Commentary: Steady Enrollment for Next Year?

Share:
At least based on the number of students enrollment for the fall, the district will basically have the same number of students next year as they did this year, after suffering a somewhat large decline from 2006-07.

The Davis Enterprise quoted Clark Bryant who is the director of curriculum and instructions.

“‘I wouldn’t want to get to the place yet where I’d say it’s good news,’ Bryant said. ‘But it does give some indication of stabilizing. However, the numbers do fluctuate over the summer. The time when it really counts is October, when we do the California Basic Education Data System assessment.’ That figure establishes the level of funding the school district will receive from the state.”

This coupled with the announcement earlier from Davis Demographics that enrollment would stabilize over the next ten years, suggests that perhaps the alarm folks were sounding in the early part of this year is not quite as alarming.

The question is really what is ideal in terms of enrollment. Obviously declining enrollment has serious drawbacks in terms of loss of revenue and ineligibility for certain matching funds for new buildings.

On the other hand, it is far from clear that increasing enrollment is ideal. Building new neighborhoods tends to lead to surge and decline cycles of increased enrollment but then a leveling off as the neighborhood ages. The pressure of the unequal building of schools and building too many new classrooms can lead to problems down the line as we have now discovered.

As we suggested a few months ago, it is not clear that rapidly growing cities have better schools than slower growing cities. In fact, you can look across the region and see various problems.

From that perspective, having a relatively stable number of students, if you can sustain it, might be ideal. The facilities would stay stable and need only upkeep and maintainence. Funding would be relatively stable and therefore not have serious fiscal impacts on the district.

There is another factor involved here and that is the declining enrollment statewide which has nothing to do with local land use policies.

The Davis Enterprise article mentions this:

“Currently, there is a demographic bulge of people in their late teens and early 20s – born in the late 1980s and early 1990s – who are finishing high school or attending college. UC Davis, for instance, is experiencing record enrollment, and the University of California and California State University systems are crowded.

As this demographic bulge graduates from college, and moves into their late 20s and early 30s – the peak child-bearing years – a gentle uptick in elementary school enrollment is expected in many California school districts, including Davis, starting in about eight years. “

These natural cycles of population are based on macro population characteristics. Davis may simply be a more extreme version of this exacerbated perhaps by its college town setting, higher home prices, and slower growth policies.

One thing that is more clear, is that building more neighborhoods has its own set of unintended consequences. For example, the building of Mace Ranch added students to the district temporarily and led to the pressure to open a new school. Promises made to the homeowners however, forced that new school to open to the detriment of other existing schools. And so Korematsu is indeed open now, but at the expense of the closing of Valley Oak.

In fact, if we look at the population growth from the late 1980s and 1990s, we see that it led to the opening of a new Junior High and two new elementary schools. These were just built five years ago. This year, until the board reversed course, we faced closing one Junior High and we already closed an Elementary School.

Some of this was based on the poor demographic work of the previous demographic consultant; however, some of it is due to the nature of relying on new housing to fund new schools. A lot of promises get made, but sometimes it causes more problems down the road.

Follow Up on Parcel Tax

I wanted to follow up on a few of the comments made in response to Saturday’s column. There are certainly programs and positions that can be cut in the district. However, the district looked pretty hard for easy cuts to make to get to originally $4.5 million, now perhaps $3 million. There were just not a lot of cuts. Some suggested a cheaper Superintendent, but it’s not clear how much cheaper the district could go and still be talking a reduction in the tens of thousands in spending, which is really a drop in the bucket. Likewise the climate coordinator position could be eliminated for some savings, but that would again be a small drop in the bucket. Regardless, you still need to make the tough cuts to get into the millions.

Second point is that the district does have an oversight committee. It is reasonable to ask whether it has the independence and the teeth to do the job. As someone mentioned in a post a lot of the school board members and some of the administrators read this blog, so if you have good suggestions on how to improve things, it would be helpful.

Third, some have suggested that no one is going to vote for another parcel tax. This is a district that stepped up in crisis to voluntarily raise $1.7 million. There will be just as much of a crisis next year as well if we do not pass a new parcel tax.

Fourth, I think Stan Forbes comments, which he had mentioned to me earlier in the year as well, are good ones that will facilitate passage. Tie the parcel tax to actual need and make it year-to-year on a need-by-need basis. I think that will inspire greater confidence.

The bottom line is I believe you can find $300,000 to $500,000 in things that are of questionable importance in the current budget, but the district looked very hard at finding $4.5 million and did not come close without painful cuts to facilities, staff, and programs. I just do not see another way around it. We must pass a parcel tax to help our schools.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

228 thoughts on “Commentary: Steady Enrollment for Next Year?”

  1. wdf

    Nice summary.

    Baki Tezcan wrote a nice op-ed piece in the Sunday Enterprise describing the history of Valley Oak Elementary. Mentioned was an earlier moment in Davis school history in which Central Davis Elementary closed (site of current district offices??), more or less at the moment that Pioneer Elementary opened, 40 to 50 years ago, it seems. In other words, this has happened before (opening a new elementary at the expense of an old one) in Davis. But it doesn’t justify irresponsible planning.

    Although DJUSD may have better enrollment numbers next year, it doesn’t attract more state dollars until the following year. State funding formulas lag a year behind current enrollments. Next year’s state funding to the district is based on average enrollment numbers in April — what the district calls “P2” numbers. That number for next year apparently is slightly better than last year, meaning better attendance averages this year.

    Stan Forbes’ (and others’) idea of a tie-in to the level of state funding addresses inconsistencies in state funds doesn’t address that there is still a structural deficit in the DJUSD budget. After the May revise, that structural deficit was something close $3 million. The district made more than a million in cuts this year, and DSF covered the other portion. That means that there is still at least $1.7 million to address in next year’s budget saga.

    Your commentary, DPD, suggests that some additional recovery is possible depending on how much enrollment rises next year. It will be important to quantify that amount.

  2. wdf

    Nice summary.

    Baki Tezcan wrote a nice op-ed piece in the Sunday Enterprise describing the history of Valley Oak Elementary. Mentioned was an earlier moment in Davis school history in which Central Davis Elementary closed (site of current district offices??), more or less at the moment that Pioneer Elementary opened, 40 to 50 years ago, it seems. In other words, this has happened before (opening a new elementary at the expense of an old one) in Davis. But it doesn’t justify irresponsible planning.

    Although DJUSD may have better enrollment numbers next year, it doesn’t attract more state dollars until the following year. State funding formulas lag a year behind current enrollments. Next year’s state funding to the district is based on average enrollment numbers in April — what the district calls “P2” numbers. That number for next year apparently is slightly better than last year, meaning better attendance averages this year.

    Stan Forbes’ (and others’) idea of a tie-in to the level of state funding addresses inconsistencies in state funds doesn’t address that there is still a structural deficit in the DJUSD budget. After the May revise, that structural deficit was something close $3 million. The district made more than a million in cuts this year, and DSF covered the other portion. That means that there is still at least $1.7 million to address in next year’s budget saga.

    Your commentary, DPD, suggests that some additional recovery is possible depending on how much enrollment rises next year. It will be important to quantify that amount.

  3. wdf

    Nice summary.

    Baki Tezcan wrote a nice op-ed piece in the Sunday Enterprise describing the history of Valley Oak Elementary. Mentioned was an earlier moment in Davis school history in which Central Davis Elementary closed (site of current district offices??), more or less at the moment that Pioneer Elementary opened, 40 to 50 years ago, it seems. In other words, this has happened before (opening a new elementary at the expense of an old one) in Davis. But it doesn’t justify irresponsible planning.

    Although DJUSD may have better enrollment numbers next year, it doesn’t attract more state dollars until the following year. State funding formulas lag a year behind current enrollments. Next year’s state funding to the district is based on average enrollment numbers in April — what the district calls “P2” numbers. That number for next year apparently is slightly better than last year, meaning better attendance averages this year.

    Stan Forbes’ (and others’) idea of a tie-in to the level of state funding addresses inconsistencies in state funds doesn’t address that there is still a structural deficit in the DJUSD budget. After the May revise, that structural deficit was something close $3 million. The district made more than a million in cuts this year, and DSF covered the other portion. That means that there is still at least $1.7 million to address in next year’s budget saga.

    Your commentary, DPD, suggests that some additional recovery is possible depending on how much enrollment rises next year. It will be important to quantify that amount.

  4. wdf

    Nice summary.

    Baki Tezcan wrote a nice op-ed piece in the Sunday Enterprise describing the history of Valley Oak Elementary. Mentioned was an earlier moment in Davis school history in which Central Davis Elementary closed (site of current district offices??), more or less at the moment that Pioneer Elementary opened, 40 to 50 years ago, it seems. In other words, this has happened before (opening a new elementary at the expense of an old one) in Davis. But it doesn’t justify irresponsible planning.

    Although DJUSD may have better enrollment numbers next year, it doesn’t attract more state dollars until the following year. State funding formulas lag a year behind current enrollments. Next year’s state funding to the district is based on average enrollment numbers in April — what the district calls “P2” numbers. That number for next year apparently is slightly better than last year, meaning better attendance averages this year.

    Stan Forbes’ (and others’) idea of a tie-in to the level of state funding addresses inconsistencies in state funds doesn’t address that there is still a structural deficit in the DJUSD budget. After the May revise, that structural deficit was something close $3 million. The district made more than a million in cuts this year, and DSF covered the other portion. That means that there is still at least $1.7 million to address in next year’s budget saga.

    Your commentary, DPD, suggests that some additional recovery is possible depending on how much enrollment rises next year. It will be important to quantify that amount.

  5. Anonymous

    Parcel tax? I think not unless the DJUSD clearly lays out how the money will be spent. No transparency, no support for a tax.

    wdf: . . site of current district offices??. .

    No, site of Teen Center/Central Park “South”.

  6. Anonymous

    Parcel tax? I think not unless the DJUSD clearly lays out how the money will be spent. No transparency, no support for a tax.

    wdf: . . site of current district offices??. .

    No, site of Teen Center/Central Park “South”.

  7. Anonymous

    Parcel tax? I think not unless the DJUSD clearly lays out how the money will be spent. No transparency, no support for a tax.

    wdf: . . site of current district offices??. .

    No, site of Teen Center/Central Park “South”.

  8. Anonymous

    Parcel tax? I think not unless the DJUSD clearly lays out how the money will be spent. No transparency, no support for a tax.

    wdf: . . site of current district offices??. .

    No, site of Teen Center/Central Park “South”.

  9. Doug Paul Davis

    The district is required by law to do exactly that. They laid out for the last parcel tax how the money would be spent. They would have to do it with the next one as well. They have an oversight board that oversees that spending.

  10. Doug Paul Davis

    The district is required by law to do exactly that. They laid out for the last parcel tax how the money would be spent. They would have to do it with the next one as well. They have an oversight board that oversees that spending.

  11. Doug Paul Davis

    The district is required by law to do exactly that. They laid out for the last parcel tax how the money would be spent. They would have to do it with the next one as well. They have an oversight board that oversees that spending.

  12. Doug Paul Davis

    The district is required by law to do exactly that. They laid out for the last parcel tax how the money would be spent. They would have to do it with the next one as well. They have an oversight board that oversees that spending.

  13. tax adds to home value

    The added value we all get in our home value is far greater than anything we’d pay in a parcel tax. While it is investing in our community, it is also an investment in our own equity, so a parcel tax is a good thing.

  14. tax adds to home value

    The added value we all get in our home value is far greater than anything we’d pay in a parcel tax. While it is investing in our community, it is also an investment in our own equity, so a parcel tax is a good thing.

  15. tax adds to home value

    The added value we all get in our home value is far greater than anything we’d pay in a parcel tax. While it is investing in our community, it is also an investment in our own equity, so a parcel tax is a good thing.

  16. tax adds to home value

    The added value we all get in our home value is far greater than anything we’d pay in a parcel tax. While it is investing in our community, it is also an investment in our own equity, so a parcel tax is a good thing.

  17. Jeremy

    As a member of the “demographic bulge” that is now in late teens/early twenties, I find it highly disturbing that I am going to be having children who attend the same elementary schools I did in eight years! O_O

  18. Jeremy

    As a member of the “demographic bulge” that is now in late teens/early twenties, I find it highly disturbing that I am going to be having children who attend the same elementary schools I did in eight years! O_O

  19. Jeremy

    As a member of the “demographic bulge” that is now in late teens/early twenties, I find it highly disturbing that I am going to be having children who attend the same elementary schools I did in eight years! O_O

  20. Jeremy

    As a member of the “demographic bulge” that is now in late teens/early twenties, I find it highly disturbing that I am going to be having children who attend the same elementary schools I did in eight years! O_O

  21. Don Shor

    “Third, some have suggested that no one is going to vote for another parcel tax.”

    Nobody said that. It will be difficult to get the super-majority required for a parcel tax. The combination of recent district history, closing of Valley Oak, the declining housing market, and a serious economic downturn will make this a tough sell.

  22. Don Shor

    “Third, some have suggested that no one is going to vote for another parcel tax.”

    Nobody said that. It will be difficult to get the super-majority required for a parcel tax. The combination of recent district history, closing of Valley Oak, the declining housing market, and a serious economic downturn will make this a tough sell.

  23. Don Shor

    “Third, some have suggested that no one is going to vote for another parcel tax.”

    Nobody said that. It will be difficult to get the super-majority required for a parcel tax. The combination of recent district history, closing of Valley Oak, the declining housing market, and a serious economic downturn will make this a tough sell.

  24. Don Shor

    “Third, some have suggested that no one is going to vote for another parcel tax.”

    Nobody said that. It will be difficult to get the super-majority required for a parcel tax. The combination of recent district history, closing of Valley Oak, the declining housing market, and a serious economic downturn will make this a tough sell.

  25. Black Bart

    How many interdistrict transfers have they allowed to make up for declining enrollment. While I support such transfers I think it is important to recognize that no growth policies are still causing declining enrollment and that is now being masked by interdistrict transfers. Neither you or the Enterprise have reported this number.

  26. Black Bart

    How many interdistrict transfers have they allowed to make up for declining enrollment. While I support such transfers I think it is important to recognize that no growth policies are still causing declining enrollment and that is now being masked by interdistrict transfers. Neither you or the Enterprise have reported this number.

  27. Black Bart

    How many interdistrict transfers have they allowed to make up for declining enrollment. While I support such transfers I think it is important to recognize that no growth policies are still causing declining enrollment and that is now being masked by interdistrict transfers. Neither you or the Enterprise have reported this number.

  28. Black Bart

    How many interdistrict transfers have they allowed to make up for declining enrollment. While I support such transfers I think it is important to recognize that no growth policies are still causing declining enrollment and that is now being masked by interdistrict transfers. Neither you or the Enterprise have reported this number.

  29. wdf

    “black bart said…

    How many interdistrict transfers have they allowed to make up for declining enrollment. While I support such transfers I think it is important to recognize that no growth policies are still causing declining enrollment and that is now being masked by interdistrict transfers. Neither you or the Enterprise have reported this number.”

    You can request that info through the district office. That is an easy piece of information for them to retrieve. I don’t know the exact number, but I remember some number slightly in excess of 100 interdistrict transfers being mentioned at board meetings. I think these are mostly children of adults who work in Davis (UCD or DJUSD for instance).

    The topic of city growth policy and and DJUSD enrollment has been discussed here in recent months. I think Mayor Greenwald summarized that additional developments may bring a pulse of students to schools in that area of Davis, but that it declines as the neighborhood ages, and then stabilizes as newer families trickle in. The point of the argument was that larger scale development is a short term solution w/ some long term negative consequences (the subsequent aging of the neighborhood) w/ respect to enrollment.

  30. wdf

    “black bart said…

    How many interdistrict transfers have they allowed to make up for declining enrollment. While I support such transfers I think it is important to recognize that no growth policies are still causing declining enrollment and that is now being masked by interdistrict transfers. Neither you or the Enterprise have reported this number.”

    You can request that info through the district office. That is an easy piece of information for them to retrieve. I don’t know the exact number, but I remember some number slightly in excess of 100 interdistrict transfers being mentioned at board meetings. I think these are mostly children of adults who work in Davis (UCD or DJUSD for instance).

    The topic of city growth policy and and DJUSD enrollment has been discussed here in recent months. I think Mayor Greenwald summarized that additional developments may bring a pulse of students to schools in that area of Davis, but that it declines as the neighborhood ages, and then stabilizes as newer families trickle in. The point of the argument was that larger scale development is a short term solution w/ some long term negative consequences (the subsequent aging of the neighborhood) w/ respect to enrollment.

  31. wdf

    “black bart said…

    How many interdistrict transfers have they allowed to make up for declining enrollment. While I support such transfers I think it is important to recognize that no growth policies are still causing declining enrollment and that is now being masked by interdistrict transfers. Neither you or the Enterprise have reported this number.”

    You can request that info through the district office. That is an easy piece of information for them to retrieve. I don’t know the exact number, but I remember some number slightly in excess of 100 interdistrict transfers being mentioned at board meetings. I think these are mostly children of adults who work in Davis (UCD or DJUSD for instance).

    The topic of city growth policy and and DJUSD enrollment has been discussed here in recent months. I think Mayor Greenwald summarized that additional developments may bring a pulse of students to schools in that area of Davis, but that it declines as the neighborhood ages, and then stabilizes as newer families trickle in. The point of the argument was that larger scale development is a short term solution w/ some long term negative consequences (the subsequent aging of the neighborhood) w/ respect to enrollment.

  32. wdf

    “black bart said…

    How many interdistrict transfers have they allowed to make up for declining enrollment. While I support such transfers I think it is important to recognize that no growth policies are still causing declining enrollment and that is now being masked by interdistrict transfers. Neither you or the Enterprise have reported this number.”

    You can request that info through the district office. That is an easy piece of information for them to retrieve. I don’t know the exact number, but I remember some number slightly in excess of 100 interdistrict transfers being mentioned at board meetings. I think these are mostly children of adults who work in Davis (UCD or DJUSD for instance).

    The topic of city growth policy and and DJUSD enrollment has been discussed here in recent months. I think Mayor Greenwald summarized that additional developments may bring a pulse of students to schools in that area of Davis, but that it declines as the neighborhood ages, and then stabilizes as newer families trickle in. The point of the argument was that larger scale development is a short term solution w/ some long term negative consequences (the subsequent aging of the neighborhood) w/ respect to enrollment.

  33. Rich Rifkin

    “Mentioned was an earlier moment in Davis school history in which Central Davis Elementary closed (site of current district offices??), more or less at the moment that Pioneer Elementary opened, 40 to 50 years ago, it seems.”

    If I recall correctly, the Central Davis School, which was on 3rd Street between B and C, was closed because it was rated to be seismically unsafe. It was built during World War I. Around the time Central closed, Davis was growing very fast and we added West Davis Intermediate and Pioneer on the peripheries. However, most of the kids who would have gone to Central instead went to NDE, which was also new.

    From the late 1950s to the early 1970s, Davis built the new high school campus (1960), Valley Oak, West Davis, Birch Lane, WDI, the old Emerson* and Holmes**.

    * The current DSIS and DJUSD headquarters used to be Emerson Junior High.

    ** The school board passed a resolution before Holmes was opened that all new schools had to be named for Supreme Court justices. However, after Holmes was built, no new schools, other than the new Emerson, opened for a long time. When Patwin was finally built, no one remembered that the district policy “required” all new schools to be named for Supreme Court justices. Antonin Scalia Elementary, anyone?

  34. Rich Rifkin

    “Mentioned was an earlier moment in Davis school history in which Central Davis Elementary closed (site of current district offices??), more or less at the moment that Pioneer Elementary opened, 40 to 50 years ago, it seems.”

    If I recall correctly, the Central Davis School, which was on 3rd Street between B and C, was closed because it was rated to be seismically unsafe. It was built during World War I. Around the time Central closed, Davis was growing very fast and we added West Davis Intermediate and Pioneer on the peripheries. However, most of the kids who would have gone to Central instead went to NDE, which was also new.

    From the late 1950s to the early 1970s, Davis built the new high school campus (1960), Valley Oak, West Davis, Birch Lane, WDI, the old Emerson* and Holmes**.

    * The current DSIS and DJUSD headquarters used to be Emerson Junior High.

    ** The school board passed a resolution before Holmes was opened that all new schools had to be named for Supreme Court justices. However, after Holmes was built, no new schools, other than the new Emerson, opened for a long time. When Patwin was finally built, no one remembered that the district policy “required” all new schools to be named for Supreme Court justices. Antonin Scalia Elementary, anyone?

  35. Rich Rifkin

    “Mentioned was an earlier moment in Davis school history in which Central Davis Elementary closed (site of current district offices??), more or less at the moment that Pioneer Elementary opened, 40 to 50 years ago, it seems.”

    If I recall correctly, the Central Davis School, which was on 3rd Street between B and C, was closed because it was rated to be seismically unsafe. It was built during World War I. Around the time Central closed, Davis was growing very fast and we added West Davis Intermediate and Pioneer on the peripheries. However, most of the kids who would have gone to Central instead went to NDE, which was also new.

    From the late 1950s to the early 1970s, Davis built the new high school campus (1960), Valley Oak, West Davis, Birch Lane, WDI, the old Emerson* and Holmes**.

    * The current DSIS and DJUSD headquarters used to be Emerson Junior High.

    ** The school board passed a resolution before Holmes was opened that all new schools had to be named for Supreme Court justices. However, after Holmes was built, no new schools, other than the new Emerson, opened for a long time. When Patwin was finally built, no one remembered that the district policy “required” all new schools to be named for Supreme Court justices. Antonin Scalia Elementary, anyone?

  36. Rich Rifkin

    “Mentioned was an earlier moment in Davis school history in which Central Davis Elementary closed (site of current district offices??), more or less at the moment that Pioneer Elementary opened, 40 to 50 years ago, it seems.”

    If I recall correctly, the Central Davis School, which was on 3rd Street between B and C, was closed because it was rated to be seismically unsafe. It was built during World War I. Around the time Central closed, Davis was growing very fast and we added West Davis Intermediate and Pioneer on the peripheries. However, most of the kids who would have gone to Central instead went to NDE, which was also new.

    From the late 1950s to the early 1970s, Davis built the new high school campus (1960), Valley Oak, West Davis, Birch Lane, WDI, the old Emerson* and Holmes**.

    * The current DSIS and DJUSD headquarters used to be Emerson Junior High.

    ** The school board passed a resolution before Holmes was opened that all new schools had to be named for Supreme Court justices. However, after Holmes was built, no new schools, other than the new Emerson, opened for a long time. When Patwin was finally built, no one remembered that the district policy “required” all new schools to be named for Supreme Court justices. Antonin Scalia Elementary, anyone?

  37. Pessimistic

    Many people in Davis are for slow-growth and not the rhetoric of no-growth that those who support growth allege.

    I think Davis needs to stop building so many schools and needs to realize that no matter how hard we try Disneyland is going to feel the pinch just like the rest of the state and the country.

    We live in a very affluent community and try hard to protect ourselves from the reality that other communities face. That is a good thing, but we also need to learn to tighten the belt.

    Sorry to be the one to say it, but the worst is yet to come.

    Water
    Schools
    Libraries
    Public Safety
    4th Fire Station (public safety)

    What more do they want to tax us for?

  38. Pessimistic

    Many people in Davis are for slow-growth and not the rhetoric of no-growth that those who support growth allege.

    I think Davis needs to stop building so many schools and needs to realize that no matter how hard we try Disneyland is going to feel the pinch just like the rest of the state and the country.

    We live in a very affluent community and try hard to protect ourselves from the reality that other communities face. That is a good thing, but we also need to learn to tighten the belt.

    Sorry to be the one to say it, but the worst is yet to come.

    Water
    Schools
    Libraries
    Public Safety
    4th Fire Station (public safety)

    What more do they want to tax us for?

  39. Pessimistic

    Many people in Davis are for slow-growth and not the rhetoric of no-growth that those who support growth allege.

    I think Davis needs to stop building so many schools and needs to realize that no matter how hard we try Disneyland is going to feel the pinch just like the rest of the state and the country.

    We live in a very affluent community and try hard to protect ourselves from the reality that other communities face. That is a good thing, but we also need to learn to tighten the belt.

    Sorry to be the one to say it, but the worst is yet to come.

    Water
    Schools
    Libraries
    Public Safety
    4th Fire Station (public safety)

    What more do they want to tax us for?

  40. Pessimistic

    Many people in Davis are for slow-growth and not the rhetoric of no-growth that those who support growth allege.

    I think Davis needs to stop building so many schools and needs to realize that no matter how hard we try Disneyland is going to feel the pinch just like the rest of the state and the country.

    We live in a very affluent community and try hard to protect ourselves from the reality that other communities face. That is a good thing, but we also need to learn to tighten the belt.

    Sorry to be the one to say it, but the worst is yet to come.

    Water
    Schools
    Libraries
    Public Safety
    4th Fire Station (public safety)

    What more do they want to tax us for?

  41. Sharla

    Rich,

    You are close to being correct.

    Central Elementary School was on the site of Central Park where the Farmer’s Market & Third&B is. This was torn down and all the kids in the neighborhood went to North Davis. It was a tiny school with a playground and no playing fields. My biggest recollection in visiting it (I had friends that went there and attended something) was that it had one big cloak room where all the kids hung their coats as they went into class from the playground.

