The issue of teacher compensation was not on the agenda last night for the school board meeting, but that didn’t stop a few dozen parents and teachers from coming to the meeting to speak during public comment.
It was so full that, at one point, the Vanguard received a note that “Davis parents and teachers showed up in force at School Board meeting and were refused entry by the fire (marshal).”
DTA President Dianna Huculak used her time as the DTA rep to read from a petition signed by 90 percent of all teachers in the district:
“We believe that the heart and soul of our school community is the relationships between teachers and students. We endeavor to ensure that every student continues to have caring, qualified, and committed teachers. DTA stands for stability, sustainability and student success.
“Therefore we urge you to support a fair contract that will benefit all students and our community. DJUSD must meaningfully address the district identified compensation gap and the unaffordable health care package.
“Further teacher turnover in our school communities must stop. Our students deserve better. We demand a settlement that ensures that DJUSD will be able to attract and retain quality educators.
“As our members are working under an expired contract, we ask the school trustees to show their support and respect for the educator community by seeking a clear and quick resolution. We hope that you share our values and sense of urgency to move forward and continue to build a stable and sustainable environment that enable students to thrive and succeed.”
She then added some of her own comments.
Ms. Huculak read a quote ascribed to Winston Churchill, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing after they’ve tried everything else.” She said, “The everything else that the Davis school district has tried led to 20 secondary sites, and mostly in core classes including science and math. Entire math and science departments working overtime. Years of teachers with caseloads over the 160 student limit.
“This year at Davis Senior High School one teacher has 20 extra students. Elementary classrooms beginning the year without a teacher. Cost prohibitive health care. A churning of teachers that has destabilized school sites and threatens the quality of the educational programs that we offer.
“The question I want to pose to you, the school board, is how does trying everything else rather than prioritizing students and educators serve our children? Does having teachers that do not have time to create new curriculum for the students because they are working without a prep period benefit our students? Or does it serve the district office? Either because having teachers working overtime saves them funds or it hides the fact that they were unable to fill a position.
“Teachers have to choose between supporting their family – or shouldn’t the district fairly compensate them for their work? Someone asked the question – what is another section of math or English if you’ve already taught five other sections that day? Because really, what are 35 more papers or tests to grade on top of the 160 papers and tests that you have already to grade?
“Does a teacher with 195 students serve the district goal of the positive socio-emotional development of children? How does that educator have time for that? Does packing students year after year after year into core classes serve student needs? Or is it a convenient solution for administrators who have a scheduling problem?
“Does it serve our community’s children to have them start the school year without a teacher or are we supposed to believe that we do not have an attract and retain problem? Because only one elementary class didn’t have a teacher.
“To me, to DTA, and the parents of children in that classroom, that is one class too many. Does it serve the families and children of our teachers to, after paying for health care, to have hardly anything to take home?
“Some may argue that this is about money, about parcel taxes, about LCAP, but make no mistake, this is about equity and it’s about prioritizing children by respecting the work of teachers in the district.
“And I know that our Davis community values our work and their children’s education. For years you have shown the Davis Teachers Association that you do not value and respect our work and by extension the learning environments of our children. For years, we have been asked to do more with less, to take on extra students to teach extra sections despite our contract.
“Meanwhile the district has claimed that there are no funds but that doesn’t stop them from giving raises for the highest paid administrators and hiring new administrators to work in the district office. Instead of asking teachers for ideas to save funds, it is time that the district office prioritizes educators and students.
“It is time that they be directed to do their job and come into bargaining with a meaningful offer that addresses the compensation gap and the shamefully expensive healthcare that our district currently offers.
“The Davis Teachers Association will accept nothing less. It is time that you the school board demand that our district does the right thing in bargaining and so too everything else, our students deserve it.”
Her remark was followed by comments from a number of parents and teachers during public comment. The Vanguard will have those comments in an upcoming article.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I still say we should just do away with seventh period. Problem solved.
I think that’s an extraordinarily bad idea
You can only provide the extras if it’s affordable. That’s how most people have to run their household budgets. Often that trip to the theater, dining out, buying a new car, etc have to be scaled back in order to pay the bills.
What makes seventh period an “extra”?
There was no “7th period” (unless you were into “extra-curricular” sports) when we went to school. Graduated college, had great careers.
