would be eliminated next year
–that Measure Q will teach kids to grow 35 pound cabbages
–that eliminating Montessori, Spanish Immersion, and Da Vinci will save the district money
–that DJUSD staff don’t talk to Woodland JUSD staff
–that Woodland JUSD is a model of fiscal responsibility that DJUSD should follow (here’s a nugget for you; it makes this discussion right here a true love-fest by comparison)
All of these were not hard to check to maintain the integrity of your information.
The board will decide what it will decide about a parcel tax. If they propose it for November, that would be best. If it passes great. If not, well that’s fine, too. No one has to wonder if we should have put up a parcel tax, and we move on to other options.
In the meantime, if you offer up additional misinformation, I will take the time to clarify or correct it, as I see it. If that makes me an apologist, so be it.
If you think that DJUSD really has nothing good to offer, then go check out Napa Valley Language Academy. I spoke to one of its first principals a couple of weeks ago. They used Davis’ Cesar Chavez Elementary as a model.
wdf: you are an apologist for the school board it’s not even funny.
…
Neither WDF or the school board are willing to admit Poor planning led to this problem.
I’m really not into the dismissive retorts or in shouting down dissent that seems to entertain you.
I sense that you grab at all nuggets that sound conveniently critical of DJUSD without lifting a finger to check if they’re true or not. It makes this place feel like the Fox News of Davis.
For the record, at least one or two blog discussions ago on this topic, I said, ‘of course the district did lousy planning when they proposed to build two elementaries and a JH.’ They planned for growth that never happened. I never said otherwise. Murphy and co. were a part of the group that spearheaded that effort. They’re gone, good riddance. The board can speak for itself.
That’s one example of misinformation on your part.
Other bits of recent misinformation mentioned without bothering to check:
–that 7th period would be eliminated next year
–that Measure Q will teach kids to grow 35 pound cabbages
–that eliminating Montessori, Spanish Immersion, and Da Vinci will save the district money
–that DJUSD staff don’t talk to Woodland JUSD staff
–that Woodland JUSD is a model of fiscal responsibility that DJUSD should follow (here’s a nugget for you; it makes this discussion right here a true love-fest by comparison)
All of these were not hard to check to maintain the integrity of your information.
The board will decide what it will decide about a parcel tax. If they propose it for November, that would be best. If it passes great. If not, well that’s fine, too. No one has to wonder if we should have put up a parcel tax, and we move on to other options.
In the meantime, if you offer up additional misinformation, I will take the time to clarify or correct it, as I see it. If that makes me an apologist, so be it.
If you think that DJUSD really has nothing good to offer, then go check out Napa Valley Language Academy. I spoke to one of its first principals a couple of weeks ago. They used Davis’ Cesar Chavez Elementary as a model.
wdf: you are an apologist for the school board it’s not even funny.
…
Neither WDF or the school board are willing to admit Poor planning led to this problem.
I’m really not into the dismissive retorts or in shouting down dissent that seems to entertain you.
I sense that you grab at all nuggets that sound conveniently critical of DJUSD without lifting a finger to check if they’re true or not. It makes this place feel like the Fox News of Davis.
For the record, at least one or two blog discussions ago on this topic, I said, ‘of course the district did lousy planning when they proposed to build two elementaries and a JH.’ They planned for growth that never happened. I never said otherwise. Murphy and co. were a part of the group that spearheaded that effort. They’re gone, good riddance. The board can speak for itself.
That’s one example of misinformation on your part.
Other bits of recent misinformation mentioned without bothering to check:
–that 7th period would be eliminated next year
–that Measure Q will teach kids to grow 35 pound cabbages
–that eliminating Montessori, Spanish Immersion, and Da Vinci will save the district money
–that DJUSD staff don’t talk to Woodland JUSD staff
–that Woodland JUSD is a model of fiscal responsibility that DJUSD should follow (here’s a nugget for you; it makes this discussion right here a true love-fest by comparison)
All of these were not hard to check to maintain the integrity of your information.
The board will decide what it will decide about a parcel tax. If they propose it for November, that would be best. If it passes great. If not, well that’s fine, too. No one has to wonder if we should have put up a parcel tax, and we move on to other options.
In the meantime, if you offer up additional misinformation, I will take the time to clarify or correct it, as I see it. If that makes me an apologist, so be it.
If you think that DJUSD really has nothing good to offer, then go check out Napa Valley Language Academy. I spoke to one of its first principals a couple of weeks ago. They used Davis’ Cesar Chavez Elementary as a model.
This is great. No one agrees and everyone thinks they are right. WDF, I don’t care what Napa Valley Language Academy thinks about caesar chavez elementary.
In everyday conversations with people one should realize that we need English Immersion to imporve the verbal skills of students. For those of you out there who don’t know, WDF and Wu Ming whine a great deal on this blog.