    The District Office is on the site of former Davis Junior High School, then named Emerson Junior High when Holmes was built and the student body was split between the schools. (Having a Davis Junior High explains the Davis Senior High name for our high school, rather than just Davis High.)

    Valley Oak was built before way before Pioneer and was named Valley Oak to avoid the name “East Davis” Elementary School. In fact, Valley Oak is currently the oldest elementary school campus – built before West Davis and North Davis.

    West Davis was built to serve the children of the new developments in West Davis (West of B Street to Highway 113.) As Davis grew further West over the highway, West Davis Intermediate was built and served only 5th & 6th grades to relieve overcrowding at West Davis Elementary with only 1 classroom building and the office/multipurpose room. West Davis Elementary then continued to serve K-4th.

    Birch Lane was built to serve the students in the new development East of the cementary on Pole Line Road.

    I always wondered why the District didn’t follow the West Davis model with Korematsu – opening up a 5th-6th school and leaving Valley Oak or Birch Lane K-4th – rather than opening up a really small K-1 at Korematsu. It worked well for students of my generation. 6th graders especially were not really interested in interacting with younger students and it allowed some innovation with the schedule, more age appropriate school activities and a good transition to Junior High.

  42. Sharla

    Rich,

    You are close to being correct.

    Central Elementary School was on the site of Central Park where the Farmer’s Market & Third&B is. This was torn down and all the kids in the neighborhood went to North Davis. It was a tiny school with a playground and no playing fields. My biggest recollection in visiting it (I had friends that went there and attended something) was that it had one big cloak room where all the kids hung their coats as they went into class from the playground.

    The District Office is on the site of former Davis Junior High School, then named Emerson Junior High when Holmes was built and the student body was split between the schools. (Having a Davis Junior High explains the Davis Senior High name for our high school, rather than just Davis High.)

    Valley Oak was built before way before Pioneer and was named Valley Oak to avoid the name “East Davis” Elementary School. In fact, Valley Oak is currently the oldest elementary school campus – built before West Davis and North Davis.

    West Davis was built to serve the children of the new developments in West Davis (West of B Street to Highway 113.) As Davis grew further West over the highway, West Davis Intermediate was built and served only 5th & 6th grades to relieve overcrowding at West Davis Elementary with only 1 classroom building and the office/multipurpose room. West Davis Elementary then continued to serve K-4th.

    Birch Lane was built to serve the students in the new development East of the cementary on Pole Line Road.

    I always wondered why the District didn’t follow the West Davis model with Korematsu – opening up a 5th-6th school and leaving Valley Oak or Birch Lane K-4th – rather than opening up a really small K-1 at Korematsu. It worked well for students of my generation. 6th graders especially were not really interested in interacting with younger students and it allowed some innovation with the schedule, more age appropriate school activities and a good transition to Junior High.

  43. Sharla

    Rich,

    You are close to being correct.

    Central Elementary School was on the site of Central Park where the Farmer’s Market & Third&B is. This was torn down and all the kids in the neighborhood went to North Davis. It was a tiny school with a playground and no playing fields. My biggest recollection in visiting it (I had friends that went there and attended something) was that it had one big cloak room where all the kids hung their coats as they went into class from the playground.

    The District Office is on the site of former Davis Junior High School, then named Emerson Junior High when Holmes was built and the student body was split between the schools. (Having a Davis Junior High explains the Davis Senior High name for our high school, rather than just Davis High.)

    Valley Oak was built before way before Pioneer and was named Valley Oak to avoid the name “East Davis” Elementary School. In fact, Valley Oak is currently the oldest elementary school campus – built before West Davis and North Davis.

    West Davis was built to serve the children of the new developments in West Davis (West of B Street to Highway 113.) As Davis grew further West over the highway, West Davis Intermediate was built and served only 5th & 6th grades to relieve overcrowding at West Davis Elementary with only 1 classroom building and the office/multipurpose room. West Davis Elementary then continued to serve K-4th.

    Birch Lane was built to serve the students in the new development East of the cementary on Pole Line Road.

    I always wondered why the District didn’t follow the West Davis model with Korematsu – opening up a 5th-6th school and leaving Valley Oak or Birch Lane K-4th – rather than opening up a really small K-1 at Korematsu. It worked well for students of my generation. 6th graders especially were not really interested in interacting with younger students and it allowed some innovation with the schedule, more age appropriate school activities and a good transition to Junior High.

  44. Sharla

    Rich,

    You are close to being correct.

    Central Elementary School was on the site of Central Park where the Farmer’s Market & Third&B is. This was torn down and all the kids in the neighborhood went to North Davis. It was a tiny school with a playground and no playing fields. My biggest recollection in visiting it (I had friends that went there and attended something) was that it had one big cloak room where all the kids hung their coats as they went into class from the playground.

    The District Office is on the site of former Davis Junior High School, then named Emerson Junior High when Holmes was built and the student body was split between the schools. (Having a Davis Junior High explains the Davis Senior High name for our high school, rather than just Davis High.)

    Valley Oak was built before way before Pioneer and was named Valley Oak to avoid the name “East Davis” Elementary School. In fact, Valley Oak is currently the oldest elementary school campus – built before West Davis and North Davis.

    West Davis was built to serve the children of the new developments in West Davis (West of B Street to Highway 113.) As Davis grew further West over the highway, West Davis Intermediate was built and served only 5th & 6th grades to relieve overcrowding at West Davis Elementary with only 1 classroom building and the office/multipurpose room. West Davis Elementary then continued to serve K-4th.

    Birch Lane was built to serve the students in the new development East of the cementary on Pole Line Road.

    I always wondered why the District didn’t follow the West Davis model with Korematsu – opening up a 5th-6th school and leaving Valley Oak or Birch Lane K-4th – rather than opening up a really small K-1 at Korematsu. It worked well for students of my generation. 6th graders especially were not really interested in interacting with younger students and it allowed some innovation with the schedule, more age appropriate school activities and a good transition to Junior High.

  45. Pessimistic but hopeful

    Rich –

    You mentioned that the school was seismically unsafe. That is essentially what they are saying about Emerson.

    I’m curious what you and the others think about the school district letting the schools deteriorate so that they can say, “ooops we need to demolish and build another one.”

    DPD – Is the district required to have some sort of maintenance fund to keep the schools up to par?

    We’re facing demolition by neglect in the city with historical buildings and now it appears that it is happenning with schools.

    Just my observation.

  46. Pessimistic but hopeful

    Rich –

    You mentioned that the school was seismically unsafe. That is essentially what they are saying about Emerson.

    I’m curious what you and the others think about the school district letting the schools deteriorate so that they can say, “ooops we need to demolish and build another one.”

    DPD – Is the district required to have some sort of maintenance fund to keep the schools up to par?

    We’re facing demolition by neglect in the city with historical buildings and now it appears that it is happenning with schools.

    Just my observation.

  47. Pessimistic but hopeful

    Rich –

    You mentioned that the school was seismically unsafe. That is essentially what they are saying about Emerson.

    I’m curious what you and the others think about the school district letting the schools deteriorate so that they can say, “ooops we need to demolish and build another one.”

    DPD – Is the district required to have some sort of maintenance fund to keep the schools up to par?

    We’re facing demolition by neglect in the city with historical buildings and now it appears that it is happenning with schools.

    Just my observation.

  48. Pessimistic but hopeful

    Rich –

    You mentioned that the school was seismically unsafe. That is essentially what they are saying about Emerson.

    I’m curious what you and the others think about the school district letting the schools deteriorate so that they can say, “ooops we need to demolish and build another one.”

    DPD – Is the district required to have some sort of maintenance fund to keep the schools up to par?

    We’re facing demolition by neglect in the city with historical buildings and now it appears that it is happenning with schools.

    Just my observation.

  49. Richard

    Black Bart said…

    How many interdistrict transfers have they allowed to make up for declining enrollment. While I support such transfers I think it is important to recognize that no growth policies are still causing declining enrollment and that is now being masked by interdistrict transfers. Neither you or the Enterprise have reported this number.

    Lots of stories coming out about the agony of exurban and rural America as a consequence of foreclosures and high gas prices, with the NYT reporting that low wage rural workers are paying 15% of their income on gas alone.

    Perhaps, now is the time to think about providing for a future supply of housing in Davis, with the emphasis upon a mix that prioritizes the city’s economic self-sufficiency (homes and condos for service workers, UC staff, teachers and small business people) instead of chasing outsized profits associated with upper middle income gentrification?

    Residential segregation based upon class and income, facilitated by cheap oil for vehicle transportation and cheap land for home construction, is paradoxically emerging as both an economic AND environmental catastrophe.

    It would be great if Davis (and Sacramento as well!) could take the lead in the transition to a more sustainable urban setting. Otherwise, the horrible alternative will be wealthy people living near their jobs and schools, with poor people living in terrible conditions on the periphery. And, as is usually the case with such practical policies, there would be other ancillary benefits, like the stabilization of the quality of the schools contained in these cities.

    –Richard Estes

  50. Richard

    Black Bart said…

    How many interdistrict transfers have they allowed to make up for declining enrollment. While I support such transfers I think it is important to recognize that no growth policies are still causing declining enrollment and that is now being masked by interdistrict transfers. Neither you or the Enterprise have reported this number.

    Lots of stories coming out about the agony of exurban and rural America as a consequence of foreclosures and high gas prices, with the NYT reporting that low wage rural workers are paying 15% of their income on gas alone.

    Perhaps, now is the time to think about providing for a future supply of housing in Davis, with the emphasis upon a mix that prioritizes the city’s economic self-sufficiency (homes and condos for service workers, UC staff, teachers and small business people) instead of chasing outsized profits associated with upper middle income gentrification?

    Residential segregation based upon class and income, facilitated by cheap oil for vehicle transportation and cheap land for home construction, is paradoxically emerging as both an economic AND environmental catastrophe.

    It would be great if Davis (and Sacramento as well!) could take the lead in the transition to a more sustainable urban setting. Otherwise, the horrible alternative will be wealthy people living near their jobs and schools, with poor people living in terrible conditions on the periphery. And, as is usually the case with such practical policies, there would be other ancillary benefits, like the stabilization of the quality of the schools contained in these cities.

    –Richard Estes

  51. Richard

    Black Bart said…

    How many interdistrict transfers have they allowed to make up for declining enrollment. While I support such transfers I think it is important to recognize that no growth policies are still causing declining enrollment and that is now being masked by interdistrict transfers. Neither you or the Enterprise have reported this number.

    Lots of stories coming out about the agony of exurban and rural America as a consequence of foreclosures and high gas prices, with the NYT reporting that low wage rural workers are paying 15% of their income on gas alone.

    Perhaps, now is the time to think about providing for a future supply of housing in Davis, with the emphasis upon a mix that prioritizes the city’s economic self-sufficiency (homes and condos for service workers, UC staff, teachers and small business people) instead of chasing outsized profits associated with upper middle income gentrification?

    Residential segregation based upon class and income, facilitated by cheap oil for vehicle transportation and cheap land for home construction, is paradoxically emerging as both an economic AND environmental catastrophe.

    It would be great if Davis (and Sacramento as well!) could take the lead in the transition to a more sustainable urban setting. Otherwise, the horrible alternative will be wealthy people living near their jobs and schools, with poor people living in terrible conditions on the periphery. And, as is usually the case with such practical policies, there would be other ancillary benefits, like the stabilization of the quality of the schools contained in these cities.

    –Richard Estes

  52. Richard

    Black Bart said…

    How many interdistrict transfers have they allowed to make up for declining enrollment. While I support such transfers I think it is important to recognize that no growth policies are still causing declining enrollment and that is now being masked by interdistrict transfers. Neither you or the Enterprise have reported this number.

    Lots of stories coming out about the agony of exurban and rural America as a consequence of foreclosures and high gas prices, with the NYT reporting that low wage rural workers are paying 15% of their income on gas alone.

    Perhaps, now is the time to think about providing for a future supply of housing in Davis, with the emphasis upon a mix that prioritizes the city’s economic self-sufficiency (homes and condos for service workers, UC staff, teachers and small business people) instead of chasing outsized profits associated with upper middle income gentrification?

    Residential segregation based upon class and income, facilitated by cheap oil for vehicle transportation and cheap land for home construction, is paradoxically emerging as both an economic AND environmental catastrophe.

    It would be great if Davis (and Sacramento as well!) could take the lead in the transition to a more sustainable urban setting. Otherwise, the horrible alternative will be wealthy people living near their jobs and schools, with poor people living in terrible conditions on the periphery. And, as is usually the case with such practical policies, there would be other ancillary benefits, like the stabilization of the quality of the schools contained in these cities.

    –Richard Estes

  53. sharla

    pessimistic but hopeful –

    Central Davis was built at the dawn of time. It was really small and had no playing fields. Just look where it was – in the south half of Central Park between B & C and 3rd & 4th Streets.

    Emerson is not just seismically unsafe. Building codes have changed over the years and Emerson just doesn’t meet those codes now. The school has been well-maintained throughout the years, but needs some serious upgrading. Most, if not all, the schools in Davis have undergone this “modernization” to bring them up to code. Emerson’s modernization is just a little too expensive (too much needs to be done) and then we end up with a school that still has some serious flaws. I don’t think we need to start over completely, I like the idea of modernizing the gym and rebuilding the classroom buildings to hold costs down.

  54. sharla

    pessimistic but hopeful –

    Central Davis was built at the dawn of time. It was really small and had no playing fields. Just look where it was – in the south half of Central Park between B & C and 3rd & 4th Streets.

    Emerson is not just seismically unsafe. Building codes have changed over the years and Emerson just doesn’t meet those codes now. The school has been well-maintained throughout the years, but needs some serious upgrading. Most, if not all, the schools in Davis have undergone this “modernization” to bring them up to code. Emerson’s modernization is just a little too expensive (too much needs to be done) and then we end up with a school that still has some serious flaws. I don’t think we need to start over completely, I like the idea of modernizing the gym and rebuilding the classroom buildings to hold costs down.

  55. sharla

    pessimistic but hopeful –

    Central Davis was built at the dawn of time. It was really small and had no playing fields. Just look where it was – in the south half of Central Park between B & C and 3rd & 4th Streets.

    Emerson is not just seismically unsafe. Building codes have changed over the years and Emerson just doesn’t meet those codes now. The school has been well-maintained throughout the years, but needs some serious upgrading. Most, if not all, the schools in Davis have undergone this “modernization” to bring them up to code. Emerson’s modernization is just a little too expensive (too much needs to be done) and then we end up with a school that still has some serious flaws. I don’t think we need to start over completely, I like the idea of modernizing the gym and rebuilding the classroom buildings to hold costs down.

  56. sharla

    pessimistic but hopeful –

    Central Davis was built at the dawn of time. It was really small and had no playing fields. Just look where it was – in the south half of Central Park between B & C and 3rd & 4th Streets.

    Emerson is not just seismically unsafe. Building codes have changed over the years and Emerson just doesn’t meet those codes now. The school has been well-maintained throughout the years, but needs some serious upgrading. Most, if not all, the schools in Davis have undergone this “modernization” to bring them up to code. Emerson’s modernization is just a little too expensive (too much needs to be done) and then we end up with a school that still has some serious flaws. I don’t think we need to start over completely, I like the idea of modernizing the gym and rebuilding the classroom buildings to hold costs down.

  57. wdf

    “Pessimistic but hopeful said…
    Rich –

    You mentioned that the school was seismically unsafe. That is essentially what they are saying about Emerson.”

    At a recent board meeting, Mr. Reyes pointed out (and Jeff Hudson reported, I think) that most of the problems with Emerson were with meeting ADA (Americans w/ Disability Act) code. ADA was passed during the first Bush administration and Emerson opened up before then. I don’t remember any discussion of seismic deficiencies.

  58. wdf

    “Pessimistic but hopeful said…
    Rich –

    You mentioned that the school was seismically unsafe. That is essentially what they are saying about Emerson.”

    At a recent board meeting, Mr. Reyes pointed out (and Jeff Hudson reported, I think) that most of the problems with Emerson were with meeting ADA (Americans w/ Disability Act) code. ADA was passed during the first Bush administration and Emerson opened up before then. I don’t remember any discussion of seismic deficiencies.

  59. wdf

    “Pessimistic but hopeful said…
    Rich –

    You mentioned that the school was seismically unsafe. That is essentially what they are saying about Emerson.”

    At a recent board meeting, Mr. Reyes pointed out (and Jeff Hudson reported, I think) that most of the problems with Emerson were with meeting ADA (Americans w/ Disability Act) code. ADA was passed during the first Bush administration and Emerson opened up before then. I don’t remember any discussion of seismic deficiencies.

  60. wdf

    “Pessimistic but hopeful said…
    Rich –

    You mentioned that the school was seismically unsafe. That is essentially what they are saying about Emerson.”

    At a recent board meeting, Mr. Reyes pointed out (and Jeff Hudson reported, I think) that most of the problems with Emerson were with meeting ADA (Americans w/ Disability Act) code. ADA was passed during the first Bush administration and Emerson opened up before then. I don’t remember any discussion of seismic deficiencies.

  61. Black Bart

    Richard,

    You articulate the issues exactly.Sadly by reelecting the current council Davis is doomed to the status quo of giving the developers everything as Souza and Saylor tried to do with Covell Village or doing nothing which is what Greenwald can happily accomplish.

    The lack of a practical vision of how Davis should grow will define this community for years to come with declining enrollment and their associatd layoffs, gentrification and geriatricfication that causes property tax receipts to decline on a relative basis due to prop 13.

  62. Black Bart

    Richard,

    You articulate the issues exactly.Sadly by reelecting the current council Davis is doomed to the status quo of giving the developers everything as Souza and Saylor tried to do with Covell Village or doing nothing which is what Greenwald can happily accomplish.

    The lack of a practical vision of how Davis should grow will define this community for years to come with declining enrollment and their associatd layoffs, gentrification and geriatricfication that causes property tax receipts to decline on a relative basis due to prop 13.

  63. Black Bart

    Richard,

    You articulate the issues exactly.Sadly by reelecting the current council Davis is doomed to the status quo of giving the developers everything as Souza and Saylor tried to do with Covell Village or doing nothing which is what Greenwald can happily accomplish.

    The lack of a practical vision of how Davis should grow will define this community for years to come with declining enrollment and their associatd layoffs, gentrification and geriatricfication that causes property tax receipts to decline on a relative basis due to prop 13.

  64. Black Bart

    Richard,

    You articulate the issues exactly.Sadly by reelecting the current council Davis is doomed to the status quo of giving the developers everything as Souza and Saylor tried to do with Covell Village or doing nothing which is what Greenwald can happily accomplish.

    The lack of a practical vision of how Davis should grow will define this community for years to come with declining enrollment and their associatd layoffs, gentrification and geriatricfication that causes property tax receipts to decline on a relative basis due to prop 13.

  65. wdf

    On Tuesday, May 27, DPD posted a blog article, “Schools Across the Region Still Face Budget Problems”.

    “former teacher” posted this comment to that article:

    “Why not find out why Woodland is managing their fiscal budget better than Davis? No one is suggesting we become just like Woodland. The needs of our students are drastically different – since many Davis students come from parents with advanced degrees.

    However, Woodland must be doing something right, in that they are not going to have to lay off a single teacher. I want to find out how they did it. Wouldn’t you like to know? If not, then you are turning a blind eye to the fiscal mismanagement that has been going on in the Davis schools for years. It has finally hit home – and hard. We ignore it at our peril.”

    Although I didn’t originally ask it, I submitted this question (what is going on in Woodland that they are not experiencing the budget hardships that we are) to every school board trustee, and Bruce Colby answered the question in last Thursday’s board meeting.

    If you want to see for yourself what Colby said in that meeting, go to

    http://www.djusd.tv/Programs/Board%20Streaming.htm

    Click on the June 5 meeting, and start watching about 48:15 minutes in. This is something that Jeff Hudson didn’t specifically report in the Enterprise, but which is relevant to understanding why DJUSD is in its current situation. If you follow the entire agenda topic (which starts earlier), you get probably the best overview that I have yet heard about what is going on w/ the DJUSD budget.

    My point here, also, is that this is an accessible democracy. I’ve been watching board members bend over backwards in recent meetings to be clear and transparent over what is going on. This stuff is complicated, dry as dust, but it is not as mysterious a process (budgeting) if you are willing to take the time to ask questions.

    In summary, Woodland runs a district for a different population of students (more lower income) and get more federal funds to cover that. Woodland right now is currently doing what Davis did two and three years ago. They are spending into their reserves. If Woodland JUSD keeps that up for a couple of years or more, residents in Woodland could be asking the very same question about Davis (why is DJUSD not having the problems that we are?).

    The current DJUSD structural deficit did not suddenly appear this year. It has existed for the past 2-3 years. The district was able to cover it by spending reserve money. That reserve money is no longer available to us.

    Keep in mind that this policy (spending into reserves) was taking place before Bruce Colby or Hammond showed up.

  66. wdf

    On Tuesday, May 27, DPD posted a blog article, “Schools Across the Region Still Face Budget Problems”.

    “former teacher” posted this comment to that article:

    “Why not find out why Woodland is managing their fiscal budget better than Davis? No one is suggesting we become just like Woodland. The needs of our students are drastically different – since many Davis students come from parents with advanced degrees.

    However, Woodland must be doing something right, in that they are not going to have to lay off a single teacher. I want to find out how they did it. Wouldn’t you like to know? If not, then you are turning a blind eye to the fiscal mismanagement that has been going on in the Davis schools for years. It has finally hit home – and hard. We ignore it at our peril.”

    Although I didn’t originally ask it, I submitted this question (what is going on in Woodland that they are not experiencing the budget hardships that we are) to every school board trustee, and Bruce Colby answered the question in last Thursday’s board meeting.

    If you want to see for yourself what Colby said in that meeting, go to

    http://www.djusd.tv/Programs/Board%20Streaming.htm

    Click on the June 5 meeting, and start watching about 48:15 minutes in. This is something that Jeff Hudson didn’t specifically report in the Enterprise, but which is relevant to understanding why DJUSD is in its current situation. If you follow the entire agenda topic (which starts earlier), you get probably the best overview that I have yet heard about what is going on w/ the DJUSD budget.

    My point here, also, is that this is an accessible democracy. I’ve been watching board members bend over backwards in recent meetings to be clear and transparent over what is going on. This stuff is complicated, dry as dust, but it is not as mysterious a process (budgeting) if you are willing to take the time to ask questions.

    In summary, Woodland runs a district for a different population of students (more lower income) and get more federal funds to cover that. Woodland right now is currently doing what Davis did two and three years ago. They are spending into their reserves. If Woodland JUSD keeps that up for a couple of years or more, residents in Woodland could be asking the very same question about Davis (why is DJUSD not having the problems that we are?).

    The current DJUSD structural deficit did not suddenly appear this year. It has existed for the past 2-3 years. The district was able to cover it by spending reserve money. That reserve money is no longer available to us.

    Keep in mind that this policy (spending into reserves) was taking place before Bruce Colby or Hammond showed up.

  67. wdf

    On Tuesday, May 27, DPD posted a blog article, “Schools Across the Region Still Face Budget Problems”.

    “former teacher” posted this comment to that article:

    “Why not find out why Woodland is managing their fiscal budget better than Davis? No one is suggesting we become just like Woodland. The needs of our students are drastically different – since many Davis students come from parents with advanced degrees.

    However, Woodland must be doing something right, in that they are not going to have to lay off a single teacher. I want to find out how they did it. Wouldn’t you like to know? If not, then you are turning a blind eye to the fiscal mismanagement that has been going on in the Davis schools for years. It has finally hit home – and hard. We ignore it at our peril.”

    Although I didn’t originally ask it, I submitted this question (what is going on in Woodland that they are not experiencing the budget hardships that we are) to every school board trustee, and Bruce Colby answered the question in last Thursday’s board meeting.

    If you want to see for yourself what Colby said in that meeting, go to

    http://www.djusd.tv/Programs/Board%20Streaming.htm

    Click on the June 5 meeting, and start watching about 48:15 minutes in. This is something that Jeff Hudson didn’t specifically report in the Enterprise, but which is relevant to understanding why DJUSD is in its current situation. If you follow the entire agenda topic (which starts earlier), you get probably the best overview that I have yet heard about what is going on w/ the DJUSD budget.

    My point here, also, is that this is an accessible democracy. I’ve been watching board members bend over backwards in recent meetings to be clear and transparent over what is going on. This stuff is complicated, dry as dust, but it is not as mysterious a process (budgeting) if you are willing to take the time to ask questions.

    In summary, Woodland runs a district for a different population of students (more lower income) and get more federal funds to cover that. Woodland right now is currently doing what Davis did two and three years ago. They are spending into their reserves. If Woodland JUSD keeps that up for a couple of years or more, residents in Woodland could be asking the very same question about Davis (why is DJUSD not having the problems that we are?).

    The current DJUSD structural deficit did not suddenly appear this year. It has existed for the past 2-3 years. The district was able to cover it by spending reserve money. That reserve money is no longer available to us.

    Keep in mind that this policy (spending into reserves) was taking place before Bruce Colby or Hammond showed up.

  68. wdf

    On Tuesday, May 27, DPD posted a blog article, “Schools Across the Region Still Face Budget Problems”.

    “former teacher” posted this comment to that article:

    “Why not find out why Woodland is managing their fiscal budget better than Davis? No one is suggesting we become just like Woodland. The needs of our students are drastically different – since many Davis students come from parents with advanced degrees.