Am not convinced 7th period is a ‘necessity’. I believe it should be “on the table” in the matrix of options.
Why? Logic? ‘More is better’?
In the district that Bowes comes from there are two high schools. One uses period scheduling much like DSH while the other uses “block scheduling” . Block scheduling may present some advantages when it comes to staffing
Palos Verdes High School operates on an alternating block schedule. We have “A” days and “B” days. On “A” days students go to periods 1, 2, & 3. On “B” days students go to periods 4, 5, & 6. Class periods are 113 minutes long. Our school days alternate between “A” days and “B” days meaning that a student will go to periods 1, 2, & 3 one day and the next school day they go to periods 4, 5, & 6. The block schedule provides an opportunity for students to increase the breadth and depth of the curriculum being taught.
Dshs DOES have a block schedule, wed and thurs each week. The other three days run 7 periods.
There are plenty of places to save money in DJU. Contrast two local schools:
King High School
STUDENTS- 47
Students per teacher 8 :1 State avg: 22:1
Fairfield Elementary School
STUDENTS- 45
Students per teacher 26:1 State avg: 22:1
With the other overhead and facilities cost at King we are probably spending five times as much money on each student there as we do at Fairfield. Why is one group of kids worth five times as much as another group of kids?
I don’t accept your numbers, but King costs more per student because they are at risk and have special needs and the school has very high turnover.
The problem I have with the spiel is, that everyone’s boat must float, to attract new teachers… what is the logic of increasing compensation for 20 year veterans, to attract new teachers. That is a “union” argument.
Ironically, the City is offering lower compensation to new employees, AND asking existing employees to accept ‘freezing’ of compensation and/or concessions…
If DTA was serious on their concern for attracting new talent, they’d be open to freezing or asking for compensation concessions for those in the 20+ years of service categories. But we know that won’t happen.
Don, the disparity is worse than it appears above. Both schools have the same number of students ever day. Here os the staff directory for Fairfield
Principal: Gay Bourguignon
Secretary: Suzanne Morgan
Defty, Jonathan Defty
Ryan, Mary
Here is the directory for King:
Michelle Flowers Principal
Maricela Ortega Site Administrative Assistant
Michele Andrew Counselor
Theo Buckendorf Government/Practical Arts/PE Teacher
Mark Jordan Math Teacher
Blair Howard US History/World History Teacher
Matt Haines English Teacher
Cristina Buss Science Teacher
Wes Ruff Economics/Fine Arts Teacher
Elizabeth Allen Resource Teacher
April Seto Psychologist
Maria Aguirre Paraeducator
Why do one set of kids get five times the money as another set of kids?
How much FTE?
You should ask DJU, I don;t believe that info is public. If you get a figure that is different than site assignment data then please share.
You’ll have to find it if you want it. This is your vendetta.
Hoch: “You should ask DJU, I don;t believe that info is public. If you get a figure that is different than site assignment data then please share.”
Go look it up in ed-data.org. I think when they give numbers of staff & faculty, they calculate in terms of FTE.
“Go look it up in ed-data.org” It was not my question
Hoch: Do you think it’s unfair that students with disabilities require more money to educate them in the public schools?
are you saying all the kids there are disabled?
I think he’s suggesting that different levels of needs require different levels of funding
“different levels of needs require different levels of funding” He could have said this. But still within the context of that there many needs around the district. Each of the elementary schools could use a reading tutor. Is learning to read less of a “need”?
Interesting “stretch”. from H Jackson’s generic comment to Jim H’s specific… Rancho Yolo… King High… there must be back stories there, but I don’t care to know what they are.
I try to be upfront on my prejudices… unions… against ‘professional’ ones… very skeptical. Teachers as a class are professionals… as individuals some are great/effective professionals,others are marginal.
Married a great/effective teacher.
My daughter taught high school in another school district and I know that several years ago all of the special needs children were ‘mainstreamed’ into the regular classes. Why couldn’t we be doing this in Davis? Imagine the facilities savings?
The backstory is simple even though you did not inquire. The RY were badly behaved at one point in time.
As far as the King issue it’s more simple. I am going to advocate for the best education for my children and I don’t really care what Don thinks about it.
If I had children with some severe disease and I advocated for resources for my children many on the Vanguard would think I was some kind of hero. Instead of have children in the normal range so people on The Vanguard think I am selfish to worry about my kids and I should be more concerned about “vulnerable” or “at-risk” or some other kids.