STOP SLOPPING THE HOGS, NO MORE TAXES! Fire teachers, close schools and make all those agencies involved live within their means.
No, Wu Ming, it has nothing to do with income or money magazine.
This is great. No one agrees and everyone thinks they are right. WDF, I don’t care what Napa Valley Language Academy thinks about caesar chavez elementary.
In everyday conversations with people one should realize that we need English Immersion to imporve the verbal skills of students. For those of you out there who don’t know, WDF and Wu Ming whine a great deal on this blog.
STOP SLOPPING THE HOGS, NO MORE TAXES! Fire teachers, close schools and make all those agencies involved live within their means.
No, Wu Ming, it has nothing to do with income or money magazine.
This is great. No one agrees and everyone thinks they are right. WDF, I don’t care what Napa Valley Language Academy thinks about caesar chavez elementary.
In everyday conversations with people one should realize that we need English Immersion to imporve the verbal skills of students. For those of you out there who don’t know, WDF and Wu Ming whine a great deal on this blog.
STOP SLOPPING THE HOGS, NO MORE TAXES! Fire teachers, close schools and make all those agencies involved live within their means.
No, Wu Ming, it has nothing to do with income or money magazine.
This is great. No one agrees and everyone thinks they are right. WDF, I don’t care what Napa Valley Language Academy thinks about caesar chavez elementary.
In everyday conversations with people one should realize that we need English Immersion to imporve the verbal skills of students. For those of you out there who don’t know, WDF and Wu Ming whine a great deal on this blog.
STOP SLOPPING THE HOGS, NO MORE TAXES! Fire teachers, close schools and make all those agencies involved live within their means.
No, Wu Ming, it has nothing to do with income or money magazine.
This is great. No one agrees and everyone thinks they are right. WDF, I don’t care what Napa Valley Language Academy thinks about caesar chavez elementary.
I’m sorry you missed the fact that the Napa Valley Language Academy is a *charter school*.
The gentleman I spoke with had a lot of very interesting information about setting up charter schools.
I guess that wouldn’t interest you, though, especially coming from me.
This is great. No one agrees and everyone thinks they are right. WDF, I don’t care what Napa Valley Language Academy thinks about caesar chavez elementary.
I’m sorry you missed the fact that the Napa Valley Language Academy is a *charter school*.
The gentleman I spoke with had a lot of very interesting information about setting up charter schools.
I guess that wouldn’t interest you, though, especially coming from me.
This is great. No one agrees and everyone thinks they are right. WDF, I don’t care what Napa Valley Language Academy thinks about caesar chavez elementary.
I’m sorry you missed the fact that the Napa Valley Language Academy is a *charter school*.
The gentleman I spoke with had a lot of very interesting information about setting up charter schools.
I guess that wouldn’t interest you, though, especially coming from me.
This is great. No one agrees and everyone thinks they are right. WDF, I don’t care what Napa Valley Language Academy thinks about caesar chavez elementary.
I’m sorry you missed the fact that the Napa Valley Language Academy is a *charter school*.
The gentleman I spoke with had a lot of very interesting information about setting up charter schools.
I guess that wouldn’t interest you, though, especially coming from me.
“If you think that DJUSD really has nothing good to offer, then go check out Napa Valley Language Academy. I spoke to one of its first principals a couple of weeks ago. They used Davis’ Cesar Chavez Elementary as a model.”
…just to keep the DJUSD historical record straight, the Davis Spanish Immersion program is a model program IN SPITE OF not because of the DJUSD. The founders/parents of the Spanish Immersion program remember full well how we were the pariahs of the District until State recognition brought the DJUSD forward to claim the credit. The program was created and run by the Spanish Immersion Parents Assoc in its early years as it was essentially ignored by the District. Any power/control outside of the District office is anathema to the District administrators. This was again seen when the District torpedoed the Valley Oak Charter proposal. Unfortunately, the Valley Oak parents did not have the political/community clout that the founding Spanish Immersion parents had 25 years ago.
“If you think that DJUSD really has nothing good to offer, then go check out Napa Valley Language Academy. I spoke to one of its first principals a couple of weeks ago. They used Davis’ Cesar Chavez Elementary as a model.”
…just to keep the DJUSD historical record straight, the Davis Spanish Immersion program is a model program IN SPITE OF not because of the DJUSD. The founders/parents of the Spanish Immersion program remember full well how we were the pariahs of the District until State recognition brought the DJUSD forward to claim the credit. The program was created and run by the Spanish Immersion Parents Assoc in its early years as it was essentially ignored by the District. Any power/control outside of the District office is anathema to the District administrators. This was again seen when the District torpedoed the Valley Oak Charter proposal. Unfortunately, the Valley Oak parents did not have the political/community clout that the founding Spanish Immersion parents had 25 years ago.