    However, Woodland must be doing something right, in that they are not going to have to lay off a single teacher. I want to find out how they did it. Wouldn’t you like to know? If not, then you are turning a blind eye to the fiscal mismanagement that has been going on in the Davis schools for years. It has finally hit home – and hard. We ignore it at our peril.”

    Although I didn’t originally ask it, I submitted this question (what is going on in Woodland that they are not experiencing the budget hardships that we are) to every school board trustee, and Bruce Colby answered the question in last Thursday’s board meeting.

    If you want to see for yourself what Colby said in that meeting, go to

    http://www.djusd.tv/Programs/Board%20Streaming.htm

    Click on the June 5 meeting, and start watching about 48:15 minutes in. This is something that Jeff Hudson didn’t specifically report in the Enterprise, but which is relevant to understanding why DJUSD is in its current situation. If you follow the entire agenda topic (which starts earlier), you get probably the best overview that I have yet heard about what is going on w/ the DJUSD budget.

    My point here, also, is that this is an accessible democracy. I’ve been watching board members bend over backwards in recent meetings to be clear and transparent over what is going on. This stuff is complicated, dry as dust, but it is not as mysterious a process (budgeting) if you are willing to take the time to ask questions.

    In summary, Woodland runs a district for a different population of students (more lower income) and get more federal funds to cover that. Woodland right now is currently doing what Davis did two and three years ago. They are spending into their reserves. If Woodland JUSD keeps that up for a couple of years or more, residents in Woodland could be asking the very same question about Davis (why is DJUSD not having the problems that we are?).

    The current DJUSD structural deficit did not suddenly appear this year. It has existed for the past 2-3 years. The district was able to cover it by spending reserve money. That reserve money is no longer available to us.

    Keep in mind that this policy (spending into reserves) was taking place before Bruce Colby or Hammond showed up.

  69. Richard

    Woodland right now is currently doing what Davis did two and three years ago. They are spending into their reserves. If Woodland JUSD keeps that up for a couple of years or more, residents in Woodland could be asking the very same question about Davis (why is DJUSD not having the problems that we are?).

    It is possible that time will prove you correct, but observe, DJUSD spent into reserves while the economy was doing well, a alarm bell of financial distress, while Woodland is currently spending reserves during an economic slowdown, and probably recession in this state, which is one of the reasons that you maintain reserves to smooth out the business cycle so that you can maintain a consistent educational program.

    Could this slowdown get worse, resulting in serious problems for Woodland? Could the district’s reserves be inadequate? Sure, but then, imagine, what it will be like in Davis, where the reserves were spent prior to the downturn.

    Or, to put it differently, no, Woodland and the DJUSD aren’t doing the same thing at all. Unless you happen to believe that putting on an overcoat when it is 90 degrees is the same as putting one on when it is 26 degrees.

    –Richard Estes

  70. Richard

    Woodland right now is currently doing what Davis did two and three years ago. They are spending into their reserves. If Woodland JUSD keeps that up for a couple of years or more, residents in Woodland could be asking the very same question about Davis (why is DJUSD not having the problems that we are?).

    It is possible that time will prove you correct, but observe, DJUSD spent into reserves while the economy was doing well, a alarm bell of financial distress, while Woodland is currently spending reserves during an economic slowdown, and probably recession in this state, which is one of the reasons that you maintain reserves to smooth out the business cycle so that you can maintain a consistent educational program.

    Could this slowdown get worse, resulting in serious problems for Woodland? Could the district’s reserves be inadequate? Sure, but then, imagine, what it will be like in Davis, where the reserves were spent prior to the downturn.

    Or, to put it differently, no, Woodland and the DJUSD aren’t doing the same thing at all. Unless you happen to believe that putting on an overcoat when it is 90 degrees is the same as putting one on when it is 26 degrees.

    –Richard Estes

  71. Richard

    Woodland right now is currently doing what Davis did two and three years ago. They are spending into their reserves. If Woodland JUSD keeps that up for a couple of years or more, residents in Woodland could be asking the very same question about Davis (why is DJUSD not having the problems that we are?).

    It is possible that time will prove you correct, but observe, DJUSD spent into reserves while the economy was doing well, a alarm bell of financial distress, while Woodland is currently spending reserves during an economic slowdown, and probably recession in this state, which is one of the reasons that you maintain reserves to smooth out the business cycle so that you can maintain a consistent educational program.

    Could this slowdown get worse, resulting in serious problems for Woodland? Could the district’s reserves be inadequate? Sure, but then, imagine, what it will be like in Davis, where the reserves were spent prior to the downturn.

    Or, to put it differently, no, Woodland and the DJUSD aren’t doing the same thing at all. Unless you happen to believe that putting on an overcoat when it is 90 degrees is the same as putting one on when it is 26 degrees.

    –Richard Estes

  72. Richard

    Woodland right now is currently doing what Davis did two and three years ago. They are spending into their reserves. If Woodland JUSD keeps that up for a couple of years or more, residents in Woodland could be asking the very same question about Davis (why is DJUSD not having the problems that we are?).

    It is possible that time will prove you correct, but observe, DJUSD spent into reserves while the economy was doing well, a alarm bell of financial distress, while Woodland is currently spending reserves during an economic slowdown, and probably recession in this state, which is one of the reasons that you maintain reserves to smooth out the business cycle so that you can maintain a consistent educational program.

    Could this slowdown get worse, resulting in serious problems for Woodland? Could the district’s reserves be inadequate? Sure, but then, imagine, what it will be like in Davis, where the reserves were spent prior to the downturn.

    Or, to put it differently, no, Woodland and the DJUSD aren’t doing the same thing at all. Unless you happen to believe that putting on an overcoat when it is 90 degrees is the same as putting one on when it is 26 degrees.

    –Richard Estes

  73. wdf

    “Black Bart said…

    The lack of a practical vision of how Davis should grow will define this community for years to come with declining enrollment and their associatd layoffs, gentrification and geriatricfication that causes property tax receipts to decline on a relative basis due to prop 13.”

    This comment motivates me to ask, how much senior outflow is there from Davis? In other words, if a couple raises their kids in Davis, watches them graduate and move off, then that couple might be retired by this point, left with a bigger house than they need that’s probably worth a lot of money to them. They could be motivated to sell the house, take the money and move somewhere else that might be cheaper. That generates housing stock for new families to move in. How much of that (senior outflow) goes on in Davis?

  74. wdf

    “Black Bart said…

    The lack of a practical vision of how Davis should grow will define this community for years to come with declining enrollment and their associatd layoffs, gentrification and geriatricfication that causes property tax receipts to decline on a relative basis due to prop 13.”

    This comment motivates me to ask, how much senior outflow is there from Davis? In other words, if a couple raises their kids in Davis, watches them graduate and move off, then that couple might be retired by this point, left with a bigger house than they need that’s probably worth a lot of money to them. They could be motivated to sell the house, take the money and move somewhere else that might be cheaper. That generates housing stock for new families to move in. How much of that (senior outflow) goes on in Davis?

  75. wdf

    “Black Bart said…

    The lack of a practical vision of how Davis should grow will define this community for years to come with declining enrollment and their associatd layoffs, gentrification and geriatricfication that causes property tax receipts to decline on a relative basis due to prop 13.”

    This comment motivates me to ask, how much senior outflow is there from Davis? In other words, if a couple raises their kids in Davis, watches them graduate and move off, then that couple might be retired by this point, left with a bigger house than they need that’s probably worth a lot of money to them. They could be motivated to sell the house, take the money and move somewhere else that might be cheaper. That generates housing stock for new families to move in. How much of that (senior outflow) goes on in Davis?

  76. wdf

    “Black Bart said…

    The lack of a practical vision of how Davis should grow will define this community for years to come with declining enrollment and their associatd layoffs, gentrification and geriatricfication that causes property tax receipts to decline on a relative basis due to prop 13.”

    This comment motivates me to ask, how much senior outflow is there from Davis? In other words, if a couple raises their kids in Davis, watches them graduate and move off, then that couple might be retired by this point, left with a bigger house than they need that’s probably worth a lot of money to them. They could be motivated to sell the house, take the money and move somewhere else that might be cheaper. That generates housing stock for new families to move in. How much of that (senior outflow) goes on in Davis?

  77. wdf

    “Richard said…

    Or, to put it differently, no, Woodland and the DJUSD aren’t doing the same thing at all. Unless you happen to believe that putting on an overcoat when it is 90 degrees is the same as putting one on when it is 26 degrees.”

    I take your point. I can’t defend why that was done 2-3 years ago. I only note that, in the midst of all the criticism we dish out, the current district staff is responsibly working to correct what should have been fixed before now.

  78. wdf

    “Richard said…

    Or, to put it differently, no, Woodland and the DJUSD aren’t doing the same thing at all. Unless you happen to believe that putting on an overcoat when it is 90 degrees is the same as putting one on when it is 26 degrees.”

    I take your point. I can’t defend why that was done 2-3 years ago. I only note that, in the midst of all the criticism we dish out, the current district staff is responsibly working to correct what should have been fixed before now.

  79. wdf

    “Richard said…

    Or, to put it differently, no, Woodland and the DJUSD aren’t doing the same thing at all. Unless you happen to believe that putting on an overcoat when it is 90 degrees is the same as putting one on when it is 26 degrees.”

    I take your point. I can’t defend why that was done 2-3 years ago. I only note that, in the midst of all the criticism we dish out, the current district staff is responsibly working to correct what should have been fixed before now.

  80. wdf

    “Richard said…

    Or, to put it differently, no, Woodland and the DJUSD aren’t doing the same thing at all. Unless you happen to believe that putting on an overcoat when it is 90 degrees is the same as putting one on when it is 26 degrees.”

    I take your point. I can’t defend why that was done 2-3 years ago. I only note that, in the midst of all the criticism we dish out, the current district staff is responsibly working to correct what should have been fixed before now.

  81. prop 98

    “Woodland is currently spending reserves during an economic slowdown, and probably recession in this state, which is one of the reasons that you maintain reserves to smooth out the business cycle so that you can maintain a consistent educational program.”

    The Prop 98 guarantee means the cycle you refer to does not hit schools the way it hits other parts of the economy. The Woodland district finances should be stable to slightly growing if they have a stable student population, regardless of the state of the economy. So spending into reserves doesn’t make any more sense there than it does here.

  82. prop 98

    “Woodland is currently spending reserves during an economic slowdown, and probably recession in this state, which is one of the reasons that you maintain reserves to smooth out the business cycle so that you can maintain a consistent educational program.”

    The Prop 98 guarantee means the cycle you refer to does not hit schools the way it hits other parts of the economy. The Woodland district finances should be stable to slightly growing if they have a stable student population, regardless of the state of the economy. So spending into reserves doesn’t make any more sense there than it does here.

  83. prop 98

    “Woodland is currently spending reserves during an economic slowdown, and probably recession in this state, which is one of the reasons that you maintain reserves to smooth out the business cycle so that you can maintain a consistent educational program.”

    The Prop 98 guarantee means the cycle you refer to does not hit schools the way it hits other parts of the economy. The Woodland district finances should be stable to slightly growing if they have a stable student population, regardless of the state of the economy. So spending into reserves doesn’t make any more sense there than it does here.

  84. prop 98

    “Woodland is currently spending reserves during an economic slowdown, and probably recession in this state, which is one of the reasons that you maintain reserves to smooth out the business cycle so that you can maintain a consistent educational program.”

    The Prop 98 guarantee means the cycle you refer to does not hit schools the way it hits other parts of the economy. The Woodland district finances should be stable to slightly growing if they have a stable student population, regardless of the state of the economy. So spending into reserves doesn’t make any more sense there than it does here.

  85. Alger Hiss

    Woodland has had the same business manager for many many years. It makes a difference when your business manager abandons their fiduciary responsibilities to start their own consulting business. This school board and the last one, the one that got Jim Provenza his big promotion, started to clean up the fiscal mess left over from people who have moved on to greener pastures. WDF I didn’t notice this in your comments about the presentation at the school board, was it included?

  86. Alger Hiss

    Woodland has had the same business manager for many many years. It makes a difference when your business manager abandons their fiduciary responsibilities to start their own consulting business. This school board and the last one, the one that got Jim Provenza his big promotion, started to clean up the fiscal mess left over from people who have moved on to greener pastures. WDF I didn’t notice this in your comments about the presentation at the school board, was it included?

  87. Alger Hiss

    Woodland has had the same business manager for many many years. It makes a difference when your business manager abandons their fiduciary responsibilities to start their own consulting business. This school board and the last one, the one that got Jim Provenza his big promotion, started to clean up the fiscal mess left over from people who have moved on to greener pastures. WDF I didn’t notice this in your comments about the presentation at the school board, was it included?

  88. Alger Hiss

    Woodland has had the same business manager for many many years. It makes a difference when your business manager abandons their fiduciary responsibilities to start their own consulting business. This school board and the last one, the one that got Jim Provenza his big promotion, started to clean up the fiscal mess left over from people who have moved on to greener pastures. WDF I didn’t notice this in your comments about the presentation at the school board, was it included?

  89. Rich Rifkin

    SHARLA: “West Davis Intermediate was built and served only 5th & 6th grades to relieve overcrowding at West Davis Elementary with only 1 classroom building and the office/multipurpose room. West Davis Elementary then continued to serve K-4th.”

    WDI was 4-6. WDE, which started as K-6, became K-3 after WDI opened. I attened both of those schools in that same configuration. Bob Willett, who was not my teacher, was a 6th grade teacher at WDI when I was a kid. Judy Davis, who just retired as the principal at North Davis was then a teacher at WDI. (I think her last name then was Brock or Bach; I didn’t have her.) She was very close with — I think dating — another 6th grade teacher at WDI, Mr. Stone, who left teaching to start a tennis and ski shop in the Lucky’s Shopping Center (now called Anderson Plaza), which of course was the Anderson family’s ranch when I was a wee boy and we rode horses, there.

  90. Rich Rifkin

    SHARLA: “West Davis Intermediate was built and served only 5th & 6th grades to relieve overcrowding at West Davis Elementary with only 1 classroom building and the office/multipurpose room. West Davis Elementary then continued to serve K-4th.”

    WDI was 4-6. WDE, which started as K-6, became K-3 after WDI opened. I attened both of those schools in that same configuration. Bob Willett, who was not my teacher, was a 6th grade teacher at WDI when I was a kid. Judy Davis, who just retired as the principal at North Davis was then a teacher at WDI. (I think her last name then was Brock or Bach; I didn’t have her.) She was very close with — I think dating — another 6th grade teacher at WDI, Mr. Stone, who left teaching to start a tennis and ski shop in the Lucky’s Shopping Center (now called Anderson Plaza), which of course was the Anderson family’s ranch when I was a wee boy and we rode horses, there.

  91. Rich Rifkin

    SHARLA: “West Davis Intermediate was built and served only 5th & 6th grades to relieve overcrowding at West Davis Elementary with only 1 classroom building and the office/multipurpose room. West Davis Elementary then continued to serve K-4th.”

    WDI was 4-6. WDE, which started as K-6, became K-3 after WDI opened. I attened both of those schools in that same configuration. Bob Willett, who was not my teacher, was a 6th grade teacher at WDI when I was a kid. Judy Davis, who just retired as the principal at North Davis was then a teacher at WDI. (I think her last name then was Brock or Bach; I didn’t have her.) She was very close with — I think dating — another 6th grade teacher at WDI, Mr. Stone, who left teaching to start a tennis and ski shop in the Lucky’s Shopping Center (now called Anderson Plaza), which of course was the Anderson family’s ranch when I was a wee boy and we rode horses, there.

  92. Rich Rifkin

    SHARLA: “West Davis Intermediate was built and served only 5th & 6th grades to relieve overcrowding at West Davis Elementary with only 1 classroom building and the office/multipurpose room. West Davis Elementary then continued to serve K-4th.”

    WDI was 4-6. WDE, which started as K-6, became K-3 after WDI opened. I attened both of those schools in that same configuration. Bob Willett, who was not my teacher, was a 6th grade teacher at WDI when I was a kid. Judy Davis, who just retired as the principal at North Davis was then a teacher at WDI. (I think her last name then was Brock or Bach; I didn’t have her.) She was very close with — I think dating — another 6th grade teacher at WDI, Mr. Stone, who left teaching to start a tennis and ski shop in the Lucky’s Shopping Center (now called Anderson Plaza), which of course was the Anderson family’s ranch when I was a wee boy and we rode horses, there.

  93. Rich Rifkin

    One more thing about Central Davis Elementary School: it was not the first school on that site. I think it was the second or third, the others succumbing to fires, which were common and devastating to Davis prior to the incorporation of the city in 1917…. An old woman I know who lives in Woodland (about whom I once wrote a column) was a student at that school during WWI. She attended both the older version which burned down and the one that lasted into the 1960s until it was torn down. Her teacher was a very young Marguerite Montgomery. Bob Dunning, who is about 40-45 years younger than my friend in Woodland, had Miss Montgomery as his teacher when she was, of course, an old woman.

  94. Rich Rifkin

    One more thing about Central Davis Elementary School: it was not the first school on that site. I think it was the second or third, the others succumbing to fires, which were common and devastating to Davis prior to the incorporation of the city in 1917…. An old woman I know who lives in Woodland (about whom I once wrote a column) was a student at that school during WWI. She attended both the older version which burned down and the one that lasted into the 1960s until it was torn down. Her teacher was a very young Marguerite Montgomery. Bob Dunning, who is about 40-45 years younger than my friend in Woodland, had Miss Montgomery as his teacher when she was, of course, an old woman.

  95. Rich Rifkin

    One more thing about Central Davis Elementary School: it was not the first school on that site. I think it was the second or third, the others succumbing to fires, which were common and devastating to Davis prior to the incorporation of the city in 1917…. An old woman I know who lives in Woodland (about whom I once wrote a column) was a student at that school during WWI. She attended both the older version which burned down and the one that lasted into the 1960s until it was torn down. Her teacher was a very young Marguerite Montgomery. Bob Dunning, who is about 40-45 years younger than my friend in Woodland, had Miss Montgomery as his teacher when she was, of course, an old woman.

  96. Rich Rifkin

    One more thing about Central Davis Elementary School: it was not the first school on that site. I think it was the second or third, the others succumbing to fires, which were common and devastating to Davis prior to the incorporation of the city in 1917…. An old woman I know who lives in Woodland (about whom I once wrote a column) was a student at that school during WWI. She attended both the older version which burned down and the one that lasted into the 1960s until it was torn down. Her teacher was a very young Marguerite Montgomery. Bob Dunning, who is about 40-45 years younger than my friend in Woodland, had Miss Montgomery as his teacher when she was, of course, an old woman.

  97. Rich Rifkin

    One other anecdote about my friend, who is known as Clarkie: she told me that after World War I ended, General Pershing did a victory tour across the United States by train and came through Davis. Everyone in town (in 1919) came out to see him and hear him speak a few words. Clarkie was a young girl and could not see above all of the adults. However, an Australian soldier, who had been staying on campus with his platoon at the University Farm, lifted her up on his shoulders and she was able to shake Gen. Pershing’s hand that day.

    And for those who don’t know, the other famous whistle stop in Davis came in 1948, when Harry Truman came to town, campaigning to keep his job as president.

  98. Rich Rifkin

    One other anecdote about my friend, who is known as Clarkie: she told me that after World War I ended, General Pershing did a victory tour across the United States by train and came through Davis. Everyone in town (in 1919) came out to see him and hear him speak a few words. Clarkie was a young girl and could not see above all of the adults. However, an Australian soldier, who had been staying on campus with his platoon at the University Farm, lifted her up on his shoulders and she was able to shake Gen. Pershing’s hand that day.

    And for those who don’t know, the other famous whistle stop in Davis came in 1948, when Harry Truman came to town, campaigning to keep his job as president.

  99. Rich Rifkin

    One other anecdote about my friend, who is known as Clarkie: she told me that after World War I ended, General Pershing did a victory tour across the United States by train and came through Davis. Everyone in town (in 1919) came out to see him and hear him speak a few words. Clarkie was a young girl and could not see above all of the adults. However, an Australian soldier, who had been staying on campus with his platoon at the University Farm, lifted her up on his shoulders and she was able to shake Gen. Pershing’s hand that day.

    And for those who don’t know, the other famous whistle stop in Davis came in 1948, when Harry Truman came to town, campaigning to keep his job as president.

  100. Rich Rifkin

    One other anecdote about my friend, who is known as Clarkie: she told me that after World War I ended, General Pershing did a victory tour across the United States by train and came through Davis. Everyone in town (in 1919) came out to see him and hear him speak a few words. Clarkie was a young girl and could not see above all of the adults. However, an Australian soldier, who had been staying on campus with his platoon at the University Farm, lifted her up on his shoulders and she was able to shake Gen. Pershing’s hand that day.

    And for those who don’t know, the other famous whistle stop in Davis came in 1948, when Harry Truman came to town, campaigning to keep his job as president.

  101. wdf

    “And for those who don’t know, the other famous whistle stop in Davis came in 1948, when Harry Truman came to town, campaigning to keep his job as president.”

    Which you can see in a photo hanging in the train station still.

  102. wdf

    “And for those who don’t know, the other famous whistle stop in Davis came in 1948, when Harry Truman came to town, campaigning to keep his job as president.”

    Which you can see in a photo hanging in the train station still.

  103. wdf

    “And for those who don’t know, the other famous whistle stop in Davis came in 1948, when Harry Truman came to town, campaigning to keep his job as president.”

    Which you can see in a photo hanging in the train station still.

  104. wdf

    “And for those who don’t know, the other famous whistle stop in Davis came in 1948, when Harry Truman came to town, campaigning to keep his job as president.”

    Which you can see in a photo hanging in the train station still.

  105. sharla

    Rich,

    “WDI was 4-6. WDE, which started as K-6, became K-3 after WDI opened. I attened both of those schools in that same configuration. Bob Willett, who was not my teacher, was a 6th grade teacher at WDI when I was a kid.”

    Sorry Rich, WDE was 5th & 6th only. I too attended both schools. I attended 4th grade at WDE and moved to WDI in 5th grade. When I was in 4th grade at WDE, my sister was in the first 6th grade class at WDI. I too had Mr. Willet in 6th grade along with Ms. Ross and Mrs. Robertson. It was just the one classroom building with the 5th grade classes at each corner and the 6th grade had the 3 classrooms down the middle with the doors that swung open allowing all 90 or so 6th graders to be taught at the same time. It may have expanded to include 4th graders, but not until later.

  106. sharla

    Rich,

    “WDI was 4-6. WDE, which started as K-6, became K-3 after WDI opened. I attened both of those schools in that same configuration. Bob Willett, who was not my teacher, was a 6th grade teacher at WDI when I was a kid.”

    Sorry Rich, WDE was 5th & 6th only. I too attended both schools. I attended 4th grade at WDE and moved to WDI in 5th grade. When I was in 4th grade at WDE, my sister was in the first 6th grade class at WDI. I too had Mr. Willet in 6th grade along with Ms. Ross and Mrs. Robertson. It was just the one classroom building with the 5th grade classes at each corner and the 6th grade had the 3 classrooms down the middle with the doors that swung open allowing all 90 or so 6th graders to be taught at the same time. It may have expanded to include 4th graders, but not until later.

  107. sharla

    Rich,

    “WDI was 4-6. WDE, which started as K-6, became K-3 after WDI opened. I attened both of those schools in that same configuration. Bob Willett, who was not my teacher, was a 6th grade teacher at WDI when I was a kid.”

    Sorry Rich, WDE was 5th & 6th only. I too attended both schools. I attended 4th grade at WDE and moved to WDI in 5th grade. When I was in 4th grade at WDE, my sister was in the first 6th grade class at WDI. I too had Mr. Willet in 6th grade along with Ms. Ross and Mrs. Robertson. It was just the one classroom building with the 5th grade classes at each corner and the 6th grade had the 3 classrooms down the middle with the doors that swung open allowing all 90 or so 6th graders to be taught at the same time. It may have expanded to include 4th graders, but not until later.

  108. sharla

    Rich,

    “WDI was 4-6. WDE, which started as K-6, became K-3 after WDI opened. I attened both of those schools in that same configuration. Bob Willett, who was not my teacher, was a 6th grade teacher at WDI when I was a kid.”

    Sorry Rich, WDE was 5th & 6th only. I too attended both schools. I attended 4th grade at WDE and moved to WDI in 5th grade. When I was in 4th grade at WDE, my sister was in the first 6th grade class at WDI. I too had Mr. Willet in 6th grade along with Ms. Ross and Mrs. Robertson. It was just the one classroom building with the 5th grade classes at each corner and the 6th grade had the 3 classrooms down the middle with the doors that swung open allowing all 90 or so 6th graders to be taught at the same time. It may have expanded to include 4th graders, but not until later.

  109. Rich Rifkin

    “Sorry Rich, WDE was 5th & 6th only. I too attended both schools. I attended 4th grade at WDE and moved to WDI in 5th grade.”

    Sharla,

    You must have been in WDI in its first or second year of operation. After that, it was always 4-6. Trust me.

    By the way, my older brother, Barry Rifkin, who graduated from DHS in 1974, was in the first 5th grade class at WDI. He, too, had gone to WDE for the 4th grade.

  110. Rich Rifkin

    “Sorry Rich, WDE was 5th & 6th only. I too attended both schools. I attended 4th grade at WDE and moved to WDI in 5th grade.”