Not all “special needs” kids can be ‘mainstreamed’… not real… those than can, in my opinion, should be…
Funny though how some view ‘special needs’… that could include the whole spectrum of physical special needs, emotional special needs, cognitive special needs, mental health special needs…
GATE/AIM is based on a ‘special needs’ aegis.
All ‘special needs’ programs should tend to ‘mainstreaming’, but the outliers on the spectrum do need special assistance if they are to thrive, and/or ‘be the best they can be’.
Ultimately, once you graduate from HS, you will always always find yourself “mainstreamed”… for the rest of your life.
David… wish you were of the mind,
Parochial/private schools have as good, better results with a lot of ‘special needs’ kids, at less total funding than an average public school, for students with no special needs.
Special needs = more funding needed, is not an ‘equality’… if all the kids have serious medical/emotional/other needs, probably yes… but NOT an equation…
“David… wish you were of the mind,”
Meaning?
There are fewer special ed students in parochial/private schools because they are not obligated to make accommodations for them the way that public schools are.
If you control for socio-economic status, especially for parent education level, there is no indication that students on the whole perform better in parochial private schools.
To clarify: King High is only open to students are not successful through their sophomore year of high school. Many have learning and other disabilities. Most have at-risk factors. There is also, I believe, some state funding for this alternative high school. I’m pretty sure any attempt to dismantle it would be off the table, from all parties.
The 7-period day is paid for primarily by the parcel tax.
And it may be that you need to retain the teachers but look for consolidation in the the staff. Do we really need two Site Administrators for these few students? Patwin and Fairview share a principal, why not these schools?
There a lot of “at risk” kids in parochial schools… in Sacramento, in the region… and some in Davis… the classes my spouse taught had ~ 60% “at risk”… family and economic factors…
Howard, A very close relative teaches at a nearby Title 1 school. Her classes are full of At-Risk kids and they don’t get 4:1 either.
Yeah, the parochial school my spouse taught at was Title 1… her salary was 3/4 of similar DJUSD for same creds/experience at that time, but she was fully covered for medical… for herself… no dependents…
For DJUSD teachers, I’d support full funding for the employee, @ Kaiser rate… dependents/other plan, they’d make up the difference. Many/most teachers (but not all) are not sole providers for family income… families are an ‘option’ folk choose… but “cashing out” unused medical should not be an option… a grave mistake the City made… largely but not completely remedied…
Jim-You listed only 4 of the employees at Patwin. There are plenty more that that. You listed EVERY employee at King High (all of the teachers, administrators, and support staff and I don’t believe all staff is 100%. ). I suggest you post more accurate numbers before drawing a comparison.
I think Jim was actually comparing Fairfield Elementary to King High school to make a point. Fairfield shares some staff with Patwin Elementary, for instance, their principal, Gay Bourguignon.
Michelle, I used the staff directories on each schools website. I used Fairfield, not Patwin, due to their similar ADA
But what you didn’t use was FTE which makes your listing of staff useless unless you know how many full time positions there are at a given location.
The other problem here is that you are trying to address a major structural change (large scale salary increase) with marginal and efficiency based savings. That’s just not going to work. You have to find a major source of funding and reallocate. I disagree with Keith, but his suggestion on eliminating the 7th period is the only one here I have seen that has any chance of providing the amount of funding necessary to make major salary changes.
“But what you didn’t use was FTE which makes your listing of staff useless” Not useless but you use the data you have. Personnel assignment to school sites. is not irrelevant.
You on the other hand always want tax increases no matter what the issue is and have a long history of denying any data that does not support your pre-determined outcome.
We do not need, and likely cannot get, a tax increase. As others have observed we have average funding and a below average pay, the money is going somewhere. The solution to a leaky boat is to fix the leaks, not buy a more expensive bilge pump.
You have to use data that is accurate and you lack that right now
“We do not need, and likely cannot get, a tax increase. ”
Disagree on both counts. It’s been almost twenty years since the community and voted down a tax increase and they won’t vote down one funding teacher salary.
“You on the other hand always want tax increases no matter what the issue is ”
So you agree with this assessment.
It’s not worth arguing every point. I’m trying to push the conversation forward, you’re attempting to be confrontational.
As it is with most liberals.