“If you think that DJUSD really has nothing good to offer, then go check out Napa Valley Language Academy. I spoke to one of its first principals a couple of weeks ago. They used Davis’ Cesar Chavez Elementary as a model.”
…just to keep the DJUSD historical record straight, the Davis Spanish Immersion program is a model program IN SPITE OF not because of the DJUSD. The founders/parents of the Spanish Immersion program remember full well how we were the pariahs of the District until State recognition brought the DJUSD forward to claim the credit. The program was created and run by the Spanish Immersion Parents Assoc in its early years as it was essentially ignored by the District. Any power/control outside of the District office is anathema to the District administrators. This was again seen when the District torpedoed the Valley Oak Charter proposal. Unfortunately, the Valley Oak parents did not have the political/community clout that the founding Spanish Immersion parents had 25 years ago.
“If you think that DJUSD really has nothing good to offer, then go check out Napa Valley Language Academy. I spoke to one of its first principals a couple of weeks ago. They used Davis’ Cesar Chavez Elementary as a model.”
…just to keep the DJUSD historical record straight, the Davis Spanish Immersion program is a model program IN SPITE OF not because of the DJUSD. The founders/parents of the Spanish Immersion program remember full well how we were the pariahs of the District until State recognition brought the DJUSD forward to claim the credit. The program was created and run by the Spanish Immersion Parents Assoc in its early years as it was essentially ignored by the District. Any power/control outside of the District office is anathema to the District administrators. This was again seen when the District torpedoed the Valley Oak Charter proposal. Unfortunately, the Valley Oak parents did not have the political/community clout that the founding Spanish Immersion parents had 25 years ago.
To Spanish Immersion Parent: Thanks for setting the record straight. The closing of VO was a travesty, and a plain disgusting spectacle. One commenter had it right – Sheila Allen will almost certainly shed tears at the closing of Emerson too! That is the important thing! Gag me with a spoon!
To Spanish Immersion Parent: Thanks for setting the record straight. The closing of VO was a travesty, and a plain disgusting spectacle. One commenter had it right – Sheila Allen will almost certainly shed tears at the closing of Emerson too! That is the important thing! Gag me with a spoon!
To Spanish Immersion Parent: Thanks for setting the record straight. The closing of VO was a travesty, and a plain disgusting spectacle. One commenter had it right – Sheila Allen will almost certainly shed tears at the closing of Emerson too! That is the important thing! Gag me with a spoon!
To Spanish Immersion Parent: Thanks for setting the record straight. The closing of VO was a travesty, and a plain disgusting spectacle. One commenter had it right – Sheila Allen will almost certainly shed tears at the closing of Emerson too! That is the important thing! Gag me with a spoon!
“Other bits of recent misinformation mentioned without bothering to check:
–that 7th period would be eliminated next year
–that Measure Q will teach kids to grow 35 pound cabbages
–that eliminating Montessori, Spanish Immersion, and Da Vinci will save the district money
–that DJUSD staff don’t talk to Woodland JUSD staff
–that Woodland JUSD is a model of fiscal responsibility that DJUSD should follow (here’s a nugget for you; it makes this discussion right here a true love-fest by comparison)”
Much of this is misquoted…
“Other bits of recent misinformation mentioned without bothering to check:
–that 7th period would be eliminated next year
–that Measure Q will teach kids to grow 35 pound cabbages
–that eliminating Montessori, Spanish Immersion, and Da Vinci will save the district money
–that DJUSD staff don’t talk to Woodland JUSD staff
–that Woodland JUSD is a model of fiscal responsibility that DJUSD should follow (here’s a nugget for you; it makes this discussion right here a true love-fest by comparison)”
Much of this is misquoted…
“Other bits of recent misinformation mentioned without bothering to check:
–that 7th period would be eliminated next year
–that Measure Q will teach kids to grow 35 pound cabbages
–that eliminating Montessori, Spanish Immersion, and Da Vinci will save the district money
–that DJUSD staff don’t talk to Woodland JUSD staff
–that Woodland JUSD is a model of fiscal responsibility that DJUSD should follow (here’s a nugget for you; it makes this discussion right here a true love-fest by comparison)”
Much of this is misquoted…
“Other bits of recent misinformation mentioned without bothering to check:
–that 7th period would be eliminated next year
–that Measure Q will teach kids to grow 35 pound cabbages
–that eliminating Montessori, Spanish Immersion, and Da Vinci will save the district money
–that DJUSD staff don’t talk to Woodland JUSD staff
–that Woodland JUSD is a model of fiscal responsibility that DJUSD should follow (here’s a nugget for you; it makes this discussion right here a true love-fest by comparison)”
Much of this is misquoted…