    Sharla,

    You must have been in WDI in its first or second year of operation. After that, it was always 4-6. Trust me.

    By the way, my older brother, Barry Rifkin, who graduated from DHS in 1974, was in the first 5th grade class at WDI. He, too, had gone to WDE for the 4th grade.

  111. Rich Rifkin

    “Sorry Rich, WDE was 5th & 6th only. I too attended both schools. I attended 4th grade at WDE and moved to WDI in 5th grade.”

    Sharla,

    You must have been in WDI in its first or second year of operation. After that, it was always 4-6. Trust me.

    By the way, my older brother, Barry Rifkin, who graduated from DHS in 1974, was in the first 5th grade class at WDI. He, too, had gone to WDE for the 4th grade.

  112. Rich Rifkin

    “Sorry Rich, WDE was 5th & 6th only. I too attended both schools. I attended 4th grade at WDE and moved to WDI in 5th grade.”

    Sharla,

    You must have been in WDI in its first or second year of operation. After that, it was always 4-6. Trust me.

    By the way, my older brother, Barry Rifkin, who graduated from DHS in 1974, was in the first 5th grade class at WDI. He, too, had gone to WDE for the 4th grade.

  113. Anonymous

    “As this demographic bulge graduates from college, and moves into their late 20s and early 30s – the peak child-bearing years – a gentle uptick in elementary school enrollment is expected in many California school districts, including Davis, starting in about eight years”

    If I were Davis, I wouldn’t bet the future on the children bore from former UCD and Sac St grads at their peak child-bearing ages. We’re in our peak child-bearing years (as well as many of our friends still in the area) and unless the DJUSD continues to accept interdistrict transfers 6 years from now, we won’t be part of that gentle uptick for DJUSD.

  114. Anonymous

    “As this demographic bulge graduates from college, and moves into their late 20s and early 30s – the peak child-bearing years – a gentle uptick in elementary school enrollment is expected in many California school districts, including Davis, starting in about eight years”

    If I were Davis, I wouldn’t bet the future on the children bore from former UCD and Sac St grads at their peak child-bearing ages. We’re in our peak child-bearing years (as well as many of our friends still in the area) and unless the DJUSD continues to accept interdistrict transfers 6 years from now, we won’t be part of that gentle uptick for DJUSD.

  115. Anonymous

    “As this demographic bulge graduates from college, and moves into their late 20s and early 30s – the peak child-bearing years – a gentle uptick in elementary school enrollment is expected in many California school districts, including Davis, starting in about eight years”

    If I were Davis, I wouldn’t bet the future on the children bore from former UCD and Sac St grads at their peak child-bearing ages. We’re in our peak child-bearing years (as well as many of our friends still in the area) and unless the DJUSD continues to accept interdistrict transfers 6 years from now, we won’t be part of that gentle uptick for DJUSD.

  116. Anonymous

    “As this demographic bulge graduates from college, and moves into their late 20s and early 30s – the peak child-bearing years – a gentle uptick in elementary school enrollment is expected in many California school districts, including Davis, starting in about eight years”

    If I were Davis, I wouldn’t bet the future on the children bore from former UCD and Sac St grads at their peak child-bearing ages. We’re in our peak child-bearing years (as well as many of our friends still in the area) and unless the DJUSD continues to accept interdistrict transfers 6 years from now, we won’t be part of that gentle uptick for DJUSD.

  117. Not One Cent For Tribute

    “It is possible that time will prove you correct, but observe, DJUSD spent into reserves while the economy was doing well, a alarm bell of financial distress, while Woodland is currently spending reserves during an economic slowdown, and probably recession in this state, which is one of the reasons that you maintain reserves to smooth out the business cycle so that you can maintain a consistent educational program.

    Could this slowdown get worse, resulting in serious problems for Woodland? Could the district’s reserves be inadequate? Sure, but then, imagine, what it will be like in Davis, where the reserves were spent prior to the downturn.”

    AMEN!!! Very good observations.

    Not one more cent for tribute without representation! I do not consider the School Board we have now as representing what is best for Davis. I want meaningful citizens oversight of the entire budgeting process. Otherwise I vote NO on any new parcel tax. Nor will I vote for a parcel tax if Emerson is to be closed. If parents can be relied on to bail out the schools in the middle of a budget crisis, then they can be entrusted with meaningful oversight.

    Photo-ops of Sheila Allen – tearfully lamenting the loss of Valley Oak at closing ceremonies – wanted to make me hurl up my dinner. I felt a similar reaction reading tonight’s article in the Davis Enterprise about shipping books from VO to Karamatsu. It was if I was watching someone dancing on another’s grave. It was disgusting.

    Furthermore, as if to add insult to injury, the School District/Board made sure to somehow reopen VO as an “educational center”, then disingenuously patted themselves on the back by calling it an “innovative use”. I thought the idea was to close Valley Oak to save the maximum amount of money possible, not reopen it in a different guise to make sure the VO Charter School never makes it off the ground?

    Colby explaining how Davis can’t do whatever Woodland is doing right? Give me a break!!! I would prefer to hear what Woodland is doing right from the mouth of a Woodland administrator who has nothing to hide, thank you very much!

    What Measure Q was going to be spent on changed so many times prior to the election, it was absolutely ridiculous. In the end, the stated reasons never came to fruition because of circumstances. Measure Q was to fund smaller class sizes for instance. Smaller class size was achieved all right – by eliminating Valley Oak. Then overcrowding was artificially created by an attempt to close Emerson, which would have resulted in too many students in the two remaining junior highs and the high school. This sort of subterfuge makes my blood boil!!!

    Right about now, with all the conflicting statements coming out of the School District/Board, you could not pay me to vote for another parcel tax. Throwing good money after bad will achieve nothing but more waste and bad planning. Citizens must be confident that taxpayer dollars are not just being flushed down the nearest school toilet.

    In point of fact, the usual pattern is taking place. The School Board/District is paying for frills, while eliminating basics. That way they can justify a demand for yet another parcel tax. We have DaVinci High surviving; Independent School Study Program surviving; King High surviving; Montessori surviving; Gate surviving. Art, music and athletics are surviving. Yet we consider closing Emerson Junior High, which serves the entire west end of town. If you don’t see something wrong with this picture, then you should!

    The School Board sells off assets, instead of leasing them to generate a steady stream of income. What happens when the assets run out, which is about to happen? There will be no safety net then!

    We have administrative positions up the wazoo – Director of Such and Such, Asst Director of Such and Such, Asst to the Asst Director of Such and Such. And we pay every one of them an ungodly salary that is virtually unsustainable.

    NO NEW PARCEL TAX UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE IS MEANINGFUL CITIZEN OVERSIGHT (by random lottery) OF THE ENTIRE BUDGETING PROCESS. THE FIRST THING WE DO IS ASK A REP FROM WOODLAND TO COME AND SPEAK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING RIGHT. AND NO NEW PARCEL TAX IF EMERSON CLOSES. THOSE WOULD BE MY CONDITIONS TO START WITH…AND EVEN THEN I AM NOT CERTAIN I COULD STOMACH PAYING FOR ANOTHER PARCEL TAX!

  118. Not One Cent For Tribute

    “It is possible that time will prove you correct, but observe, DJUSD spent into reserves while the economy was doing well, a alarm bell of financial distress, while Woodland is currently spending reserves during an economic slowdown, and probably recession in this state, which is one of the reasons that you maintain reserves to smooth out the business cycle so that you can maintain a consistent educational program.

    Could this slowdown get worse, resulting in serious problems for Woodland? Could the district’s reserves be inadequate? Sure, but then, imagine, what it will be like in Davis, where the reserves were spent prior to the downturn.”

    AMEN!!! Very good observations.

    Not one more cent for tribute without representation! I do not consider the School Board we have now as representing what is best for Davis. I want meaningful citizens oversight of the entire budgeting process. Otherwise I vote NO on any new parcel tax. Nor will I vote for a parcel tax if Emerson is to be closed. If parents can be relied on to bail out the schools in the middle of a budget crisis, then they can be entrusted with meaningful oversight.

    Photo-ops of Sheila Allen – tearfully lamenting the loss of Valley Oak at closing ceremonies – wanted to make me hurl up my dinner. I felt a similar reaction reading tonight’s article in the Davis Enterprise about shipping books from VO to Karamatsu. It was if I was watching someone dancing on another’s grave. It was disgusting.

    Furthermore, as if to add insult to injury, the School District/Board made sure to somehow reopen VO as an “educational center”, then disingenuously patted themselves on the back by calling it an “innovative use”. I thought the idea was to close Valley Oak to save the maximum amount of money possible, not reopen it in a different guise to make sure the VO Charter School never makes it off the ground?

    Colby explaining how Davis can’t do whatever Woodland is doing right? Give me a break!!! I would prefer to hear what Woodland is doing right from the mouth of a Woodland administrator who has nothing to hide, thank you very much!

    What Measure Q was going to be spent on changed so many times prior to the election, it was absolutely ridiculous. In the end, the stated reasons never came to fruition because of circumstances. Measure Q was to fund smaller class sizes for instance. Smaller class size was achieved all right – by eliminating Valley Oak. Then overcrowding was artificially created by an attempt to close Emerson, which would have resulted in too many students in the two remaining junior highs and the high school. This sort of subterfuge makes my blood boil!!!

    Right about now, with all the conflicting statements coming out of the School District/Board, you could not pay me to vote for another parcel tax. Throwing good money after bad will achieve nothing but more waste and bad planning. Citizens must be confident that taxpayer dollars are not just being flushed down the nearest school toilet.

    In point of fact, the usual pattern is taking place. The School Board/District is paying for frills, while eliminating basics. That way they can justify a demand for yet another parcel tax. We have DaVinci High surviving; Independent School Study Program surviving; King High surviving; Montessori surviving; Gate surviving. Art, music and athletics are surviving. Yet we consider closing Emerson Junior High, which serves the entire west end of town. If you don’t see something wrong with this picture, then you should!

    The School Board sells off assets, instead of leasing them to generate a steady stream of income. What happens when the assets run out, which is about to happen? There will be no safety net then!

    We have administrative positions up the wazoo – Director of Such and Such, Asst Director of Such and Such, Asst to the Asst Director of Such and Such. And we pay every one of them an ungodly salary that is virtually unsustainable.

    NO NEW PARCEL TAX UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE IS MEANINGFUL CITIZEN OVERSIGHT (by random lottery) OF THE ENTIRE BUDGETING PROCESS. THE FIRST THING WE DO IS ASK A REP FROM WOODLAND TO COME AND SPEAK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING RIGHT. AND NO NEW PARCEL TAX IF EMERSON CLOSES. THOSE WOULD BE MY CONDITIONS TO START WITH…AND EVEN THEN I AM NOT CERTAIN I COULD STOMACH PAYING FOR ANOTHER PARCEL TAX!

  119. Not One Cent For Tribute

    “It is possible that time will prove you correct, but observe, DJUSD spent into reserves while the economy was doing well, a alarm bell of financial distress, while Woodland is currently spending reserves during an economic slowdown, and probably recession in this state, which is one of the reasons that you maintain reserves to smooth out the business cycle so that you can maintain a consistent educational program.

    Could this slowdown get worse, resulting in serious problems for Woodland? Could the district’s reserves be inadequate? Sure, but then, imagine, what it will be like in Davis, where the reserves were spent prior to the downturn.”

    AMEN!!! Very good observations.

    Not one more cent for tribute without representation! I do not consider the School Board we have now as representing what is best for Davis. I want meaningful citizens oversight of the entire budgeting process. Otherwise I vote NO on any new parcel tax. Nor will I vote for a parcel tax if Emerson is to be closed. If parents can be relied on to bail out the schools in the middle of a budget crisis, then they can be entrusted with meaningful oversight.

    Photo-ops of Sheila Allen – tearfully lamenting the loss of Valley Oak at closing ceremonies – wanted to make me hurl up my dinner. I felt a similar reaction reading tonight’s article in the Davis Enterprise about shipping books from VO to Karamatsu. It was if I was watching someone dancing on another’s grave. It was disgusting.

    Furthermore, as if to add insult to injury, the School District/Board made sure to somehow reopen VO as an “educational center”, then disingenuously patted themselves on the back by calling it an “innovative use”. I thought the idea was to close Valley Oak to save the maximum amount of money possible, not reopen it in a different guise to make sure the VO Charter School never makes it off the ground?

    Colby explaining how Davis can’t do whatever Woodland is doing right? Give me a break!!! I would prefer to hear what Woodland is doing right from the mouth of a Woodland administrator who has nothing to hide, thank you very much!

    What Measure Q was going to be spent on changed so many times prior to the election, it was absolutely ridiculous. In the end, the stated reasons never came to fruition because of circumstances. Measure Q was to fund smaller class sizes for instance. Smaller class size was achieved all right – by eliminating Valley Oak. Then overcrowding was artificially created by an attempt to close Emerson, which would have resulted in too many students in the two remaining junior highs and the high school. This sort of subterfuge makes my blood boil!!!

    Right about now, with all the conflicting statements coming out of the School District/Board, you could not pay me to vote for another parcel tax. Throwing good money after bad will achieve nothing but more waste and bad planning. Citizens must be confident that taxpayer dollars are not just being flushed down the nearest school toilet.

    In point of fact, the usual pattern is taking place. The School Board/District is paying for frills, while eliminating basics. That way they can justify a demand for yet another parcel tax. We have DaVinci High surviving; Independent School Study Program surviving; King High surviving; Montessori surviving; Gate surviving. Art, music and athletics are surviving. Yet we consider closing Emerson Junior High, which serves the entire west end of town. If you don’t see something wrong with this picture, then you should!

    The School Board sells off assets, instead of leasing them to generate a steady stream of income. What happens when the assets run out, which is about to happen? There will be no safety net then!

    We have administrative positions up the wazoo – Director of Such and Such, Asst Director of Such and Such, Asst to the Asst Director of Such and Such. And we pay every one of them an ungodly salary that is virtually unsustainable.

    NO NEW PARCEL TAX UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE IS MEANINGFUL CITIZEN OVERSIGHT (by random lottery) OF THE ENTIRE BUDGETING PROCESS. THE FIRST THING WE DO IS ASK A REP FROM WOODLAND TO COME AND SPEAK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING RIGHT. AND NO NEW PARCEL TAX IF EMERSON CLOSES. THOSE WOULD BE MY CONDITIONS TO START WITH…AND EVEN THEN I AM NOT CERTAIN I COULD STOMACH PAYING FOR ANOTHER PARCEL TAX!

  120. Not One Cent For Tribute

    “It is possible that time will prove you correct, but observe, DJUSD spent into reserves while the economy was doing well, a alarm bell of financial distress, while Woodland is currently spending reserves during an economic slowdown, and probably recession in this state, which is one of the reasons that you maintain reserves to smooth out the business cycle so that you can maintain a consistent educational program.

    Could this slowdown get worse, resulting in serious problems for Woodland? Could the district’s reserves be inadequate? Sure, but then, imagine, what it will be like in Davis, where the reserves were spent prior to the downturn.”

    AMEN!!! Very good observations.

    Not one more cent for tribute without representation! I do not consider the School Board we have now as representing what is best for Davis. I want meaningful citizens oversight of the entire budgeting process. Otherwise I vote NO on any new parcel tax. Nor will I vote for a parcel tax if Emerson is to be closed. If parents can be relied on to bail out the schools in the middle of a budget crisis, then they can be entrusted with meaningful oversight.

    Photo-ops of Sheila Allen – tearfully lamenting the loss of Valley Oak at closing ceremonies – wanted to make me hurl up my dinner. I felt a similar reaction reading tonight’s article in the Davis Enterprise about shipping books from VO to Karamatsu. It was if I was watching someone dancing on another’s grave. It was disgusting.

    Furthermore, as if to add insult to injury, the School District/Board made sure to somehow reopen VO as an “educational center”, then disingenuously patted themselves on the back by calling it an “innovative use”. I thought the idea was to close Valley Oak to save the maximum amount of money possible, not reopen it in a different guise to make sure the VO Charter School never makes it off the ground?

    Colby explaining how Davis can’t do whatever Woodland is doing right? Give me a break!!! I would prefer to hear what Woodland is doing right from the mouth of a Woodland administrator who has nothing to hide, thank you very much!

    What Measure Q was going to be spent on changed so many times prior to the election, it was absolutely ridiculous. In the end, the stated reasons never came to fruition because of circumstances. Measure Q was to fund smaller class sizes for instance. Smaller class size was achieved all right – by eliminating Valley Oak. Then overcrowding was artificially created by an attempt to close Emerson, which would have resulted in too many students in the two remaining junior highs and the high school. This sort of subterfuge makes my blood boil!!!

    Right about now, with all the conflicting statements coming out of the School District/Board, you could not pay me to vote for another parcel tax. Throwing good money after bad will achieve nothing but more waste and bad planning. Citizens must be confident that taxpayer dollars are not just being flushed down the nearest school toilet.

    In point of fact, the usual pattern is taking place. The School Board/District is paying for frills, while eliminating basics. That way they can justify a demand for yet another parcel tax. We have DaVinci High surviving; Independent School Study Program surviving; King High surviving; Montessori surviving; Gate surviving. Art, music and athletics are surviving. Yet we consider closing Emerson Junior High, which serves the entire west end of town. If you don’t see something wrong with this picture, then you should!

    The School Board sells off assets, instead of leasing them to generate a steady stream of income. What happens when the assets run out, which is about to happen? There will be no safety net then!

    We have administrative positions up the wazoo – Director of Such and Such, Asst Director of Such and Such, Asst to the Asst Director of Such and Such. And we pay every one of them an ungodly salary that is virtually unsustainable.

    NO NEW PARCEL TAX UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE IS MEANINGFUL CITIZEN OVERSIGHT (by random lottery) OF THE ENTIRE BUDGETING PROCESS. THE FIRST THING WE DO IS ASK A REP FROM WOODLAND TO COME AND SPEAK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING RIGHT. AND NO NEW PARCEL TAX IF EMERSON CLOSES. THOSE WOULD BE MY CONDITIONS TO START WITH…AND EVEN THEN I AM NOT CERTAIN I COULD STOMACH PAYING FOR ANOTHER PARCEL TAX!

  121. Not One Cent For Tribute

    “Not One Cent For Tribute said…

    Why don’t you run for school board in 2009?”

    Wish I could, but a medical disability precludes it, drat! Another problem is only those with money seem to be able to run for any local office. Look what is happening with respect to our city council elections. Lamar is in deep debt, and now Cecilia. We as a city need to find a way to fund a minimum amount of campaigning, so no candidate need go into debt to get the word out about the fact that they are running and what their positions are on the issues.

    However, I would be more than willing to be a member of an oversight committee that met once a month for a couple of hours. An oversight committee that is not handpicked by the School Board/District; that oversees the entire budgeting process; that has representatives from parents, teachers, the City Council, the School District. In essence a commission to the School Board, much as we have commissions to the City Council. In fact, it probably wouldn’t hurt to have several commissions to the School Board, all acting in an advisory capacity. The School Board needs some sort of assistance, because right now they don’t seem to be getting much of anything right. The parents knew closing Emerson was a bad, bad idea, even if the School Board/District didn’t. And I will bet you a true oversight committee could figure out just how to convince citizens to pass a parcel tax that would be acceptable.

  122. Not One Cent For Tribute

    “Not One Cent For Tribute said…

    Why don’t you run for school board in 2009?”

    Wish I could, but a medical disability precludes it, drat! Another problem is only those with money seem to be able to run for any local office. Look what is happening with respect to our city council elections. Lamar is in deep debt, and now Cecilia. We as a city need to find a way to fund a minimum amount of campaigning, so no candidate need go into debt to get the word out about the fact that they are running and what their positions are on the issues.

    However, I would be more than willing to be a member of an oversight committee that met once a month for a couple of hours. An oversight committee that is not handpicked by the School Board/District; that oversees the entire budgeting process; that has representatives from parents, teachers, the City Council, the School District. In essence a commission to the School Board, much as we have commissions to the City Council. In fact, it probably wouldn’t hurt to have several commissions to the School Board, all acting in an advisory capacity. The School Board needs some sort of assistance, because right now they don’t seem to be getting much of anything right. The parents knew closing Emerson was a bad, bad idea, even if the School Board/District didn’t. And I will bet you a true oversight committee could figure out just how to convince citizens to pass a parcel tax that would be acceptable.

  123. Not One Cent For Tribute

    “Not One Cent For Tribute said…

    Why don’t you run for school board in 2009?”

    Wish I could, but a medical disability precludes it, drat! Another problem is only those with money seem to be able to run for any local office. Look what is happening with respect to our city council elections. Lamar is in deep debt, and now Cecilia. We as a city need to find a way to fund a minimum amount of campaigning, so no candidate need go into debt to get the word out about the fact that they are running and what their positions are on the issues.

    However, I would be more than willing to be a member of an oversight committee that met once a month for a couple of hours. An oversight committee that is not handpicked by the School Board/District; that oversees the entire budgeting process; that has representatives from parents, teachers, the City Council, the School District. In essence a commission to the School Board, much as we have commissions to the City Council. In fact, it probably wouldn’t hurt to have several commissions to the School Board, all acting in an advisory capacity. The School Board needs some sort of assistance, because right now they don’t seem to be getting much of anything right. The parents knew closing Emerson was a bad, bad idea, even if the School Board/District didn’t. And I will bet you a true oversight committee could figure out just how to convince citizens to pass a parcel tax that would be acceptable.

  124. Not One Cent For Tribute

    “Not One Cent For Tribute said…

    Why don’t you run for school board in 2009?”

    Wish I could, but a medical disability precludes it, drat! Another problem is only those with money seem to be able to run for any local office. Look what is happening with respect to our city council elections. Lamar is in deep debt, and now Cecilia. We as a city need to find a way to fund a minimum amount of campaigning, so no candidate need go into debt to get the word out about the fact that they are running and what their positions are on the issues.

    However, I would be more than willing to be a member of an oversight committee that met once a month for a couple of hours. An oversight committee that is not handpicked by the School Board/District; that oversees the entire budgeting process; that has representatives from parents, teachers, the City Council, the School District. In essence a commission to the School Board, much as we have commissions to the City Council. In fact, it probably wouldn’t hurt to have several commissions to the School Board, all acting in an advisory capacity. The School Board needs some sort of assistance, because right now they don’t seem to be getting much of anything right. The parents knew closing Emerson was a bad, bad idea, even if the School Board/District didn’t. And I will bet you a true oversight committee could figure out just how to convince citizens to pass a parcel tax that would be acceptable.

  125. wdf

    Not One Cent For Tribute said… :

    It’s entirely your right not to want a parcel tax.

    I appreciate your passion to want a change for the better, but if you are a parent with kids in the Davis schools, and you want to see meaningful change take place before they graduate, then please take a more active role, here.

    Armchair activists can’t be taken seriously.

    You provide a littany of complaints, but little useful information to act on.

    For instance, you insist that Davis administrators go talk to Woodland adminstrators and find out what’s going on there that they aren’t having the same problems that Davis is having. I asked that question of the board and Mr. Colby for you, Mr. Colby responds with what I think is a reasonable answer, and you come back with another littany of criticisms. Clearly you have something else in mind.

    This is a situation where if you want anything done right, you have to do it yourself.

    There is nothing keeping you from doing your own research. Woodland JUSD employees are tax paid public servants, paid for by some of the money you pay to the state. They are obligated to provide you with answers if you ask. The lady in charge of Business services at WJUSD is
    Kelly Morgan at (530) 662-0201 EXT. 4333

    I suggest you call and ask the questions that you think should be asked and share what you find.

    Then maybe we can have a constructive discussion that can lead to some meaningful change.

    By the way, when I go to the WJUSD website and look at their adminstrative staff directory, I see something that looks very much like what we have at DJUSD, if not worse.
    see: http://www.wjusd.net/departments/common/content/central_directory.php

    So if you have a particular administrative model in mind, please describe it so we can propose something meaningful.

    Many of your other criticisms fall into this same category. Most are potentially worth considering, but poorly supported or described to act upon.

  126. wdf

    Not One Cent For Tribute said… :

    It’s entirely your right not to want a parcel tax.

    I appreciate your passion to want a change for the better, but if you are a parent with kids in the Davis schools, and you want to see meaningful change take place before they graduate, then please take a more active role, here.

    Armchair activists can’t be taken seriously.

    You provide a littany of complaints, but little useful information to act on.

    For instance, you insist that Davis administrators go talk to Woodland adminstrators and find out what’s going on there that they aren’t having the same problems that Davis is having. I asked that question of the board and Mr. Colby for you, Mr. Colby responds with what I think is a reasonable answer, and you come back with another littany of criticisms. Clearly you have something else in mind.

    This is a situation where if you want anything done right, you have to do it yourself.

    There is nothing keeping you from doing your own research. Woodland JUSD employees are tax paid public servants, paid for by some of the money you pay to the state. They are obligated to provide you with answers if you ask. The lady in charge of Business services at WJUSD is
    Kelly Morgan at (530) 662-0201 EXT. 4333

    I suggest you call and ask the questions that you think should be asked and share what you find.

    Then maybe we can have a constructive discussion that can lead to some meaningful change.

    By the way, when I go to the WJUSD website and look at their adminstrative staff directory, I see something that looks very much like what we have at DJUSD, if not worse.
    see: http://www.wjusd.net/departments/common/content/central_directory.php

    So if you have a particular administrative model in mind, please describe it so we can propose something meaningful.