Another thought… STRUCTURE of DJUSD pay schedules…
To me the structure is weird… Basically one classification, “teacher”. six ranges based on degrees/extra units… between 8-26 steps within a range. The latter based on tenure…
Have not been shown the correlation between teacher education, teacher tenure, and performance/effectiveness. [Ignore the union behind the screen… they don’t want to discuss those correlations, except, “of course a teacher with more creds, more experience, is better performing, more effective… we are professionals, trust us on this!”]. .
I’ve known engineers with degrees (BS and/or MS) from prestigious colleges and universities who were not as effective nor better performing that those who were HS grads who knew their stuff, including the ‘school’ of experience…
I’ve known professional folk where one might have 20 years of experience, and another, one year of experience, twenty times.
Bighuge difference in performance/effectiveness…Regardless of DTA union concerns, we need to compensate teachers, based on performance and/or effectiveness… not classes taken and passed, not on length of service. IF we do, I suspect we will attract all the good teachers we will need.
Folk will say “it is what it is”, and here I’ll agree with Tia about that phrase… but “it is what it is” because unions point out the best and brightest as exemplars, then demand that the average/mediocre, and “needs improvement” get the same compensation… a UBI gone awry.
“Regardless of DTA union concerns, we need to compensate teachers, based on performance and/or effectiveness… not classes taken and passed, not on length of service.”
That’s like saying hey if we change the whole system, we can change the way we pay people. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but that kind of goes beyond the scope of what the local district is going to be able to do.
Along similar lines do most city employees get paid more based on merits/ performance or longevity? Yes there are of course promotions, but there are in the school district as well.
In some structures it’s “up or out”. Might be a good model for the city though a certain base of institutional knowledge is also important.
Wrong attribution… your interpretation of the intent of a poster… poster… my bad.
Rest of my point remains…
No promotions in the teacher “class”… not the same at all…
Teachers can be ‘promoted’ to admin, but then they are no longer teachers… for many, it is a form of early, higher paid, ‘semi-retirement’…
City has no ‘merit based’… more is the pity… you either show enough to be re-classed, or you don’t. The city has 5 ranges for a given class… teachers have 8-25.
Longevity is a one time thing after 10-15 years… again, different. And I oppose ‘longevity’… doesn’t get to performance/effectiveness…
So a teacher can’t become a principal or administrator?
In the public sector, Jim, you either stay static or progress… the only “out” is “for cause”, or because an employee gets a better opportunity elsewhere…
“In the public sector, Jim, you either stay static or progress… the only “out” is “for cause”, or because an employee gets a better opportunity elsewhere…”
Then maybe eliminating seniority raises is a way of achieving the same goal
As David says, that’s well beyond the scope of what DJUSD is going to be able to do to change the system. Also, I’m not a teacher, but I do know many teachers and work at the community college level (I’m a science lab coordinator), and from what I’ve seen, it’s easy to talk about “pay for performance”, but it’s really hard to do well even without considering Union opposition. There aren’t easy metrics to assess actual teacher performance (simple student success rates won’t cut it, those have a *lot* of variables outside the teacher’s control.).
Furthermore, from what I’ve seen at the CC level, every effort to collect the kind of data that would be needed to tease apart those factors ends up forcing teachers to spend less time actually teaching and more time collecting data on their students, as well as creating new administrative and management positions at schools to analyze and report on that data. So even if we could instantly switch to that kind of system, I don’t see any way for it to be *less* expensive than the current one, which means the district likely wouldn’t be able to offer salaries that would attract high-performing teachers under such a system.
I think Brian Williams is largely correct there as well. Even if you re-structure how you pay the teachers, the problem is you’re not paying them enough and re-arranging the chairs isn’t going to change that.
Of the suggestions here, only the 7th Period Day one seems to have enough revenue to change things and I don’t think that’s going to fly in Davis.
So… what should DTA teachers be paid? What should their benefits be?
Be concrete.
What does DTA believe teachers should be paid? What should their benefits be?
Would be best if they were concrete.
To assist… http://www.djusd.net/file/1368364197149/1376109407723/3537537904339855210.pdf
pg 81…
I think we should aim to get it up to comparable district levels within a certain period of time.