    Many of your other criticisms fall into this same category. Most are potentially worth considering, but poorly supported or described to act upon.

  127. wdf

    Not One Cent For Tribute said… :

    It’s entirely your right not to want a parcel tax.

    I appreciate your passion to want a change for the better, but if you are a parent with kids in the Davis schools, and you want to see meaningful change take place before they graduate, then please take a more active role, here.

    Armchair activists can’t be taken seriously.

    You provide a littany of complaints, but little useful information to act on.

    For instance, you insist that Davis administrators go talk to Woodland adminstrators and find out what’s going on there that they aren’t having the same problems that Davis is having. I asked that question of the board and Mr. Colby for you, Mr. Colby responds with what I think is a reasonable answer, and you come back with another littany of criticisms. Clearly you have something else in mind.

    This is a situation where if you want anything done right, you have to do it yourself.

    There is nothing keeping you from doing your own research. Woodland JUSD employees are tax paid public servants, paid for by some of the money you pay to the state. They are obligated to provide you with answers if you ask. The lady in charge of Business services at WJUSD is
    Kelly Morgan at (530) 662-0201 EXT. 4333

    I suggest you call and ask the questions that you think should be asked and share what you find.

    Then maybe we can have a constructive discussion that can lead to some meaningful change.

    By the way, when I go to the WJUSD website and look at their adminstrative staff directory, I see something that looks very much like what we have at DJUSD, if not worse.
    see: http://www.wjusd.net/departments/common/content/central_directory.php

    So if you have a particular administrative model in mind, please describe it so we can propose something meaningful.

    Many of your other criticisms fall into this same category. Most are potentially worth considering, but poorly supported or described to act upon.

  128. wdf

    Not One Cent For Tribute said… :

    It’s entirely your right not to want a parcel tax.

    I appreciate your passion to want a change for the better, but if you are a parent with kids in the Davis schools, and you want to see meaningful change take place before they graduate, then please take a more active role, here.

    Armchair activists can’t be taken seriously.

    You provide a littany of complaints, but little useful information to act on.

    For instance, you insist that Davis administrators go talk to Woodland adminstrators and find out what’s going on there that they aren’t having the same problems that Davis is having. I asked that question of the board and Mr. Colby for you, Mr. Colby responds with what I think is a reasonable answer, and you come back with another littany of criticisms. Clearly you have something else in mind.

    This is a situation where if you want anything done right, you have to do it yourself.

    There is nothing keeping you from doing your own research. Woodland JUSD employees are tax paid public servants, paid for by some of the money you pay to the state. They are obligated to provide you with answers if you ask. The lady in charge of Business services at WJUSD is
    Kelly Morgan at (530) 662-0201 EXT. 4333

    I suggest you call and ask the questions that you think should be asked and share what you find.

    Then maybe we can have a constructive discussion that can lead to some meaningful change.

    By the way, when I go to the WJUSD website and look at their adminstrative staff directory, I see something that looks very much like what we have at DJUSD, if not worse.
    see: http://www.wjusd.net/departments/common/content/central_directory.php

    So if you have a particular administrative model in mind, please describe it so we can propose something meaningful.

    Many of your other criticisms fall into this same category. Most are potentially worth considering, but poorly supported or described to act upon.

  129. wdf

    “Art, music and athletics are surviving.”

    Much of music program (all of the elementary music program, at least) next year is funded by the DSF grant from money raised from the community. At the moment I’m not seeing much demonstration of the district going out of their way to keep music. Would you care to explain why you think the district is cutting “basics” over music?

    Athletics is paid for by minimal stipends to coaches and student fees. If they cut any more out of athletics, there wouldn’t be an athletics program. In other states you can find that the HS football coach is paid more than principals, maybe even more than the superintendent. I don’t think you’ll find that in Davis.

    If you’re a parent who is so thoroughly disgusted with Davis schools, you could probably opt for an interdistrict transfer to Woodland schools or another district.

  130. wdf

    “Art, music and athletics are surviving.”

    Much of music program (all of the elementary music program, at least) next year is funded by the DSF grant from money raised from the community. At the moment I’m not seeing much demonstration of the district going out of their way to keep music. Would you care to explain why you think the district is cutting “basics” over music?

    Athletics is paid for by minimal stipends to coaches and student fees. If they cut any more out of athletics, there wouldn’t be an athletics program. In other states you can find that the HS football coach is paid more than principals, maybe even more than the superintendent. I don’t think you’ll find that in Davis.

    If you’re a parent who is so thoroughly disgusted with Davis schools, you could probably opt for an interdistrict transfer to Woodland schools or another district.

  131. wdf

    “Art, music and athletics are surviving.”

    Much of music program (all of the elementary music program, at least) next year is funded by the DSF grant from money raised from the community. At the moment I’m not seeing much demonstration of the district going out of their way to keep music. Would you care to explain why you think the district is cutting “basics” over music?

    Athletics is paid for by minimal stipends to coaches and student fees. If they cut any more out of athletics, there wouldn’t be an athletics program. In other states you can find that the HS football coach is paid more than principals, maybe even more than the superintendent. I don’t think you’ll find that in Davis.

    If you’re a parent who is so thoroughly disgusted with Davis schools, you could probably opt for an interdistrict transfer to Woodland schools or another district.

  132. wdf

    “Art, music and athletics are surviving.”

    Much of music program (all of the elementary music program, at least) next year is funded by the DSF grant from money raised from the community. At the moment I’m not seeing much demonstration of the district going out of their way to keep music. Would you care to explain why you think the district is cutting “basics” over music?

    Athletics is paid for by minimal stipends to coaches and student fees. If they cut any more out of athletics, there wouldn’t be an athletics program. In other states you can find that the HS football coach is paid more than principals, maybe even more than the superintendent. I don’t think you’ll find that in Davis.

    If you’re a parent who is so thoroughly disgusted with Davis schools, you could probably opt for an interdistrict transfer to Woodland schools or another district.

  133. wdf

    “Lamar is in deep debt, and now Cecilia. We as a city need to find a way to fund a minimum amount of campaigning, so no candidate need go into debt to get the word out about the fact that they are running and what their positions are on the issues.”

    Did Julie Partansky go deep into debt? Or is she not a relevant example? I seem to remember her running a rather low budget, grass roots campaign, and yet she won enough votes to be mayor. I don’t think she held elected office before.

  134. wdf

    “Lamar is in deep debt, and now Cecilia. We as a city need to find a way to fund a minimum amount of campaigning, so no candidate need go into debt to get the word out about the fact that they are running and what their positions are on the issues.”

    Did Julie Partansky go deep into debt? Or is she not a relevant example? I seem to remember her running a rather low budget, grass roots campaign, and yet she won enough votes to be mayor. I don’t think she held elected office before.

  135. wdf

    “Lamar is in deep debt, and now Cecilia. We as a city need to find a way to fund a minimum amount of campaigning, so no candidate need go into debt to get the word out about the fact that they are running and what their positions are on the issues.”

    Did Julie Partansky go deep into debt? Or is she not a relevant example? I seem to remember her running a rather low budget, grass roots campaign, and yet she won enough votes to be mayor. I don’t think she held elected office before.

  136. wdf

    “Lamar is in deep debt, and now Cecilia. We as a city need to find a way to fund a minimum amount of campaigning, so no candidate need go into debt to get the word out about the fact that they are running and what their positions are on the issues.”

    Did Julie Partansky go deep into debt? Or is she not a relevant example? I seem to remember her running a rather low budget, grass roots campaign, and yet she won enough votes to be mayor. I don’t think she held elected office before.

  137. 無名 - wu ming

    this is getting predictable, i suppose, but “hear, hear” to richard on the type of housing this town ought to build. neither side of the council split is particularly interested in providing workforce housing in any meaningful sense, IMO.

    without a major change in the ratio of average housing prices to average income in town, i suspect that davis will not see an influx of young families anytime soon. when asset inflation outstrips wage inflation, the only people who benefit are those who own assets.

  138. 無名 - wu ming

    this is getting predictable, i suppose, but “hear, hear” to richard on the type of housing this town ought to build. neither side of the council split is particularly interested in providing workforce housing in any meaningful sense, IMO.

    without a major change in the ratio of average housing prices to average income in town, i suspect that davis will not see an influx of young families anytime soon. when asset inflation outstrips wage inflation, the only people who benefit are those who own assets.

  139. 無名 - wu ming

    this is getting predictable, i suppose, but “hear, hear” to richard on the type of housing this town ought to build. neither side of the council split is particularly interested in providing workforce housing in any meaningful sense, IMO.

    without a major change in the ratio of average housing prices to average income in town, i suspect that davis will not see an influx of young families anytime soon. when asset inflation outstrips wage inflation, the only people who benefit are those who own assets.

  140. 無名 - wu ming

    this is getting predictable, i suppose, but “hear, hear” to richard on the type of housing this town ought to build. neither side of the council split is particularly interested in providing workforce housing in any meaningful sense, IMO.

    without a major change in the ratio of average housing prices to average income in town, i suspect that davis will not see an influx of young families anytime soon. when asset inflation outstrips wage inflation, the only people who benefit are those who own assets.

  141. 無名 - wu ming

    it should be noted that prop 13 is also playing a part here, as tax rates vary by generational cohort, and people with low tax rates that they got by dint of being born at the right time are going to be hesitant to move out of a house, empty nest or no, for fear of having to pay the going rate on a new house.

    ditto for prop 13’s 2/3 supermajority clause for raising taxes and school bonds.

  142. 無名 - wu ming

    it should be noted that prop 13 is also playing a part here, as tax rates vary by generational cohort, and people with low tax rates that they got by dint of being born at the right time are going to be hesitant to move out of a house, empty nest or no, for fear of having to pay the going rate on a new house.

    ditto for prop 13’s 2/3 supermajority clause for raising taxes and school bonds.

  143. 無名 - wu ming

    it should be noted that prop 13 is also playing a part here, as tax rates vary by generational cohort, and people with low tax rates that they got by dint of being born at the right time are going to be hesitant to move out of a house, empty nest or no, for fear of having to pay the going rate on a new house.

    ditto for prop 13’s 2/3 supermajority clause for raising taxes and school bonds.

  144. 無名 - wu ming

    it should be noted that prop 13 is also playing a part here, as tax rates vary by generational cohort, and people with low tax rates that they got by dint of being born at the right time are going to be hesitant to move out of a house, empty nest or no, for fear of having to pay the going rate on a new house.

    ditto for prop 13’s 2/3 supermajority clause for raising taxes and school bonds.

  145. Anonymous

    I attended a classroom event today at Valley Oak and found that almost everything that wasn’t nailed down had already been moved. This in a classroom full of children before the school year has even ended. Does anyone else find it odd that the district has already gutted Valley Oak’s fixtures? Talk about adding insult to injury. The district truly shows no compassion towards the children of Valley Oak.

  146. Anonymous

    I attended a classroom event today at Valley Oak and found that almost everything that wasn’t nailed down had already been moved. This in a classroom full of children before the school year has even ended. Does anyone else find it odd that the district has already gutted Valley Oak’s fixtures? Talk about adding insult to injury. The district truly shows no compassion towards the children of Valley Oak.

  147. Anonymous

    I attended a classroom event today at Valley Oak and found that almost everything that wasn’t nailed down had already been moved. This in a classroom full of children before the school year has even ended. Does anyone else find it odd that the district has already gutted Valley Oak’s fixtures? Talk about adding insult to injury. The district truly shows no compassion towards the children of Valley Oak.

  148. Anonymous

    I attended a classroom event today at Valley Oak and found that almost everything that wasn’t nailed down had already been moved. This in a classroom full of children before the school year has even ended. Does anyone else find it odd that the district has already gutted Valley Oak’s fixtures? Talk about adding insult to injury. The district truly shows no compassion towards the children of Valley Oak.

  149. Anonymous

    I suppose the district is trying to get the move done on teacher time. Otherwise they would have to pay overtime?

    Probably not an emotionally sensitive way to go about it, but the most fiscally prudent.

  150. Anonymous

    I suppose the district is trying to get the move done on teacher time. Otherwise they would have to pay overtime?

    Probably not an emotionally sensitive way to go about it, but the most fiscally prudent.

  151. Anonymous

    I suppose the district is trying to get the move done on teacher time. Otherwise they would have to pay overtime?

    Probably not an emotionally sensitive way to go about it, but the most fiscally prudent.

  152. Anonymous

    I suppose the district is trying to get the move done on teacher time. Otherwise they would have to pay overtime?

    Probably not an emotionally sensitive way to go about it, but the most fiscally prudent.

  153. Anonymous

    It is good to hear that the Woodland School district is doing okay finanicially. Academically the Woodland School is not doing well. Does anyone know why?

  154. Anonymous

    It is good to hear that the Woodland School district is doing okay finanicially. Academically the Woodland School is not doing well. Does anyone know why?

  155. Anonymous

    It is good to hear that the Woodland School district is doing okay finanicially. Academically the Woodland School is not doing well. Does anyone know why?

  156. Anonymous

    It is good to hear that the Woodland School district is doing okay finanicially. Academically the Woodland School is not doing well. Does anyone know why?

  157. Andrew

    “It is good to hear that the Woodland School district is doing okay finanicially. Academically the Woodland School is not doing well. Does anyone know why?”

    Maybe contributing factors are a larger lower income population and a larger number of ELL students?

  158. Andrew

    “It is good to hear that the Woodland School district is doing okay finanicially. Academically the Woodland School is not doing well. Does anyone know why?”

    Maybe contributing factors are a larger lower income population and a larger number of ELL students?

  159. Andrew

    “It is good to hear that the Woodland School district is doing okay finanicially. Academically the Woodland School is not doing well. Does anyone know why?”

    Maybe contributing factors are a larger lower income population and a larger number of ELL students?

  160. Andrew

    “It is good to hear that the Woodland School district is doing okay finanicially. Academically the Woodland School is not doing well. Does anyone know why?”

    Maybe contributing factors are a larger lower income population and a larger number of ELL students?

  161. wdf

    It’s possible that a parcel tax would be unpopular in Davis this year (meaning less than 66.66% support), but the district probably has to go through and do it anyway.

    If they didn’t, then parents and other school supporters would be viciously criticizing the district for not trying all options.

    There is still some philosophical justification to pass a parcel tax. Even with current funds available to DJUSD, the district ranks below the state average in funding on a per student basis. On top of that, California ranks well below the national average in per pupil funding. The state has a huge aversion to taxing itself; Davis is likelier than other communities to tax itself to improve the community.

    In conversations I have had with local real estate agents, their feeling is that the improvements that come from local taxes make a big difference to increasing the value of homes in Davis.

    If this is not the year to pass a parcel tax (in other words, it fails at the polls), then alternative budget cutting options will become more palatable.

    If the budget choices are defined as shutting down another school, laying off teachers, or eliminating programs, I think the first preference will be to close another school.

    The programs and teachers tend to define the quality of a district more than buildings. Much as a congregation defines a church more than the church building. Such choices obviously suck, especially after the community experience with closing Valley Oak.

    The best function this blog can serve in a situation like this is to help facilitate the development of alternatives to those choices above (teachers, programs, buildings).

    I hope DPD will follow this process closely in the coming months.

  162. wdf

    It’s possible that a parcel tax would be unpopular in Davis this year (meaning less than 66.66% support), but the district probably has to go through and do it anyway.

    If they didn’t, then parents and other school supporters would be viciously criticizing the district for not trying all options.

    There is still some philosophical justification to pass a parcel tax. Even with current funds available to DJUSD, the district ranks below the state average in funding on a per student basis. On top of that, California ranks well below the national average in per pupil funding. The state has a huge aversion to taxing itself; Davis is likelier than other communities to tax itself to improve the community.

    In conversations I have had with local real estate agents, their feeling is that the improvements that come from local taxes make a big difference to increasing the value of homes in Davis.

    If this is not the year to pass a parcel tax (in other words, it fails at the polls), then alternative budget cutting options will become more palatable.

    If the budget choices are defined as shutting down another school, laying off teachers, or eliminating programs, I think the first preference will be to close another school.

    The programs and teachers tend to define the quality of a district more than buildings. Much as a congregation defines a church more than the church building. Such choices obviously suck, especially after the community experience with closing Valley Oak.

    The best function this blog can serve in a situation like this is to help facilitate the development of alternatives to those choices above (teachers, programs, buildings).

    I hope DPD will follow this process closely in the coming months.

  163. wdf

    It’s possible that a parcel tax would be unpopular in Davis this year (meaning less than 66.66% support), but the district probably has to go through and do it anyway.

    If they didn’t, then parents and other school supporters would be viciously criticizing the district for not trying all options.

    There is still some philosophical justification to pass a parcel tax. Even with current funds available to DJUSD, the district ranks below the state average in funding on a per student basis. On top of that, California ranks well below the national average in per pupil funding. The state has a huge aversion to taxing itself; Davis is likelier than other communities to tax itself to improve the community.

    In conversations I have had with local real estate agents, their feeling is that the improvements that come from local taxes make a big difference to increasing the value of homes in Davis.

    If this is not the year to pass a parcel tax (in other words, it fails at the polls), then alternative budget cutting options will become more palatable.

    If the budget choices are defined as shutting down another school, laying off teachers, or eliminating programs, I think the first preference will be to close another school.

    The programs and teachers tend to define the quality of a district more than buildings. Much as a congregation defines a church more than the church building. Such choices obviously suck, especially after the community experience with closing Valley Oak.

    The best function this blog can serve in a situation like this is to help facilitate the development of alternatives to those choices above (teachers, programs, buildings).

    I hope DPD will follow this process closely in the coming months.

  164. wdf

    It’s possible that a parcel tax would be unpopular in Davis this year (meaning less than 66.66% support), but the district probably has to go through and do it anyway.

    If they didn’t, then parents and other school supporters would be viciously criticizing the district for not trying all options.

    There is still some philosophical justification to pass a parcel tax. Even with current funds available to DJUSD, the district ranks below the state average in funding on a per student basis. On top of that, California ranks well below the national average in per pupil funding. The state has a huge aversion to taxing itself; Davis is likelier than other communities to tax itself to improve the community.

    In conversations I have had with local real estate agents, their feeling is that the improvements that come from local taxes make a big difference to increasing the value of homes in Davis.

    If this is not the year to pass a parcel tax (in other words, it fails at the polls), then alternative budget cutting options will become more palatable.

    If the budget choices are defined as shutting down another school, laying off teachers, or eliminating programs, I think the first preference will be to close another school.

    The programs and teachers tend to define the quality of a district more than buildings. Much as a congregation defines a church more than the church building. Such choices obviously suck, especially after the community experience with closing Valley Oak.

    The best function this blog can serve in a situation like this is to help facilitate the development of alternatives to those choices above (teachers, programs, buildings).

    I hope DPD will follow this process closely in the coming months.

  165. wdf

    A recent article from the Chronicle with interesting parallels to DJUSD. Alameda has a budget not that different in size from DJUSD:

    3 votes needed to pass Alameda parcel tax
    Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writer

    Wednesday, June 11, 2008

    (06-10) 18:06 PDT ALAMEDA — Students in Alameda are getting a real-life lesson this month on an old civics adage: Every vote counts.

    A week after the election, the Alameda Unified School District was just three votes short of the two-thirds voter approval needed to pass a parcel tax on the June 3 ballot.But it’s not over yet for Measure H. County officials were still counting an unknown number of provisional ballots cast on election day.

    As of Tuesday, there were 11,001 yes votes to 5,502 no votes – or 66.6606 percent in favor. That’s not enough if it holds.

    The district needs sixes to four decimal places to pass, school board President Bill Schaff said.

    It’s beyond a nail-biter at this point, Schaff said.

    “My fingernails are pretty much ground down,” he said. “I’m going for the enamel on the teeth now.”

    The school board put the $120 parcel tax on the ballot in March, an emergency measure to offset the governor’s proposed budget cuts. Without the parcel tax, the district’s $56 million general fund budget could end up about $4 million in the red next year. If passed, Measure H would raise up to $4.2 million annually for the next four years.

    Alameda property owners currently pay a $189 parcel tax, which will expire in 2012.

    District officials said they need the emergency tax to avoid layoffs, maintain small class sizes and eliminate cuts to music, athletics, advanced placement courses and other staff.

    “It will make my life a lot easier if this passes,” Schaff said.

    The only other school measure in Alameda County, a facilities bond in Hayward, passed overwhelmingly with 72 percent of the vote, though it needed only 55 percent voter support.

    A San Francisco parcel tax, Measure A, also passed, with nearly 70 percent voter support.

    There were 6,500 provisional ballots cast across Alameda County on June 3. It’s unknown how many were cast by voters in Alameda, said registrar of voters spokesman Guy Ashley.

    Two of eight registrar staff members counting those votes are focusing solely on Alameda, Ashley said.

    The process requires them to look at each provisional ballot to determine whether the person is a registered voter and then determine whether they voted in their proper precinct.

    It’s an arduous task, but could be completed for Alameda by the end of the week, Ashley said.

    The registrar has 30 days after the election to certify the vote.

    Anyone wishing to contest the outcome has five days after certification to do so. Anyone requesting a recount must agree to pay the costs associated with it. If the result is reversed, the county covers the cost.

    It is unclear how much a recount in the Alameda election would cost, because it has been years since one was required, Ashley said.

    “If we’re missing by three votes, we’re going to demand it,” Schaff said of a recount.

    “I’m keeping my fingers crossed,” Schaff said. “If we win, it won’t be by much. It really will show the power of a few votes.”

  166. wdf

    A recent article from the Chronicle with interesting parallels to DJUSD. Alameda has a budget not that different in size from DJUSD:

    3 votes needed to pass Alameda parcel tax
    Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writer

    Wednesday, June 11, 2008

    (06-10) 18:06 PDT ALAMEDA — Students in Alameda are getting a real-life lesson this month on an old civics adage: Every vote counts.

    A week after the election, the Alameda Unified School District was just three votes short of the two-thirds voter approval needed to pass a parcel tax on the June 3 ballot.But it’s not over yet for Measure H. County officials were still counting an unknown number of provisional ballots cast on election day.

    As of Tuesday, there were 11,001 yes votes to 5,502 no votes – or 66.6606 percent in favor. That’s not enough if it holds.

    The district needs sixes to four decimal places to pass, school board President Bill Schaff said.

    It’s beyond a nail-biter at this point, Schaff said.

    “My fingernails are pretty much ground down,” he said. “I’m going for the enamel on the teeth now.”

    The school board put the $120 parcel tax on the ballot in March, an emergency measure to offset the governor’s proposed budget cuts. Without the parcel tax, the district’s $56 million general fund budget could end up about $4 million in the red next year. If passed, Measure H would raise up to $4.2 million annually for the next four years.

    Alameda property owners currently pay a $189 parcel tax, which will expire in 2012.

    District officials said they need the emergency tax to avoid layoffs, maintain small class sizes and eliminate cuts to music, athletics, advanced placement courses and other staff.

    “It will make my life a lot easier if this passes,” Schaff said.

    The only other school measure in Alameda County, a facilities bond in Hayward, passed overwhelmingly with 72 percent of the vote, though it needed only 55 percent voter support.

    A San Francisco parcel tax, Measure A, also passed, with nearly 70 percent voter support.

    There were 6,500 provisional ballots cast across Alameda County on June 3. It’s unknown how many were cast by voters in Alameda, said registrar of voters spokesman Guy Ashley.

    Two of eight registrar staff members counting those votes are focusing solely on Alameda, Ashley said.

    The process requires them to look at each provisional ballot to determine whether the person is a registered voter and then determine whether they voted in their proper precinct.

    It’s an arduous task, but could be completed for Alameda by the end of the week, Ashley said.

    The registrar has 30 days after the election to certify the vote.

    Anyone wishing to contest the outcome has five days after certification to do so. Anyone requesting a recount must agree to pay the costs associated with it. If the result is reversed, the county covers the cost.

    It is unclear how much a recount in the Alameda election would cost, because it has been years since one was required, Ashley said.

    “If we’re missing by three votes, we’re going to demand it,” Schaff said of a recount.

    “I’m keeping my fingers crossed,” Schaff said. “If we win, it won’t be by much. It really will show the power of a few votes.”

  167. wdf

    A recent article from the Chronicle with interesting parallels to DJUSD. Alameda has a budget not that different in size from DJUSD:

    3 votes needed to pass Alameda parcel tax
    Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writer

    Wednesday, June 11, 2008

    (06-10) 18:06 PDT ALAMEDA — Students in Alameda are getting a real-life lesson this month on an old civics adage: Every vote counts.

    A week after the election, the Alameda Unified School District was just three votes short of the two-thirds voter approval needed to pass a parcel tax on the June 3 ballot.But it’s not over yet for Measure H. County officials were still counting an unknown number of provisional ballots cast on election day.

    As of Tuesday, there were 11,001 yes votes to 5,502 no votes – or 66.6606 percent in favor. That’s not enough if it holds.

    The district needs sixes to four decimal places to pass, school board President Bill Schaff said.

    It’s beyond a nail-biter at this point, Schaff said.

    “My fingernails are pretty much ground down,” he said. “I’m going for the enamel on the teeth now.”

    The school board put the $120 parcel tax on the ballot in March, an emergency measure to offset the governor’s proposed budget cuts. Without the parcel tax, the district’s $56 million general fund budget could end up about $4 million in the red next year. If passed, Measure H would raise up to $4.2 million annually for the next four years.

    Alameda property owners currently pay a $189 parcel tax, which will expire in 2012.

    District officials said they need the emergency tax to avoid layoffs, maintain small class sizes and eliminate cuts to music, athletics, advanced placement courses and other staff.

    “It will make my life a lot easier if this passes,” Schaff said.

    The only other school measure in Alameda County, a facilities bond in Hayward, passed overwhelmingly with 72 percent of the vote, though it needed only 55 percent voter support.

    A San Francisco parcel tax, Measure A, also passed, with nearly 70 percent voter support.

    There were 6,500 provisional ballots cast across Alameda County on June 3. It’s unknown how many were cast by voters in Alameda, said registrar of voters spokesman Guy Ashley.

    Two of eight registrar staff members counting those votes are focusing solely on Alameda, Ashley said.

    The process requires them to look at each provisional ballot to determine whether the person is a registered voter and then determine whether they voted in their proper precinct.

    It’s an arduous task, but could be completed for Alameda by the end of the week, Ashley said.

    The registrar has 30 days after the election to certify the vote.

    Anyone wishing to contest the outcome has five days after certification to do so. Anyone requesting a recount must agree to pay the costs associated with it. If the result is reversed, the county covers the cost.

    It is unclear how much a recount in the Alameda election would cost, because it has been years since one was required, Ashley said.

    “If we’re missing by three votes, we’re going to demand it,” Schaff said of a recount.

    “I’m keeping my fingers crossed,” Schaff said. “If we win, it won’t be by much. It really will show the power of a few votes.”

  168. wdf

    A recent article from the Chronicle with interesting parallels to DJUSD. Alameda has a budget not that different in size from DJUSD:

    3 votes needed to pass Alameda parcel tax
    Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writer

    Wednesday, June 11, 2008

    (06-10) 18:06 PDT ALAMEDA — Students in Alameda are getting a real-life lesson this month on an old civics adage: Every vote counts.

    A week after the election, the Alameda Unified School District was just three votes short of the two-thirds voter approval needed to pass a parcel tax on the June 3 ballot.But it’s not over yet for Measure H. County officials were still counting an unknown number of provisional ballots cast on election day.

    As of Tuesday, there were 11,001 yes votes to 5,502 no votes – or 66.6606 percent in favor. That’s not enough if it holds.

    The district needs sixes to four decimal places to pass, school board President Bill Schaff said.

    It’s beyond a nail-biter at this point, Schaff said.

    “My fingernails are pretty much ground down,” he said. “I’m going for the enamel on the teeth now.”

    The school board put the $120 parcel tax on the ballot in March, an emergency measure to offset the governor’s proposed budget cuts. Without the parcel tax, the district’s $56 million general fund budget could end up about $4 million in the red next year. If passed, Measure H would raise up to $4.2 million annually for the next four years.

    Alameda property owners currently pay a $189 parcel tax, which will expire in 2012.

    District officials said they need the emergency tax to avoid layoffs, maintain small class sizes and eliminate cuts to music, athletics, advanced placement courses and other staff.

    “It will make my life a lot easier if this passes,” Schaff said.

    The only other school measure in Alameda County, a facilities bond in Hayward, passed overwhelmingly with 72 percent of the vote, though it needed only 55 percent voter support.

    A San Francisco parcel tax, Measure A, also passed, with nearly 70 percent voter support.

    There were 6,500 provisional ballots cast across Alameda County on June 3. It’s unknown how many were cast by voters in Alameda, said registrar of voters spokesman Guy Ashley.

    Two of eight registrar staff members counting those votes are focusing solely on Alameda, Ashley said.

    The process requires them to look at each provisional ballot to determine whether the person is a registered voter and then determine whether they voted in their proper precinct.

    It’s an arduous task, but could be completed for Alameda by the end of the week, Ashley said.

    The registrar has 30 days after the election to certify the vote.

    Anyone wishing to contest the outcome has five days after certification to do so. Anyone requesting a recount must agree to pay the costs associated with it. If the result is reversed, the county covers the cost.

    It is unclear how much a recount in the Alameda election would cost, because it has been years since one was required, Ashley said.

    “If we’re missing by three votes, we’re going to demand it,” Schaff said of a recount.

    “I’m keeping my fingers crossed,” Schaff said. “If we win, it won’t be by much. It really will show the power of a few votes.”

  169. Not One Cent For Tribute w/o Representation

    “Many of your other criticisms fall into this same category. Most are potentially worth considering, but poorly supported or described to act upon.”

    If you don’t like criticism, then don’t read it!!!

    “If you’re a parent who is so thoroughly disgusted with Davis schools, you could probably opt for an interdistrict transfer to Woodland schools or another district.”

    Unlike you, I am not willing to accept business as usual. I want meaningful change and accountability. Remember, VO was closed after we agree to cough up a parcel tax, but before the state budget crisis hit. So what good did the parcel tax do? A school was still going to be closed. If you don’t recognize the same old pattern, then it is bc you haven’t been around Davis long enough. I have had three children go thru Davis schools since 1987 – and the same fiscal mess has played itself out over and over again.

    “I attended a classroom event today at Valley Oak and found that almost everything that wasn’t nailed down had already been moved. This in a classroom full of children before the school year has even ended. Does anyone else find it odd that the district has already gutted Valley Oak’s fixtures? Talk about adding insult to injury. The district truly shows no compassion towards the children of Valley Oak.”

    It was known VO was going to be closed as far back as 1998. The School Board/District is ruthless in its decisions, and highly disingenous.

    “It is good to hear that the Woodland School district is doing okay finanicially. Academically the Woodland School is not doing well. Does anyone know why?”

    Davis kids come from better educated parents. Woodland is struggling to meet the needs of many kids who speak English as a second language. They most definitely have their problems, and are trying to address them with innovative programs like the Math Homework Hotline. However, fiscally they are doing far better than Davis.

    “District officials said they need the emergency tax to avoid layoffs, maintain small class sizes and eliminate cuts to music, athletics, advanced placement courses and other staff.”

    The difference is they need the parcel tax to offset budget cuts at the state level. We need a parcel tax to also fix the fiscal mismanagement of our School Board/District, after we just passed a parcel tax and got the closing of a school for our trouble, and probably will get another school closed. We desperately need meaningful and full fiscal oversight, and sooner than later!!!

  170. Not One Cent For Tribute w/o R

    “Many of your other criticisms fall into this same category. Most are potentially worth considering, but poorly supported or described to act upon.”

    If you don’t like criticism, then don’t read it!!!

    “If you’re a parent who is so thoroughly disgusted with Davis schools, you could probably opt for an interdistrict transfer to Woodland schools or another district.”

    Unlike you, I am not willing to accept business as usual. I want meaningful change and accountability. Remember, VO was closed after we agree to cough up a parcel tax, but before the state budget crisis hit. So what good did the parcel tax do? A school was still going to be closed. If you don’t recognize the same old pattern, then it is bc you haven’t been around Davis long enough. I have had three children go thru Davis schools since 1987 – and the same fiscal mess has played itself out over and over again.

    “I attended a classroom event today at Valley Oak and found that almost everything that wasn’t nailed down had already been moved. This in a classroom full of children before the school year has even ended. Does anyone else find it odd that the district has already gutted Valley Oak’s fixtures? Talk about adding insult to injury. The district truly shows no compassion towards the children of Valley Oak.”

    It was known VO was going to be closed as far back as 1998. The School Board/District is ruthless in its decisions, and highly disingenous.

    “It is good to hear that the Woodland School district is doing okay finanicially. Academically the Woodland School is not doing well. Does anyone know why?”

    Davis kids come from better educated parents. Woodland is struggling to meet the needs of many kids who speak English as a second language. They most definitely have their problems, and are trying to address them with innovative programs like the Math Homework Hotline. However, fiscally they are doing far better than Davis.

    “District officials said they need the emergency tax to avoid layoffs, maintain small class sizes and eliminate cuts to music, athletics, advanced placement courses and other staff.”

    The difference is they need the parcel tax to offset budget cuts at the state level. We need a parcel tax to also fix the fiscal mismanagement of our School Board/District, after we just passed a parcel tax and got the closing of a school for our trouble, and probably will get another school closed. We desperately need meaningful and full fiscal oversight, and sooner than later!!!

  171. Not One Cent For Tribute w/o R

    “Many of your other criticisms fall into this same category. Most are potentially worth considering, but poorly supported or described to act upon.”

    If you don’t like criticism, then don’t read it!!!

    “If you’re a parent who is so thoroughly disgusted with Davis schools, you could probably opt for an interdistrict transfer to Woodland schools or another district.”

    Unlike you, I am not willing to accept business as usual. I want meaningful change and accountability. Remember, VO was closed after we agree to cough up a parcel tax, but before the state budget crisis hit. So what good did the parcel tax do? A school was still going to be closed. If you don’t recognize the same old pattern, then it is bc you haven’t been around Davis long enough. I have had three children go thru Davis schools since 1987 – and the same fiscal mess has played itself out over and over again.

    “I attended a classroom event today at Valley Oak and found that almost everything that wasn’t nailed down had already been moved. This in a classroom full of children before the school year has even ended. Does anyone else find it odd that the district has already gutted Valley Oak’s fixtures? Talk about adding insult to injury. The district truly shows no compassion towards the children of Valley Oak.”

    It was known VO was going to be closed as far back as 1998. The School Board/District is ruthless in its decisions, and highly disingenous.

    “It is good to hear that the Woodland School district is doing okay finanicially. Academically the Woodland School is not doing well. Does anyone know why?”

    Davis kids come from better educated parents. Woodland is struggling to meet the needs of many kids who speak English as a second language. They most definitely have their problems, and are trying to address them with innovative programs like the Math Homework Hotline. However, fiscally they are doing far better than Davis.

    “District officials said they need the emergency tax to avoid layoffs, maintain small class sizes and eliminate cuts to music, athletics, advanced placement courses and other staff.”

    The difference is they need the parcel tax to offset budget cuts at the state level. We need a parcel tax to also fix the fiscal mismanagement of our School Board/District, after we just passed a parcel tax and got the closing of a school for our trouble, and probably will get another school closed. We desperately need meaningful and full fiscal oversight, and sooner than later!!!

  172. Not One Cent For Tribute w/o R

    “Many of your other criticisms fall into this same category. Most are potentially worth considering, but poorly supported or described to act upon.”

    If you don’t like criticism, then don’t read it!!!

    “If you’re a parent who is so thoroughly disgusted with Davis schools, you could probably opt for an interdistrict transfer to Woodland schools or another district.”

    Unlike you, I am not willing to accept business as usual. I want meaningful change and accountability. Remember, VO was closed after we agree to cough up a parcel tax, but before the state budget crisis hit. So what good did the parcel tax do? A school was still going to be closed. If you don’t recognize the same old pattern, then it is bc you haven’t been around Davis long enough. I have had three children go thru Davis schools since 1987 – and the same fiscal mess has played itself out over and over again.

    “I attended a classroom event today at Valley Oak and found that almost everything that wasn’t nailed down had already been moved. This in a classroom full of children before the school year has even ended. Does anyone else find it odd that the district has already gutted Valley Oak’s fixtures? Talk about adding insult to injury. The district truly shows no compassion towards the children of Valley Oak.”

    It was known VO was going to be closed as far back as 1998. The School Board/District is ruthless in its decisions, and highly disingenous.

    “It is good to hear that the Woodland School district is doing okay finanicially. Academically the Woodland School is not doing well. Does anyone know why?”

    Davis kids come from better educated parents. Woodland is struggling to meet the needs of many kids who speak English as a second language. They most definitely have their problems, and are trying to address them with innovative programs like the Math Homework Hotline. However, fiscally they are doing far better than Davis.

    “District officials said they need the emergency tax to avoid layoffs, maintain small class sizes and eliminate cuts to music, athletics, advanced placement courses and other staff.”

    The difference is they need the parcel tax to offset budget cuts at the state level. We need a parcel tax to also fix the fiscal mismanagement of our School Board/District, after we just passed a parcel tax and got the closing of a school for our trouble, and probably will get another school closed. We desperately need meaningful and full fiscal oversight, and sooner than later!!!

  173. wdf

    “”Many of your other criticisms fall into this same category. Most are potentially worth considering, but poorly supported or described to act upon.”

    If you don’t like criticism, then don’t read it!!!”

    Aw, come on! I never said I didn’t like your criticisms. I just said that many of yours haven’t been very constructive.

    I hear responses in school board meetings to issues you bring up, and your reply is that they’re idiots, that I shouldn’t listen to them, etc. without addressing the substance of the response. You’re giving ad hominem responses.

    You are clearly unsatisfied with Bruce Colby’s answer comparing Davis and Woodland. You can call the Woodland district yourself and explore more specifically what policies they’re following that you think need to be followed in Davis. If you find something significant that Mr. Colby ignored or glossed over, you can make a splash with it on this blog or on the op-ed of the Enterprise.

    I would say that is a beginning of citizen oversight. And you don’t have to wait around for someone to ask you to serve on some committee.

    “So what good did the parcel tax do?”

    Cuts would have been a lot deeper this year if it hadn’t passed. Measure Q only renewed funding from the previous parcel tax set to expire at the end of the month. It was not crafted to address the current structural deficit.

    “The difference is they need the parcel tax to offset budget cuts at the state level.”

    Except you forget that the Governor’s May revise restored most of that funding to state education. Alameda gets the bulk of their money from the same place that DJUSD does. That’s why DJUSD can’t blame the state as much now for the current situation in Davis. Neither can Alameda. When they originally proposed their parcel tax, they were building their district budget on the Governor’s January budget, and responded to it with a parcel tax. DJUSD could have done the same thing, but they dragged their feet at the time.

  174. wdf

    “”Many of your other criticisms fall into this same category. Most are potentially worth considering, but poorly supported or described to act upon.”

    If you don’t like criticism, then don’t read it!!!”

    Aw, come on! I never said I didn’t like your criticisms. I just said that many of yours haven’t been very constructive.

    I hear responses in school board meetings to issues you bring up, and your reply is that they’re idiots, that I shouldn’t listen to them, etc. without addressing the substance of the response. You’re giving ad hominem responses.

    You are clearly unsatisfied with Bruce Colby’s answer comparing Davis and Woodland. You can call the Woodland district yourself and explore more specifically what policies they’re following that you think need to be followed in Davis. If you find something significant that Mr. Colby ignored or glossed over, you can make a splash with it on this blog or on the op-ed of the Enterprise.

    I would say that is a beginning of citizen oversight. And you don’t have to wait around for someone to ask you to serve on some committee.

    “So what good did the parcel tax do?”

    Cuts would have been a lot deeper this year if it hadn’t passed. Measure Q only renewed funding from the previous parcel tax set to expire at the end of the month. It was not crafted to address the current structural deficit.

    “The difference is they need the parcel tax to offset budget cuts at the state level.”

    Except you forget that the Governor’s May revise restored most of that funding to state education. Alameda gets the bulk of their money from the same place that DJUSD does. That’s why DJUSD can’t blame the state as much now for the current situation in Davis. Neither can Alameda. When they originally proposed their parcel tax, they were building their district budget on the Governor’s January budget, and responded to it with a parcel tax. DJUSD could have done the same thing, but they dragged their feet at the time.

  175. wdf

    “”Many of your other criticisms fall into this same category. Most are potentially worth considering, but poorly supported or described to act upon.”

    If you don’t like criticism, then don’t read it!!!”

    Aw, come on! I never said I didn’t like your criticisms. I just said that many of yours haven’t been very constructive.

    I hear responses in school board meetings to issues you bring up, and your reply is that they’re idiots, that I shouldn’t listen to them, etc. without addressing the substance of the response. You’re giving ad hominem responses.

    You are clearly unsatisfied with Bruce Colby’s answer comparing Davis and Woodland. You can call the Woodland district yourself and explore more specifically what policies they’re following that you think need to be followed in Davis. If you find something significant that Mr. Colby ignored or glossed over, you can make a splash with it on this blog or on the op-ed of the Enterprise.

    I would say that is a beginning of citizen oversight. And you don’t have to wait around for someone to ask you to serve on some committee.

    “So what good did the parcel tax do?”

    Cuts would have been a lot deeper this year if it hadn’t passed. Measure Q only renewed funding from the previous parcel tax set to expire at the end of the month. It was not crafted to address the current structural deficit.

    “The difference is they need the parcel tax to offset budget cuts at the state level.”

    Except you forget that the Governor’s May revise restored most of that funding to state education. Alameda gets the bulk of their money from the same place that DJUSD does. That’s why DJUSD can’t blame the state as much now for the current situation in Davis. Neither can Alameda. When they originally proposed their parcel tax, they were building their district budget on the Governor’s January budget, and responded to it with a parcel tax. DJUSD could have done the same thing, but they dragged their feet at the time.

  176. wdf

    “”Many of your other criticisms fall into this same category. Most are potentially worth considering, but poorly supported or described to act upon.”

    If you don’t like criticism, then don’t read it!!!”

    Aw, come on! I never said I didn’t like your criticisms. I just said that many of yours haven’t been very constructive.

    I hear responses in school board meetings to issues you bring up, and your reply is that they’re idiots, that I shouldn’t listen to them, etc. without addressing the substance of the response. You’re giving ad hominem responses.

    You are clearly unsatisfied with Bruce Colby’s answer comparing Davis and Woodland. You can call the Woodland district yourself and explore more specifically what policies they’re following that you think need to be followed in Davis. If you find something significant that Mr. Colby ignored or glossed over, you can make a splash with it on this blog or on the op-ed of the Enterprise.

    I would say that is a beginning of citizen oversight. And you don’t have to wait around for someone to ask you to serve on some committee.

    “So what good did the parcel tax do?”

    Cuts would have been a lot deeper this year if it hadn’t passed. Measure Q only renewed funding from the previous parcel tax set to expire at the end of the month. It was not crafted to address the current structural deficit.

    “The difference is they need the parcel tax to offset budget cuts at the state level.”

    Except you forget that the Governor’s May revise restored most of that funding to state education. Alameda gets the bulk of their money from the same place that DJUSD does. That’s why DJUSD can’t blame the state as much now for the current situation in Davis. Neither can Alameda. When they originally proposed their parcel tax, they were building their district budget on the Governor’s January budget, and responded to it with a parcel tax. DJUSD could have done the same thing, but they dragged their feet at the time.

  177. Anonymous

    To: ANDREW SAID,
    You are correct. Lower income families rarely participate in their child’s education. This is the largest contributer to academic failure by a child. The Woodland School district has ELL,(English Language Learners), students. And the problem here is that the parent(s), who came HERE ILLEGALLY, can’t or won’t learn English. They come from a country that does not educate their people. Therefore they cannot teach their children, Math,English, Geography, etc.
    The other problem is that a large percentage of the ILLEGAL ALIEN fathers abandon their families and go back to Mexico. That leaves another huge gap in these kids lives and what do you end up with? Gang Bangers and assorted criminals that put another burden on the hardworking taxpayers.
    Is it the kids fault, NO. It is the fault of the home country that failed them and their problem parent(s) and the poor border security of the U.S.

  178. Anonymous

    To: ANDREW SAID,
    You are correct. Lower income families rarely participate in their child’s education. This is the largest contributer to academic failure by a child. The Woodland School district has ELL,(English Language Learners), students. And the problem here is that the parent(s), who came HERE ILLEGALLY, can’t or won’t learn English. They come from a country that does not educate their people. Therefore they cannot teach their children, Math,English, Geography, etc.
    The other problem is that a large percentage of the ILLEGAL ALIEN fathers abandon their families and go back to Mexico. That leaves another huge gap in these kids lives and what do you end up with? Gang Bangers and assorted criminals that put another burden on the hardworking taxpayers.
    Is it the kids fault, NO. It is the fault of the home country that failed them and their problem parent(s) and the poor border security of the U.S.

  179. Anonymous

    To: ANDREW SAID,
    You are correct. Lower income families rarely participate in their child’s education. This is the largest contributer to academic failure by a child. The Woodland School district has ELL,(English Language Learners), students. And the problem here is that the parent(s), who came HERE ILLEGALLY, can’t or won’t learn English. They come from a country that does not educate their people. Therefore they cannot teach their children, Math,English, Geography, etc.
    The other problem is that a large percentage of the ILLEGAL ALIEN fathers abandon their families and go back to Mexico. That leaves another huge gap in these kids lives and what do you end up with? Gang Bangers and assorted criminals that put another burden on the hardworking taxpayers.
    Is it the kids fault, NO. It is the fault of the home country that failed them and their problem parent(s) and the poor border security of the U.S.

  180. Anonymous

    To: ANDREW SAID,
    You are correct. Lower income families rarely participate in their child’s education. This is the largest contributer to academic failure by a child. The Woodland School district has ELL,(English Language Learners), students. And the problem here is that the parent(s), who came HERE ILLEGALLY, can’t or won’t learn English. They come from a country that does not educate their people. Therefore they cannot teach their children, Math,English, Geography, etc.
    The other problem is that a large percentage of the ILLEGAL ALIEN fathers abandon their families and go back to Mexico. That leaves another huge gap in these kids lives and what do you end up with? Gang Bangers and assorted criminals that put another burden on the hardworking taxpayers.
    Is it the kids fault, NO. It is the fault of the home country that failed them and their problem parent(s) and the poor border security of the U.S.

  181. Not One Cent Of Tribute W/O Rep

    “When they originally proposed their parcel tax, they were building their district budget on the Governor’s January budget, and responded to it with a parcel tax. DJUSD could have done the same thing, but they dragged their feet at the time.”

    Note your last 8 words “but they dragged their feet at the time”. You just made my case for me that DJUSD is not doing all it could to make sure the budget is managed responsibly.

    “Aw, come on! I never said I didn’t like your criticisms. I just said that many of yours haven’t been very constructive.”

    How is suggesting meaningful oversight in the form of a budget commission not hand picked by School Board/District personnel not very constructive?

    “I hear responses in school board meetings to issues you bring up, and your reply is that they’re idiots, that I shouldn’t listen to them, etc. without addressing the substance of the response. You’re giving ad hominem responses.”

    So what are you saying, that closing VO was necessary, and so is closing Emerson, both budget solutions of the current School Board? Then why bother with a parcel tax? Save money by closing schools and laying off teachers.

    “You are clearly unsatisfied with Bruce Colby’s answer comparing Davis and Woodland.”

    Will you be satisfied with Bruce Colby’s answers when they close Emerson and manage to pass a parcel tax too? At what point do you say enough is enough? This pattern has been going on for years. The School Board/District spends money on frills, then whines we can’t afford basics so we have to pass another parcel tax. Or it builds facility after facility even though the money isn’t there for operating expenses. Or they move the target when it comes to telling us what the parcel tax is going to be spent on. Don’t you have a problem with a disgraced Supt. being paid $240,000 to sit on his hands and do nothing, while we pay $190,000 to another Supt.? Do you really want to spend parcel tax money to pay for a course to teach elementary school kids how to grow 35 lb cabbages? When does the pork barrel gravy train stop?

    “Measure Q only renewed funding from the previous parcel tax set to expire at the end of the month. It was not crafted to address the current structural deficit.”

    Hello, there shouldn’t have been a structural deficit!

  182. Not One Cent Of Tribute W/O Re

    “When they originally proposed their parcel tax, they were building their district budget on the Governor’s January budget, and responded to it with a parcel tax. DJUSD could have done the same thing, but they dragged their feet at the time.”

    Note your last 8 words “but they dragged their feet at the time”. You just made my case for me that DJUSD is not doing all it could to make sure the budget is managed responsibly.

    “Aw, come on! I never said I didn’t like your criticisms. I just said that many of yours haven’t been very constructive.”

    How is suggesting meaningful oversight in the form of a budget commission not hand picked by School Board/District personnel not very constructive?

    “I hear responses in school board meetings to issues you bring up, and your reply is that they’re idiots, that I shouldn’t listen to them, etc. without addressing the substance of the response. You’re giving ad hominem responses.”

    So what are you saying, that closing VO was necessary, and so is closing Emerson, both budget solutions of the current School Board? Then why bother with a parcel tax? Save money by closing schools and laying off teachers.

    “You are clearly unsatisfied with Bruce Colby’s answer comparing Davis and Woodland.”

    Will you be satisfied with Bruce Colby’s answers when they close Emerson and manage to pass a parcel tax too? At what point do you say enough is enough? This pattern has been going on for years. The School Board/District spends money on frills, then whines we can’t afford basics so we have to pass another parcel tax. Or it builds facility after facility even though the money isn’t there for operating expenses. Or they move the target when it comes to telling us what the parcel tax is going to be spent on. Don’t you have a problem with a disgraced Supt. being paid $240,000 to sit on his hands and do nothing, while we pay $190,000 to another Supt.? Do you really want to spend parcel tax money to pay for a course to teach elementary school kids how to grow 35 lb cabbages? When does the pork barrel gravy train stop?

    “Measure Q only renewed funding from the previous parcel tax set to expire at the end of the month. It was not crafted to address the current structural deficit.”

    Hello, there shouldn’t have been a structural deficit!

  183. Not One Cent Of Tribute W/O Re

    “When they originally proposed their parcel tax, they were building their district budget on the Governor’s January budget, and responded to it with a parcel tax. DJUSD could have done the same thing, but they dragged their feet at the time.”

    Note your last 8 words “but they dragged their feet at the time”. You just made my case for me that DJUSD is not doing all it could to make sure the budget is managed responsibly.