Could you be a bit more concrete? Right now, looks like slurry to me… very weak, little/no substance
What are the comparable districts? Getting ‘it’ up… salary? total comp, including medical? retirement?, etc., what? What would be the %-age increase in total comp to achieve DTA’s or your goals?
What is a “reasonable” ‘certain period of time’? 1 yr, 3 yr, 5 yr, 10 yr?
You sure seem to be concerned on those matters as to the City…
But apparently, not on this matter…
Until we have a target, it is very difficult to aim… right now, all we have are hand-waving generalizations…
Well, we’re already at district levels for funding. What’s wrong with this picture?
We had a whole story on why that’s the case.
Nice dissemble… respond to Keith, ignore my questions… truly masterful. Bravo.
His was the last comment and I couldn’t see your on my phone
k…
So taxpayers have done their job, our district is average funded. It’s time for the DJUSD to do their job and give the teachers average pay.
The way I see it there are two choices – either the voters will have to increase funding or the district will have to reduce programs. I suspect I know what will end up happening.
So now all we need to do is list all the different tax increases that are going to be before the voters at the city, school district, and county levels in the next couple of election cycles, and assess whether the voters are likely to approve all of them.
To answer your question Howard, I can’t be more concrete without the data in front of me.
David,
You really do appear to avoid Howard P’s very legitimate questions:
What are comparable districts?
How for example do we stack up against Palo Alto or Rolling Hills (just to mention a couple of truly wealthy districts) in terms of per student funding received from the state/county???
Same statistics for total compensation in like positions in these same comparison districts.
Likewise, how many of these communities are needing to “import” out of district students owing to a declining “family rearing demographic” in their communities.
Do we have some really weird demographic set such that we are literally receiving less per student than some far wealthier communities? People might like to know. And Why?
By the same token, how much are some of these other districtis “taxing themselves” to help supplement their meager take from the state? How does Davis compare with some of the other communities in terms of additional parcel taxes?
This type of basic information might actually prove helpful to the district in attempting to persuade and justify any future request for additional funding assistance.
Good questions John D. That would be great information to know as long as the other cities/school districts aren’t cherrypicked.
John D: Why is it incumbent on me to answer that question, now? All I suggested was a framework, not an answer. And the btw, it doesn’t matter what I come up with now anyway, the district has to reach an agreement with the teachers.
John D. — Palo Alto Unified is a “basic aid” district. “‘Basic aid’ districts receive little state funding, because their revenue from local property taxes exceeds what they would receive under the Local Control Funding Formula.”
https://edsource.org/local-control-funding-formula-database/basic_aid.html
David… your 5:00 was a fair enough answer… by the same token, all that information will need to come forward before I’ll support an across-the board increase based on the generalizations presented thus far.
I seem to recall, as it relates to the City, which actually had comparison Cities listed in the public record, in the MOU’s, you and others pointed out, it doesn’t matter comparing other entities… it’s “what we can afford”. I also recall that several posters pointed to a problem where one entity pegs to the average (or above average), which thereby raises the average, and if other districts follow suit in their comparisons… think it is called the ‘ripple effect’.
Guess the right thing to do, is to wait and see what comparison districts are proposed, and on what basis… salary (& structure of salary tables), total comp, etc.
Don’s 4:59 post,
And his 5:19 post,
Here’s my prediction: as it has in the past, the city will sit on its hands until the DJUSD moves for an additional assessment proposal (after all, “it’s for the children” [whether or not they live in the DJUSD boundaries]); the City will be compelled to make major cuts in compensation and/or programs, as they are unable to put forward/pass a revenue measure to cut into its existing liabilities (even if City compensation is frozen in time for say, the next six years); DJUSD administrators and classified (non-certificated) will at least match (Administrators) or stay somewhere close (classified) to increases given the DTA folk. Just a prediction, based on past observations.
We’ll see…
Also note that DTA “demands” (their words) unspecified things, but from the accounts of that address, leading up to the word “demands”, that “it is difficult” for members to live in Davis.
They point out that they have been ‘working without a contract’ [since July 1?]… ok, same can be said about every City employee… point?
Just for the record, the 4:59 post was by David, but it doesn’t materially change your point. I agree, unfortunately, with your prediction.
Acknowledged… my error… you are correct, Don ….