    “Aw, come on! I never said I didn’t like your criticisms. I just said that many of yours haven’t been very constructive.”

    How is suggesting meaningful oversight in the form of a budget commission not hand picked by School Board/District personnel not very constructive?

    “I hear responses in school board meetings to issues you bring up, and your reply is that they’re idiots, that I shouldn’t listen to them, etc. without addressing the substance of the response. You’re giving ad hominem responses.”

    So what are you saying, that closing VO was necessary, and so is closing Emerson, both budget solutions of the current School Board? Then why bother with a parcel tax? Save money by closing schools and laying off teachers.

    “You are clearly unsatisfied with Bruce Colby’s answer comparing Davis and Woodland.”

    Will you be satisfied with Bruce Colby’s answers when they close Emerson and manage to pass a parcel tax too? At what point do you say enough is enough? This pattern has been going on for years. The School Board/District spends money on frills, then whines we can’t afford basics so we have to pass another parcel tax. Or it builds facility after facility even though the money isn’t there for operating expenses. Or they move the target when it comes to telling us what the parcel tax is going to be spent on. Don’t you have a problem with a disgraced Supt. being paid $240,000 to sit on his hands and do nothing, while we pay $190,000 to another Supt.? Do you really want to spend parcel tax money to pay for a course to teach elementary school kids how to grow 35 lb cabbages? When does the pork barrel gravy train stop?

    “Measure Q only renewed funding from the previous parcel tax set to expire at the end of the month. It was not crafted to address the current structural deficit.”

    Hello, there shouldn’t have been a structural deficit!

  184. Not One Cent Of Tribute W/O Re

    “When they originally proposed their parcel tax, they were building their district budget on the Governor’s January budget, and responded to it with a parcel tax. DJUSD could have done the same thing, but they dragged their feet at the time.”

    Note your last 8 words “but they dragged their feet at the time”. You just made my case for me that DJUSD is not doing all it could to make sure the budget is managed responsibly.

    “Aw, come on! I never said I didn’t like your criticisms. I just said that many of yours haven’t been very constructive.”

    How is suggesting meaningful oversight in the form of a budget commission not hand picked by School Board/District personnel not very constructive?

    “I hear responses in school board meetings to issues you bring up, and your reply is that they’re idiots, that I shouldn’t listen to them, etc. without addressing the substance of the response. You’re giving ad hominem responses.”

    So what are you saying, that closing VO was necessary, and so is closing Emerson, both budget solutions of the current School Board? Then why bother with a parcel tax? Save money by closing schools and laying off teachers.

    “You are clearly unsatisfied with Bruce Colby’s answer comparing Davis and Woodland.”

    Will you be satisfied with Bruce Colby’s answers when they close Emerson and manage to pass a parcel tax too? At what point do you say enough is enough? This pattern has been going on for years. The School Board/District spends money on frills, then whines we can’t afford basics so we have to pass another parcel tax. Or it builds facility after facility even though the money isn’t there for operating expenses. Or they move the target when it comes to telling us what the parcel tax is going to be spent on. Don’t you have a problem with a disgraced Supt. being paid $240,000 to sit on his hands and do nothing, while we pay $190,000 to another Supt.? Do you really want to spend parcel tax money to pay for a course to teach elementary school kids how to grow 35 lb cabbages? When does the pork barrel gravy train stop?

    “Measure Q only renewed funding from the previous parcel tax set to expire at the end of the month. It was not crafted to address the current structural deficit.”

    Hello, there shouldn’t have been a structural deficit!

  185. wdf

    “Not One Cent Of Tribute W/O Rep said…

    Note your last 8 words “but they dragged their feet at the time”. You just made my case for me that DJUSD is not doing all it could to make sure the budget is managed responsibly.”

    I’m not happy that they didn’t propose a parcel tax for the June ballot either! I suppose that because they didn’t propose a June parcel tax, then you don’t support any future parcel tax. My position is that they should propose a parcel tax in November just to keep all options on the table to balance the budget.

    If Davis doesn’t pass that parcel tax, well we will be able to move on to other options a little more clarity.

    “How is suggesting meaningful oversight in the form of a budget commission not hand picked by School Board/District personnel not very constructive?”

    I don’t place much stock in being excluded from an oversight committee. Do you think oversight committees get more exclusive information than the public is given?

    I’ve never had any school board member or district staff member call me up to invite me to be on an oversight/task force committee. But I don’t feel like that inhibits me from saying my piece on anything if I want to.

    Nevertheless, if you think that an “completely impartial and official” oversight committee is a critical answer to our problems, how do you propose it would work?

    I think you may have proposed a random lottery. If so, how do you find people who are genuinely interested? Do you propose going through the Davis phone book until you get the required number to agree? Does that include UCD undergraduates? only current parents of DJUSD students? what if a real wacko got on the oversight commission?

    “So what are you saying, that closing VO was necessary, and so is closing Emerson, both budget solutions of the current School Board? Then why bother with a parcel tax? Save money by closing schools and laying off teachers.”

    I think we established that DJUSD built more schools than it could support. If it is the will of the voters not to support another parcel tax, then a next likely option would be to consider that. You like to focus on Emerson, but there are plenty of valid reorganization scenarios that could ultimately close another campus.

    “Will you be satisfied with Bruce Colby’s answers when they close Emerson and manage to pass a parcel tax too?”

    If that’s what it takes to have a balanced budget.

    I don’t remember that Measure Q specifically promised to keep Valley Oak open. If that was the promise, I would like to know where that was said.

    I don’t expect the next parcel tax will promise to keep any school open. Parcel taxes, as far as I know, have only funded programs.

    “At what point do you say enough is enough? This pattern has been going on for years.”

    Please explain. In discussions with local teachers, I hear that this is about as bad as it has been since Prop 13 passed.

    “The School Board/District spends money on frills, then whines we can’t afford basics so we have to pass another parcel tax.”

    Once again, please define frills. This is where I think your points have been really lacking.

    So far I think you have defined frills as athletics, music, Da Vinci, Montessori, Spanish immersion, …?

    I presume you mean “basics” to mean, at a bare minimum, reading, writing, and math.

    I’ve pointed out that elementary music was restored for next year only because DSF funded it. Secondary music was probably kept because they can stuff 50-80 kids into a music class; otherwise they have to pay 1-2 extra teachers per music class canceled. If you cut elementary music, though, you won’t be seeing secondary classes of 50-80 students. This year I haven’t seen the district demonstrate a priority to keep music going for the sake of music.

    Athletics stipends, I think, add up to $100K or less. It is minimal funding for an athletic program. I actually think there are valid benefits for keeping even this minimal kind of program.

    DVHS, Montessori, and Spanish Immersion all teach reading, writing and math. If you want to eliminate those three programs, then you have to hire the same number of teachers to teach those children in a regular program. You haven’t demonstrated how those programs are more of a drag on the budget than regular programs.

    “Or it builds facility after facility even though the money isn’t there for operating expenses.”

    I agree with you on this one. That’s why I agree that it was best to let Murphy go, bring in a new team, and do the necessary things to make the budget balanced.

    Cutting ~$million+ for next year is a start, but more has to be done. This year’s events have done much to advance the discussion in the community.

    If we have to close schools to correct that previous bad policy, then so be it; it probably makes sense. I used to live in the VO neighborhood. Sentimentally I would have preferred a different elementary to close.

    I currently live in the Emerson neighborhood. Sentimentally I would prefer that Emerson not close, but if that is clearly what has to happen to balance the budget, that’s what I will learn to live with.

    How else do you correct a bad policy of growth? You keep open only what you can fund.

    Given a choice between teachers, programs, and buildings, you would probably get a majority of Davis residents choosing to go with teachers and programs over buildings.

    “Or they move the target when it comes to telling us what the parcel tax is going to be spent on. Don’t you have a problem with a disgraced Supt. being paid $240,000 to sit on his hands and do nothing, while we pay $190,000 to another Supt.?”

    I think we’ve been through this before and agreed to disagree. It sucks to pay the extra SI salary, but I think the alternative would cost more.

    “Do you really want to spend parcel tax money to pay for a course to teach elementary school kids how to grow 35 lb cabbages?”

    Okay. I think you’ve probably brought this up three times, and I haven’t called you on it. Please provide documentation where our elementary school kids will have a course to learn how to grow 35 lb. cabbages because of Measure Q. You are the only one I have yet run into who has made that claim.

    “Hello, there shouldn’t have been a structural deficit!”

    I agree. Someone “drove this truck into the ditch”, now we have to get it out.

    Bruce Colby, Kevin French, and James Hammond are all relatively new. I’m willing to give them a chance to fix the policies of their predecessors. It seems that you aren’t. Hiring new faces for those positions right now will just prolong the problems. I’m willing to wait for the end of their contracts and see if we have improvement. Getting rid of them right now will land us with the very same problem we have in paying Murphy’s last year.

  186. wdf

    “Not One Cent Of Tribute W/O Rep said…

    Note your last 8 words “but they dragged their feet at the time”. You just made my case for me that DJUSD is not doing all it could to make sure the budget is managed responsibly.”

    I’m not happy that they didn’t propose a parcel tax for the June ballot either! I suppose that because they didn’t propose a June parcel tax, then you don’t support any future parcel tax. My position is that they should propose a parcel tax in November just to keep all options on the table to balance the budget.

    If Davis doesn’t pass that parcel tax, well we will be able to move on to other options a little more clarity.

    “How is suggesting meaningful oversight in the form of a budget commission not hand picked by School Board/District personnel not very constructive?”

    I don’t place much stock in being excluded from an oversight committee. Do you think oversight committees get more exclusive information than the public is given?

    I’ve never had any school board member or district staff member call me up to invite me to be on an oversight/task force committee. But I don’t feel like that inhibits me from saying my piece on anything if I want to.

    Nevertheless, if you think that an “completely impartial and official” oversight committee is a critical answer to our problems, how do you propose it would work?

    I think you may have proposed a random lottery. If so, how do you find people who are genuinely interested? Do you propose going through the Davis phone book until you get the required number to agree? Does that include UCD undergraduates? only current parents of DJUSD students? what if a real wacko got on the oversight commission?

    “So what are you saying, that closing VO was necessary, and so is closing Emerson, both budget solutions of the current School Board? Then why bother with a parcel tax? Save money by closing schools and laying off teachers.”

    I think we established that DJUSD built more schools than it could support. If it is the will of the voters not to support another parcel tax, then a next likely option would be to consider that. You like to focus on Emerson, but there are plenty of valid reorganization scenarios that could ultimately close another campus.

    “Will you be satisfied with Bruce Colby’s answers when they close Emerson and manage to pass a parcel tax too?”

    If that’s what it takes to have a balanced budget.

    I don’t remember that Measure Q specifically promised to keep Valley Oak open. If that was the promise, I would like to know where that was said.

    I don’t expect the next parcel tax will promise to keep any school open. Parcel taxes, as far as I know, have only funded programs.

    “At what point do you say enough is enough? This pattern has been going on for years.”

    Please explain. In discussions with local teachers, I hear that this is about as bad as it has been since Prop 13 passed.

    “The School Board/District spends money on frills, then whines we can’t afford basics so we have to pass another parcel tax.”

    Once again, please define frills. This is where I think your points have been really lacking.

    So far I think you have defined frills as athletics, music, Da Vinci, Montessori, Spanish immersion, …?

    I presume you mean “basics” to mean, at a bare minimum, reading, writing, and math.

    I’ve pointed out that elementary music was restored for next year only because DSF funded it. Secondary music was probably kept because they can stuff 50-80 kids into a music class; otherwise they have to pay 1-2 extra teachers per music class canceled. If you cut elementary music, though, you won’t be seeing secondary classes of 50-80 students. This year I haven’t seen the district demonstrate a priority to keep music going for the sake of music.

    Athletics stipends, I think, add up to $100K or less. It is minimal funding for an athletic program. I actually think there are valid benefits for keeping even this minimal kind of program.

    DVHS, Montessori, and Spanish Immersion all teach reading, writing and math. If you want to eliminate those three programs, then you have to hire the same number of teachers to teach those children in a regular program. You haven’t demonstrated how those programs are more of a drag on the budget than regular programs.

    “Or it builds facility after facility even though the money isn’t there for operating expenses.”

    I agree with you on this one. That’s why I agree that it was best to let Murphy go, bring in a new team, and do the necessary things to make the budget balanced.

    Cutting ~$million+ for next year is a start, but more has to be done. This year’s events have done much to advance the discussion in the community.

    If we have to close schools to correct that previous bad policy, then so be it; it probably makes sense. I used to live in the VO neighborhood. Sentimentally I would have preferred a different elementary to close.

    I currently live in the Emerson neighborhood. Sentimentally I would prefer that Emerson not close, but if that is clearly what has to happen to balance the budget, that’s what I will learn to live with.

    How else do you correct a bad policy of growth? You keep open only what you can fund.

    Given a choice between teachers, programs, and buildings, you would probably get a majority of Davis residents choosing to go with teachers and programs over buildings.

    “Or they move the target when it comes to telling us what the parcel tax is going to be spent on. Don’t you have a problem with a disgraced Supt. being paid $240,000 to sit on his hands and do nothing, while we pay $190,000 to another Supt.?”

    I think we’ve been through this before and agreed to disagree. It sucks to pay the extra SI salary, but I think the alternative would cost more.

    “Do you really want to spend parcel tax money to pay for a course to teach elementary school kids how to grow 35 lb cabbages?”

    Okay. I think you’ve probably brought this up three times, and I haven’t called you on it. Please provide documentation where our elementary school kids will have a course to learn how to grow 35 lb. cabbages because of Measure Q. You are the only one I have yet run into who has made that claim.

    “Hello, there shouldn’t have been a structural deficit!”

    I agree. Someone “drove this truck into the ditch”, now we have to get it out.

    Bruce Colby, Kevin French, and James Hammond are all relatively new. I’m willing to give them a chance to fix the policies of their predecessors. It seems that you aren’t. Hiring new faces for those positions right now will just prolong the problems. I’m willing to wait for the end of their contracts and see if we have improvement. Getting rid of them right now will land us with the very same problem we have in paying Murphy’s last year.

  187. wdf

    “Not One Cent Of Tribute W/O Rep said…

    Note your last 8 words “but they dragged their feet at the time”. You just made my case for me that DJUSD is not doing all it could to make sure the budget is managed responsibly.”

    I’m not happy that they didn’t propose a parcel tax for the June ballot either! I suppose that because they didn’t propose a June parcel tax, then you don’t support any future parcel tax. My position is that they should propose a parcel tax in November just to keep all options on the table to balance the budget.

    If Davis doesn’t pass that parcel tax, well we will be able to move on to other options a little more clarity.

    “How is suggesting meaningful oversight in the form of a budget commission not hand picked by School Board/District personnel not very constructive?”

    I don’t place much stock in being excluded from an oversight committee. Do you think oversight committees get more exclusive information than the public is given?

    I’ve never had any school board member or district staff member call me up to invite me to be on an oversight/task force committee. But I don’t feel like that inhibits me from saying my piece on anything if I want to.

    Nevertheless, if you think that an “completely impartial and official” oversight committee is a critical answer to our problems, how do you propose it would work?

    I think you may have proposed a random lottery. If so, how do you find people who are genuinely interested? Do you propose going through the Davis phone book until you get the required number to agree? Does that include UCD undergraduates? only current parents of DJUSD students? what if a real wacko got on the oversight commission?

    “So what are you saying, that closing VO was necessary, and so is closing Emerson, both budget solutions of the current School Board? Then why bother with a parcel tax? Save money by closing schools and laying off teachers.”

    I think we established that DJUSD built more schools than it could support. If it is the will of the voters not to support another parcel tax, then a next likely option would be to consider that. You like to focus on Emerson, but there are plenty of valid reorganization scenarios that could ultimately close another campus.

    “Will you be satisfied with Bruce Colby’s answers when they close Emerson and manage to pass a parcel tax too?”

    If that’s what it takes to have a balanced budget.

    I don’t remember that Measure Q specifically promised to keep Valley Oak open. If that was the promise, I would like to know where that was said.

    I don’t expect the next parcel tax will promise to keep any school open. Parcel taxes, as far as I know, have only funded programs.

    “At what point do you say enough is enough? This pattern has been going on for years.”

    Please explain. In discussions with local teachers, I hear that this is about as bad as it has been since Prop 13 passed.

    “The School Board/District spends money on frills, then whines we can’t afford basics so we have to pass another parcel tax.”

    Once again, please define frills. This is where I think your points have been really lacking.

    So far I think you have defined frills as athletics, music, Da Vinci, Montessori, Spanish immersion, …?

    I presume you mean “basics” to mean, at a bare minimum, reading, writing, and math.

    I’ve pointed out that elementary music was restored for next year only because DSF funded it. Secondary music was probably kept because they can stuff 50-80 kids into a music class; otherwise they have to pay 1-2 extra teachers per music class canceled. If you cut elementary music, though, you won’t be seeing secondary classes of 50-80 students. This year I haven’t seen the district demonstrate a priority to keep music going for the sake of music.

    Athletics stipends, I think, add up to $100K or less. It is minimal funding for an athletic program. I actually think there are valid benefits for keeping even this minimal kind of program.

    DVHS, Montessori, and Spanish Immersion all teach reading, writing and math. If you want to eliminate those three programs, then you have to hire the same number of teachers to teach those children in a regular program. You haven’t demonstrated how those programs are more of a drag on the budget than regular programs.

    “Or it builds facility after facility even though the money isn’t there for operating expenses.”

    I agree with you on this one. That’s why I agree that it was best to let Murphy go, bring in a new team, and do the necessary things to make the budget balanced.

    Cutting ~$million+ for next year is a start, but more has to be done. This year’s events have done much to advance the discussion in the community.

    If we have to close schools to correct that previous bad policy, then so be it; it probably makes sense. I used to live in the VO neighborhood. Sentimentally I would have preferred a different elementary to close.

    I currently live in the Emerson neighborhood. Sentimentally I would prefer that Emerson not close, but if that is clearly what has to happen to balance the budget, that’s what I will learn to live with.

    How else do you correct a bad policy of growth? You keep open only what you can fund.

    Given a choice between teachers, programs, and buildings, you would probably get a majority of Davis residents choosing to go with teachers and programs over buildings.

    “Or they move the target when it comes to telling us what the parcel tax is going to be spent on. Don’t you have a problem with a disgraced Supt. being paid $240,000 to sit on his hands and do nothing, while we pay $190,000 to another Supt.?”

    I think we’ve been through this before and agreed to disagree. It sucks to pay the extra SI salary, but I think the alternative would cost more.

    “Do you really want to spend parcel tax money to pay for a course to teach elementary school kids how to grow 35 lb cabbages?”

    Okay. I think you’ve probably brought this up three times, and I haven’t called you on it. Please provide documentation where our elementary school kids will have a course to learn how to grow 35 lb. cabbages because of Measure Q. You are the only one I have yet run into who has made that claim.

    “Hello, there shouldn’t have been a structural deficit!”

    I agree. Someone “drove this truck into the ditch”, now we have to get it out.

    Bruce Colby, Kevin French, and James Hammond are all relatively new. I’m willing to give them a chance to fix the policies of their predecessors. It seems that you aren’t. Hiring new faces for those positions right now will just prolong the problems. I’m willing to wait for the end of their contracts and see if we have improvement. Getting rid of them right now will land us with the very same problem we have in paying Murphy’s last year.

  188. wdf

    “Not One Cent Of Tribute W/O Rep said…

    Note your last 8 words “but they dragged their feet at the time”. You just made my case for me that DJUSD is not doing all it could to make sure the budget is managed responsibly.”

    I’m not happy that they didn’t propose a parcel tax for the June ballot either! I suppose that because they didn’t propose a June parcel tax, then you don’t support any future parcel tax. My position is that they should propose a parcel tax in November just to keep all options on the table to balance the budget.

    If Davis doesn’t pass that parcel tax, well we will be able to move on to other options a little more clarity.

    “How is suggesting meaningful oversight in the form of a budget commission not hand picked by School Board/District personnel not very constructive?”

    I don’t place much stock in being excluded from an oversight committee. Do you think oversight committees get more exclusive information than the public is given?

    I’ve never had any school board member or district staff member call me up to invite me to be on an oversight/task force committee. But I don’t feel like that inhibits me from saying my piece on anything if I want to.

    Nevertheless, if you think that an “completely impartial and official” oversight committee is a critical answer to our problems, how do you propose it would work?

    I think you may have proposed a random lottery. If so, how do you find people who are genuinely interested? Do you propose going through the Davis phone book until you get the required number to agree? Does that include UCD undergraduates? only current parents of DJUSD students? what if a real wacko got on the oversight commission?

    “So what are you saying, that closing VO was necessary, and so is closing Emerson, both budget solutions of the current School Board? Then why bother with a parcel tax? Save money by closing schools and laying off teachers.”

    I think we established that DJUSD built more schools than it could support. If it is the will of the voters not to support another parcel tax, then a next likely option would be to consider that. You like to focus on Emerson, but there are plenty of valid reorganization scenarios that could ultimately close another campus.

    “Will you be satisfied with Bruce Colby’s answers when they close Emerson and manage to pass a parcel tax too?”

    If that’s what it takes to have a balanced budget.

    I don’t remember that Measure Q specifically promised to keep Valley Oak open. If that was the promise, I would like to know where that was said.

    I don’t expect the next parcel tax will promise to keep any school open. Parcel taxes, as far as I know, have only funded programs.

    “At what point do you say enough is enough? This pattern has been going on for years.”

    Please explain. In discussions with local teachers, I hear that this is about as bad as it has been since Prop 13 passed.

    “The School Board/District spends money on frills, then whines we can’t afford basics so we have to pass another parcel tax.”

    Once again, please define frills. This is where I think your points have been really lacking.

    So far I think you have defined frills as athletics, music, Da Vinci, Montessori, Spanish immersion, …?

    I presume you mean “basics” to mean, at a bare minimum, reading, writing, and math.

    I’ve pointed out that elementary music was restored for next year only because DSF funded it. Secondary music was probably kept because they can stuff 50-80 kids into a music class; otherwise they have to pay 1-2 extra teachers per music class canceled. If you cut elementary music, though, you won’t be seeing secondary classes of 50-80 students. This year I haven’t seen the district demonstrate a priority to keep music going for the sake of music.

    Athletics stipends, I think, add up to $100K or less. It is minimal funding for an athletic program. I actually think there are valid benefits for keeping even this minimal kind of program.

    DVHS, Montessori, and Spanish Immersion all teach reading, writing and math. If you want to eliminate those three programs, then you have to hire the same number of teachers to teach those children in a regular program. You haven’t demonstrated how those programs are more of a drag on the budget than regular programs.

    “Or it builds facility after facility even though the money isn’t there for operating expenses.”

    I agree with you on this one. That’s why I agree that it was best to let Murphy go, bring in a new team, and do the necessary things to make the budget balanced.

    Cutting ~$million+ for next year is a start, but more has to be done. This year’s events have done much to advance the discussion in the community.

    If we have to close schools to correct that previous bad policy, then so be it; it probably makes sense. I used to live in the VO neighborhood. Sentimentally I would have preferred a different elementary to close.

    I currently live in the Emerson neighborhood. Sentimentally I would prefer that Emerson not close, but if that is clearly what has to happen to balance the budget, that’s what I will learn to live with.

    How else do you correct a bad policy of growth? You keep open only what you can fund.

    Given a choice between teachers, programs, and buildings, you would probably get a majority of Davis residents choosing to go with teachers and programs over buildings.

    “Or they move the target when it comes to telling us what the parcel tax is going to be spent on. Don’t you have a problem with a disgraced Supt. being paid $240,000 to sit on his hands and do nothing, while we pay $190,000 to another Supt.?”

    I think we’ve been through this before and agreed to disagree. It sucks to pay the extra SI salary, but I think the alternative would cost more.

    “Do you really want to spend parcel tax money to pay for a course to teach elementary school kids how to grow 35 lb cabbages?”

    Okay. I think you’ve probably brought this up three times, and I haven’t called you on it. Please provide documentation where our elementary school kids will have a course to learn how to grow 35 lb. cabbages because of Measure Q. You are the only one I have yet run into who has made that claim.

    “Hello, there shouldn’t have been a structural deficit!”

    I agree. Someone “drove this truck into the ditch”, now we have to get it out.

    Bruce Colby, Kevin French, and James Hammond are all relatively new. I’m willing to give them a chance to fix the policies of their predecessors. It seems that you aren’t. Hiring new faces for those positions right now will just prolong the problems. I’m willing to wait for the end of their contracts and see if we have improvement. Getting rid of them right now will land us with the very same problem we have in paying Murphy’s last year.

  189. Not One Cent

    wdf – where do I begin? Trading barb for barb has resulted in your admission that many of my points are well taken, but generally you exude an attitude of trusting school officials to do the right thing. This is where we truly differ. I don’t trust them at all.

    For instance, Measure Q funding to be spent on the 35 lb cabbage class was in the Davis Enterprise for everyone to see. It is very indicative of the larger problem, that school officials are not honest in their dealings.

    Here is how it works, with specifics just for you. Originally, it was stated by school officials that Measure Q funding was going to be spent on better nutrition for our students. Sounds great, right? Who could argue with that?