I have a proposal…
Davis teachers get the median salary of Woodland and West Sac district… they get the median medical and other benefits of the other two [total comp would be at the median]… DJUSD gets compensation info onto Transparent CA to the same extent the City of Davis does… same for DJUSD retirees… DJUSD Admin/Mgt and classified employees are frozen to the same total comp increases the City staff get.
I could likely get behind that proposal…
I suspect DTA would reject that out-of hand… might be wrong…
BTW… “starting point” based on presentation by DTA supporters,as reported[on a non-agenda item]….
To clarify… Transparent CA is based in NV… it is a ‘for profit’ org.
The information they provide has errors… yet, there is nothing about DJUSD on their site… only Woodland and West Sac as to K-12 districts…
I find that ‘interesting’, if not ‘informative’… am wondering if DJUSD/DTA doesn’t want information “out there”…
Perhaps speaks also to David’s and others’ (including me) lack of data…
Unions don’t like data much, unless it supports their positions…
David… you wrote,
Would you help us understand what you mean as “large scale”? For district as a whole, or for individuals?
Given the way you framed it, the latter distinction is unclear… one relates to the size of revenue needed, the other relates to benefits to individuals…
I have don’t have exact data, but here’s an indicator. The teacher i quoted today mentioned that he was getting $2400 a month in take home pay. If he went to West Sac, he could get $600 more a month. That means his take home pay would increase from $2400 to $3000 a month or represent a 25 percent increase. That’s what we are looking at here. To get that without taxes increases would be a major reallocation of existing resources which you are not going to obtain on the margins.
Fair answer… thank you.
Am thinking my comment and your response should be copied over to the new (current) discussion… disclosing that it is a follow-up… just a thought…
Post your question to me and I’ll post my answer.
Every bit helps. A bunch of smaller cuts might all ad up to one big cut. Why not take on all savings we can?
You can spend a lot of time trying to create marginal savings that in the end may not make that much of a difference to the bottom line or you can attempt to make the hard choices and the tough decisions. I would prefer the latter. I just think we need to stop kidding ourselves – this is going to be painful one way or the other. Have the discussion now rather than trying to implement a bunch of small scale changes that may not net much.
I prefer BOTH… as you say you do on City matters…
Cut Admin costs at DJUSD; keep 7th period “on the table”; bring up total comp for teachers and other “line staff”. Figure out the best way to fund what’s left.
But in doing so, particularly with a 25% increase in teacher compensation you alluded to in the other thread, kiss a City parcel tax goodbye… still opine that the City will sit on their hands until DJUSD does their thing, and if their parcel tax will cover the increases you alluded to, a City parcel tax is DOA… but, no matter, “it’s for the kids”… even if some of the ‘kids’ don’t live in Davis…
7th period is specifically funded by the local school parcel tax. To cut it would violate the measure.
It would also degrade the quality of education. Many area districts added 7th periods to their programs coming out of the recent Great Recession, often using LCAP money.
Ahhh, the old Catch 22. Sorry homeowners, the parcel tax you recently agreed to can’t be used for teacher pay so we need more money from you.
Or you take the same level back to the voters with different spending priorities. Not a big deal.
Basic arithmetic lesson, By consolidating King and the Independent study school you save one principal and one administrative assistant as you really don;t need two principals and two secretaries for 170 kids. Total savings = $200K divided by 400 teaching positions that is a $500 per teacher increase right there.
We are spending more and getting less than comparable districts. We need to find out why that is.
You’re still only addressing the issue from the first level – a very cursory savings. You still have to factor in (2) work to produce the change, (3) impact of the savings on effectiveness of the program and (4) downside risks and opportunity costs.
My suggestion remains look at the big programmatic costs if you wish to avoid raising the parcel tax.
“Total savings = $200K divided by 400 teaching positions that is a $500 per teacher increase right there.”
It’s less than than when you consider CSEA and other support positions that would have to get increases as well. You’re cutting into a program that is working well now for extremely little upside.
Do not disdain the accumulation of small savings though $200K is not small. The big saving would come from closing a school site which is most likely o be accomplished by reducing transfers. However a lot more information is needed and the current board chair and superintendent are parent-hostile and prefer to keep everything a secret.
Until we get rid of Adams and Archer I don’t see the situation getting better.
The problem with small savings is that it is small, it is itself costly to implement, and it may end up being a wash when other factors are considered.
“You’re cutting into a program that is working well now for extremely little upside.” You have presented no evidence for either of those assertions.