    As time went on, school officials shaded the nutrition idea so that it morphed into something different. At first the understanding was “better nutrition”, which evolved into a “nutrition course”, which changed to “elementary school program to teach students how to grow vegetables”, when the full mask slipped off to reveal a teacher who let the cat out of the bag, bragging that his students were learning how to grow 35 lb cabbages, and this was the program that Measure Q was going to support.

    Yet almost everyone in this town was led to believe that Measure Q funding was going to be spent on introducing local fresh fruits and vegetables into the school lunches.

    Now I found the last bit of news to be very interesting. My understanding is that when the federal gov’t funds anything, they do not allow for much flexibility. For instance, the same thing was suggested for the Meals on Wheels program in our county. But the Director told me that federal guidelines forbid such a thing, because of the possibility of contamination. I have no doubt the same would hold true for our school lunch programs. The latest tomato scare would tend to also verify what I am saying is true.

    Now, let us take this a step further. At one time, the schools themselves insisted the need for installing vending machines, to raise needed funding for schools. So in went soft drink machines and snack dispensers. Essentially school officials were insisting that it was necessary to dispense junk food to our kids so the schools could keep their fiscal heads above water.

    In addition, cookies and other less than nutritious food was sold in the cafeteria. Bake sales to raise PTA funds were allowed on campus with utter abandon. School officials did not seem to give a rip about student nutrition. And on and on it went. At the time I thought it was insane.

    Meanwhile the school lunches that were being sold were virtually inedible. My kids were on the free lunch program at the time, and always chose to brown bag it. What passed for decent nutrition was a joke. Corn dogs, chicken nuggets, taco chips covered w cheeze whiz was the order of the day and the usual fare.

    Suddenly, when school officials wanted to pass Measure Q, nutrition became of paramount importance to them. Sorry, but I find that claim to be highly disingenous. You can’t have it both ways – create poor nutritional standards, then whine you want money to improve nutritional standards.

    Now, have I been specific enough for you? Are you starting to get the picture? I could go on, and on, and on about this sort of double speak that has been going on for years. This is why I would feel much, much better if we had some sort of meaningful citizen/teacher oversight.

    Closing schools and laying off teachers is not the answer to our budget problems. Cutting out waste is a much better approach. So is making sure not too many schools are built, which we both can agree on.

    IMHO, if we trust the current officials to carry out the budgetary process with no oversight, I can almost guarantee we are going to get the closing of Emerson for our troubles, along with another sizeable parcel tax. There will be virtually no accountability, and it will be business as usual.

    As a result, expect more demands for more parcel taxes, whenever the school district runs out of money, which will be often since they have nearly exhausted their supply of assets, which have been sold off to cover up gross fiscal mismanagement.

  190. Not One Cent

    wdf – where do I begin? Trading barb for barb has resulted in your admission that many of my points are well taken, but generally you exude an attitude of trusting school officials to do the right thing. This is where we truly differ. I don’t trust them at all.

    For instance, Measure Q funding to be spent on the 35 lb cabbage class was in the Davis Enterprise for everyone to see. It is very indicative of the larger problem, that school officials are not honest in their dealings.

    Here is how it works, with specifics just for you. Originally, it was stated by school officials that Measure Q funding was going to be spent on better nutrition for our students. Sounds great, right? Who could argue with that?

    As time went on, school officials shaded the nutrition idea so that it morphed into something different. At first the understanding was “better nutrition”, which evolved into a “nutrition course”, which changed to “elementary school program to teach students how to grow vegetables”, when the full mask slipped off to reveal a teacher who let the cat out of the bag, bragging that his students were learning how to grow 35 lb cabbages, and this was the program that Measure Q was going to support.

    Yet almost everyone in this town was led to believe that Measure Q funding was going to be spent on introducing local fresh fruits and vegetables into the school lunches.

    Now I found the last bit of news to be very interesting. My understanding is that when the federal gov’t funds anything, they do not allow for much flexibility. For instance, the same thing was suggested for the Meals on Wheels program in our county. But the Director told me that federal guidelines forbid such a thing, because of the possibility of contamination. I have no doubt the same would hold true for our school lunch programs. The latest tomato scare would tend to also verify what I am saying is true.

    Now, let us take this a step further. At one time, the schools themselves insisted the need for installing vending machines, to raise needed funding for schools. So in went soft drink machines and snack dispensers. Essentially school officials were insisting that it was necessary to dispense junk food to our kids so the schools could keep their fiscal heads above water.

    In addition, cookies and other less than nutritious food was sold in the cafeteria. Bake sales to raise PTA funds were allowed on campus with utter abandon. School officials did not seem to give a rip about student nutrition. And on and on it went. At the time I thought it was insane.

    Meanwhile the school lunches that were being sold were virtually inedible. My kids were on the free lunch program at the time, and always chose to brown bag it. What passed for decent nutrition was a joke. Corn dogs, chicken nuggets, taco chips covered w cheeze whiz was the order of the day and the usual fare.

    Suddenly, when school officials wanted to pass Measure Q, nutrition became of paramount importance to them. Sorry, but I find that claim to be highly disingenous. You can’t have it both ways – create poor nutritional standards, then whine you want money to improve nutritional standards.

    Now, have I been specific enough for you? Are you starting to get the picture? I could go on, and on, and on about this sort of double speak that has been going on for years. This is why I would feel much, much better if we had some sort of meaningful citizen/teacher oversight.

    Closing schools and laying off teachers is not the answer to our budget problems. Cutting out waste is a much better approach. So is making sure not too many schools are built, which we both can agree on.

    IMHO, if we trust the current officials to carry out the budgetary process with no oversight, I can almost guarantee we are going to get the closing of Emerson for our troubles, along with another sizeable parcel tax. There will be virtually no accountability, and it will be business as usual.

    As a result, expect more demands for more parcel taxes, whenever the school district runs out of money, which will be often since they have nearly exhausted their supply of assets, which have been sold off to cover up gross fiscal mismanagement.

  191. Not One Cent

    wdf – where do I begin? Trading barb for barb has resulted in your admission that many of my points are well taken, but generally you exude an attitude of trusting school officials to do the right thing. This is where we truly differ. I don’t trust them at all.

    For instance, Measure Q funding to be spent on the 35 lb cabbage class was in the Davis Enterprise for everyone to see. It is very indicative of the larger problem, that school officials are not honest in their dealings.

    Here is how it works, with specifics just for you. Originally, it was stated by school officials that Measure Q funding was going to be spent on better nutrition for our students. Sounds great, right? Who could argue with that?

    As time went on, school officials shaded the nutrition idea so that it morphed into something different. At first the understanding was “better nutrition”, which evolved into a “nutrition course”, which changed to “elementary school program to teach students how to grow vegetables”, when the full mask slipped off to reveal a teacher who let the cat out of the bag, bragging that his students were learning how to grow 35 lb cabbages, and this was the program that Measure Q was going to support.

    Yet almost everyone in this town was led to believe that Measure Q funding was going to be spent on introducing local fresh fruits and vegetables into the school lunches.

    Now I found the last bit of news to be very interesting. My understanding is that when the federal gov’t funds anything, they do not allow for much flexibility. For instance, the same thing was suggested for the Meals on Wheels program in our county. But the Director told me that federal guidelines forbid such a thing, because of the possibility of contamination. I have no doubt the same would hold true for our school lunch programs. The latest tomato scare would tend to also verify what I am saying is true.

    Now, let us take this a step further. At one time, the schools themselves insisted the need for installing vending machines, to raise needed funding for schools. So in went soft drink machines and snack dispensers. Essentially school officials were insisting that it was necessary to dispense junk food to our kids so the schools could keep their fiscal heads above water.

    In addition, cookies and other less than nutritious food was sold in the cafeteria. Bake sales to raise PTA funds were allowed on campus with utter abandon. School officials did not seem to give a rip about student nutrition. And on and on it went. At the time I thought it was insane.

    Meanwhile the school lunches that were being sold were virtually inedible. My kids were on the free lunch program at the time, and always chose to brown bag it. What passed for decent nutrition was a joke. Corn dogs, chicken nuggets, taco chips covered w cheeze whiz was the order of the day and the usual fare.

    Suddenly, when school officials wanted to pass Measure Q, nutrition became of paramount importance to them. Sorry, but I find that claim to be highly disingenous. You can’t have it both ways – create poor nutritional standards, then whine you want money to improve nutritional standards.

    Now, have I been specific enough for you? Are you starting to get the picture? I could go on, and on, and on about this sort of double speak that has been going on for years. This is why I would feel much, much better if we had some sort of meaningful citizen/teacher oversight.

    Closing schools and laying off teachers is not the answer to our budget problems. Cutting out waste is a much better approach. So is making sure not too many schools are built, which we both can agree on.

    IMHO, if we trust the current officials to carry out the budgetary process with no oversight, I can almost guarantee we are going to get the closing of Emerson for our troubles, along with another sizeable parcel tax. There will be virtually no accountability, and it will be business as usual.

    As a result, expect more demands for more parcel taxes, whenever the school district runs out of money, which will be often since they have nearly exhausted their supply of assets, which have been sold off to cover up gross fiscal mismanagement.

  192. Not One Cent

    wdf – where do I begin? Trading barb for barb has resulted in your admission that many of my points are well taken, but generally you exude an attitude of trusting school officials to do the right thing. This is where we truly differ. I don’t trust them at all.

    For instance, Measure Q funding to be spent on the 35 lb cabbage class was in the Davis Enterprise for everyone to see. It is very indicative of the larger problem, that school officials are not honest in their dealings.

    Here is how it works, with specifics just for you. Originally, it was stated by school officials that Measure Q funding was going to be spent on better nutrition for our students. Sounds great, right? Who could argue with that?

    As time went on, school officials shaded the nutrition idea so that it morphed into something different. At first the understanding was “better nutrition”, which evolved into a “nutrition course”, which changed to “elementary school program to teach students how to grow vegetables”, when the full mask slipped off to reveal a teacher who let the cat out of the bag, bragging that his students were learning how to grow 35 lb cabbages, and this was the program that Measure Q was going to support.

    Yet almost everyone in this town was led to believe that Measure Q funding was going to be spent on introducing local fresh fruits and vegetables into the school lunches.

    Now I found the last bit of news to be very interesting. My understanding is that when the federal gov’t funds anything, they do not allow for much flexibility. For instance, the same thing was suggested for the Meals on Wheels program in our county. But the Director told me that federal guidelines forbid such a thing, because of the possibility of contamination. I have no doubt the same would hold true for our school lunch programs. The latest tomato scare would tend to also verify what I am saying is true.

    Now, let us take this a step further. At one time, the schools themselves insisted the need for installing vending machines, to raise needed funding for schools. So in went soft drink machines and snack dispensers. Essentially school officials were insisting that it was necessary to dispense junk food to our kids so the schools could keep their fiscal heads above water.

    In addition, cookies and other less than nutritious food was sold in the cafeteria. Bake sales to raise PTA funds were allowed on campus with utter abandon. School officials did not seem to give a rip about student nutrition. And on and on it went. At the time I thought it was insane.

    Meanwhile the school lunches that were being sold were virtually inedible. My kids were on the free lunch program at the time, and always chose to brown bag it. What passed for decent nutrition was a joke. Corn dogs, chicken nuggets, taco chips covered w cheeze whiz was the order of the day and the usual fare.

    Suddenly, when school officials wanted to pass Measure Q, nutrition became of paramount importance to them. Sorry, but I find that claim to be highly disingenous. You can’t have it both ways – create poor nutritional standards, then whine you want money to improve nutritional standards.

    Now, have I been specific enough for you? Are you starting to get the picture? I could go on, and on, and on about this sort of double speak that has been going on for years. This is why I would feel much, much better if we had some sort of meaningful citizen/teacher oversight.

    Closing schools and laying off teachers is not the answer to our budget problems. Cutting out waste is a much better approach. So is making sure not too many schools are built, which we both can agree on.

    IMHO, if we trust the current officials to carry out the budgetary process with no oversight, I can almost guarantee we are going to get the closing of Emerson for our troubles, along with another sizeable parcel tax. There will be virtually no accountability, and it will be business as usual.

    As a result, expect more demands for more parcel taxes, whenever the school district runs out of money, which will be often since they have nearly exhausted their supply of assets, which have been sold off to cover up gross fiscal mismanagement.

  193. Not One Cent

    wdf – If DJUSD is going to close Emerson anyway, why pay for it? Let the chips fall where they may…or demand Emerson stay open; no more teachers laid off; and a meaningful citizen oversight committee be formed if the school district wants citizens to cough up another parcel tax in less than a year. Let the School Board have to take a closer look at just how much they really need to keep all those wonderful and “necessary” Davis programs, and see if citizens are truly willing to keep all of them. No more double speak.

  194. Not One Cent

    wdf – If DJUSD is going to close Emerson anyway, why pay for it? Let the chips fall where they may…or demand Emerson stay open; no more teachers laid off; and a meaningful citizen oversight committee be formed if the school district wants citizens to cough up another parcel tax in less than a year. Let the School Board have to take a closer look at just how much they really need to keep all those wonderful and “necessary” Davis programs, and see if citizens are truly willing to keep all of them. No more double speak.

  195. Not One Cent

    wdf – If DJUSD is going to close Emerson anyway, why pay for it? Let the chips fall where they may…or demand Emerson stay open; no more teachers laid off; and a meaningful citizen oversight committee be formed if the school district wants citizens to cough up another parcel tax in less than a year. Let the School Board have to take a closer look at just how much they really need to keep all those wonderful and “necessary” Davis programs, and see if citizens are truly willing to keep all of them. No more double speak.

  196. Not One Cent

    wdf – If DJUSD is going to close Emerson anyway, why pay for it? Let the chips fall where they may…or demand Emerson stay open; no more teachers laid off; and a meaningful citizen oversight committee be formed if the school district wants citizens to cough up another parcel tax in less than a year. Let the School Board have to take a closer look at just how much they really need to keep all those wonderful and “necessary” Davis programs, and see if citizens are truly willing to keep all of them. No more double speak.

  197. wdf

    “For instance, Measure Q funding to be spent on the 35 lb cabbage class was in the Davis Enterprise for everyone to see. It is very indicative of the larger problem, that school officials are not honest in their dealings.”

    Thank you. From your reference and thanks to our public library, I found one Enterprise article that included mention of both 35 pound cabbage and Measure Q.

    See quotes below from the June 29, 2007 Enterprise article by Jeff Hudson.

    “The new measure also will provide $90,000 in funding for more fresh local fruits and vegetables in school lunches — which supporters hailed as a restoration of the “Crunch Lunch” program that was popular with students several years ago, but was later shelved due to budget problems.

    About a half-dozen supporters of “Crunch Lunch” touted that program’s nutritional and educational value. Carrie Juchau, garden coordinator at Pioneer Elementary, displayed an impressively large 35-pound cabbage that had been grown by a third-grader.”

    I excerpted a couple of relevant parts, but in reading the whole article, I definitely don’t see your point.

    Carrie Juchau was a volunteer garden coordinator, much as my wife was a volunteer garden coordinator for a Davis school last year.

    So a kid grows a 35 pound cabbage. The way I read the article, Jeff Hudson just got slightly off focus in talking about the “crunch lunch” aspect of Measure Q. I didn’t find any mention of a nutrition class in the whole article. I will be happy to post the whole article for your satisfaction.

    I remember when “crunch lunch” was going for a little while, one of my kids, in elementary school at the time, actually preferred to skip bringing a brown bag lunch from home and have crunch lunch instead. She explained to me what crunch lunch was, and I liked it. My wife, a school volunteer at the time, also raved about its popularity. I admit it’s only one data point, but it’s one data point that really counts for me.

    I remember that you cited the example given in the Bee in which an effort was made to improve the quality of lunches and you seemed to laud that idea. Well here is an opportunity to see if DJUSD can improve lunch sales by improving the offerings. Why would you critize that effort?

    So some folks in the district decide to take an interest in nutrition and you criticize them because they didn’t take an interest before.

    Plus, as far as I’ve seen, I haven’t found junk food vending machines on campus this year. I know there was in the past. To me that’s a good change. I’m not going to waste time getting cynical over that.

    If you have a point to make, you have got to do a little better. Is there another article or reference that I am missing?

    Before you brought it up, I was a little skeptical about this part of Measure Q, because I had not studied it. Now that you’ve more or less obligated me to, I am actually very comfortable with this part of the package.

    “This is why I would feel much, much better if we had some sort of meaningful citizen/teacher oversight.”

    Again, why do you feel there has to be some special designation for oversight to happen? We, here, are doing at least low level oversight. If you want your oversight committee, I’m not one to discourage it.

    Waiting for this magic mechanism excuses people from getting involved right now (thinking “I’m not going to get involved until they get this special oversight committee going.”) Why wait for that to happen?

    This fall, it’s open season for you to do personal oversight on Measure Q. Go investigate if there’s a nutrition class that’s being paid for by that section of Measure Q and tell us about it in another letter in the Enterprise or here in this blog. For myself, I will at least be expecting some kind of crunch lunch program to take place.

  198. wdf

    “For instance, Measure Q funding to be spent on the 35 lb cabbage class was in the Davis Enterprise for everyone to see. It is very indicative of the larger problem, that school officials are not honest in their dealings.”

    Thank you. From your reference and thanks to our public library, I found one Enterprise article that included mention of both 35 pound cabbage and Measure Q.

    See quotes below from the June 29, 2007 Enterprise article by Jeff Hudson.

    “The new measure also will provide $90,000 in funding for more fresh local fruits and vegetables in school lunches — which supporters hailed as a restoration of the “Crunch Lunch” program that was popular with students several years ago, but was later shelved due to budget problems.

    About a half-dozen supporters of “Crunch Lunch” touted that program’s nutritional and educational value. Carrie Juchau, garden coordinator at Pioneer Elementary, displayed an impressively large 35-pound cabbage that had been grown by a third-grader.”

    I excerpted a couple of relevant parts, but in reading the whole article, I definitely don’t see your point.

    Carrie Juchau was a volunteer garden coordinator, much as my wife was a volunteer garden coordinator for a Davis school last year.

    So a kid grows a 35 pound cabbage. The way I read the article, Jeff Hudson just got slightly off focus in talking about the “crunch lunch” aspect of Measure Q. I didn’t find any mention of a nutrition class in the whole article. I will be happy to post the whole article for your satisfaction.

    I remember when “crunch lunch” was going for a little while, one of my kids, in elementary school at the time, actually preferred to skip bringing a brown bag lunch from home and have crunch lunch instead. She explained to me what crunch lunch was, and I liked it. My wife, a school volunteer at the time, also raved about its popularity. I admit it’s only one data point, but it’s one data point that really counts for me.

    I remember that you cited the example given in the Bee in which an effort was made to improve the quality of lunches and you seemed to laud that idea. Well here is an opportunity to see if DJUSD can improve lunch sales by improving the offerings. Why would you critize that effort?

    So some folks in the district decide to take an interest in nutrition and you criticize them because they didn’t take an interest before.

    Plus, as far as I’ve seen, I haven’t found junk food vending machines on campus this year. I know there was in the past. To me that’s a good change. I’m not going to waste time getting cynical over that.

    If you have a point to make, you have got to do a little better. Is there another article or reference that I am missing?

    Before you brought it up, I was a little skeptical about this part of Measure Q, because I had not studied it. Now that you’ve more or less obligated me to, I am actually very comfortable with this part of the package.

    “This is why I would feel much, much better if we had some sort of meaningful citizen/teacher oversight.”

    Again, why do you feel there has to be some special designation for oversight to happen? We, here, are doing at least low level oversight. If you want your oversight committee, I’m not one to discourage it.

    Waiting for this magic mechanism excuses people from getting involved right now (thinking “I’m not going to get involved until they get this special oversight committee going.”) Why wait for that to happen?

    This fall, it’s open season for you to do personal oversight on Measure Q. Go investigate if there’s a nutrition class that’s being paid for by that section of Measure Q and tell us about it in another letter in the Enterprise or here in this blog. For myself, I will at least be expecting some kind of crunch lunch program to take place.

  199. wdf

    “For instance, Measure Q funding to be spent on the 35 lb cabbage class was in the Davis Enterprise for everyone to see. It is very indicative of the larger problem, that school officials are not honest in their dealings.”

    Thank you. From your reference and thanks to our public library, I found one Enterprise article that included mention of both 35 pound cabbage and Measure Q.

    See quotes below from the June 29, 2007 Enterprise article by Jeff Hudson.

    “The new measure also will provide $90,000 in funding for more fresh local fruits and vegetables in school lunches — which supporters hailed as a restoration of the “Crunch Lunch” program that was popular with students several years ago, but was later shelved due to budget problems.

    About a half-dozen supporters of “Crunch Lunch” touted that program’s nutritional and educational value. Carrie Juchau, garden coordinator at Pioneer Elementary, displayed an impressively large 35-pound cabbage that had been grown by a third-grader.”

    I excerpted a couple of relevant parts, but in reading the whole article, I definitely don’t see your point.

    Carrie Juchau was a volunteer garden coordinator, much as my wife was a volunteer garden coordinator for a Davis school last year.

    So a kid grows a 35 pound cabbage. The way I read the article, Jeff Hudson just got slightly off focus in talking about the “crunch lunch” aspect of Measure Q. I didn’t find any mention of a nutrition class in the whole article. I will be happy to post the whole article for your satisfaction.

    I remember when “crunch lunch” was going for a little while, one of my kids, in elementary school at the time, actually preferred to skip bringing a brown bag lunch from home and have crunch lunch instead. She explained to me what crunch lunch was, and I liked it. My wife, a school volunteer at the time, also raved about its popularity. I admit it’s only one data point, but it’s one data point that really counts for me.

    I remember that you cited the example given in the Bee in which an effort was made to improve the quality of lunches and you seemed to laud that idea. Well here is an opportunity to see if DJUSD can improve lunch sales by improving the offerings. Why would you critize that effort?

    So some folks in the district decide to take an interest in nutrition and you criticize them because they didn’t take an interest before.

    Plus, as far as I’ve seen, I haven’t found junk food vending machines on campus this year. I know there was in the past. To me that’s a good change. I’m not going to waste time getting cynical over that.

    If you have a point to make, you have got to do a little better. Is there another article or reference that I am missing?

    Before you brought it up, I was a little skeptical about this part of Measure Q, because I had not studied it. Now that you’ve more or less obligated me to, I am actually very comfortable with this part of the package.

    “This is why I would feel much, much better if we had some sort of meaningful citizen/teacher oversight.”

    Again, why do you feel there has to be some special designation for oversight to happen? We, here, are doing at least low level oversight. If you want your oversight committee, I’m not one to discourage it.

    Waiting for this magic mechanism excuses people from getting involved right now (thinking “I’m not going to get involved until they get this special oversight committee going.”) Why wait for that to happen?

    This fall, it’s open season for you to do personal oversight on Measure Q. Go investigate if there’s a nutrition class that’s being paid for by that section of Measure Q and tell us about it in another letter in the Enterprise or here in this blog. For myself, I will at least be expecting some kind of crunch lunch program to take place.

  200. wdf

    “For instance, Measure Q funding to be spent on the 35 lb cabbage class was in the Davis Enterprise for everyone to see. It is very indicative of the larger problem, that school officials are not honest in their dealings.”

    Thank you. From your reference and thanks to our public library, I found one Enterprise article that included mention of both 35 pound cabbage and Measure Q.

    See quotes below from the June 29, 2007 Enterprise article by Jeff Hudson.

    “The new measure also will provide $90,000 in funding for more fresh local fruits and vegetables in school lunches — which supporters hailed as a restoration of the “Crunch Lunch” program that was popular with students several years ago, but was later shelved due to budget problems.

    About a half-dozen supporters of “Crunch Lunch” touted that program’s nutritional and educational value. Carrie Juchau, garden coordinator at Pioneer Elementary, displayed an impressively large 35-pound cabbage that had been grown by a third-grader.”

    I excerpted a couple of relevant parts, but in reading the whole article, I definitely don’t see your point.

    Carrie Juchau was a volunteer garden coordinator, much as my wife was a volunteer garden coordinator for a Davis school last year.

    So a kid grows a 35 pound cabbage. The way I read the article, Jeff Hudson just got slightly off focus in talking about the “crunch lunch” aspect of Measure Q. I didn’t find any mention of a nutrition class in the whole article. I will be happy to post the whole article for your satisfaction.

    I remember when “crunch lunch” was going for a little while, one of my kids, in elementary school at the time, actually preferred to skip bringing a brown bag lunch from home and have crunch lunch instead. She explained to me what crunch lunch was, and I liked it. My wife, a school volunteer at the time, also raved about its popularity. I admit it’s only one data point, but it’s one data point that really counts for me.

    I remember that you cited the example given in the Bee in which an effort was made to improve the quality of lunches and you seemed to laud that idea. Well here is an opportunity to see if DJUSD can improve lunch sales by improving the offerings. Why would you critize that effort?

    So some folks in the district decide to take an interest in nutrition and you criticize them because they didn’t take an interest before.

    Plus, as far as I’ve seen, I haven’t found junk food vending machines on campus this year. I know there was in the past. To me that’s a good change. I’m not going to waste time getting cynical over that.

    If you have a point to make, you have got to do a little better. Is there another article or reference that I am missing?

    Before you brought it up, I was a little skeptical about this part of Measure Q, because I had not studied it. Now that you’ve more or less obligated me to, I am actually very comfortable with this part of the package.

    “This is why I would feel much, much better if we had some sort of meaningful citizen/teacher oversight.”

    Again, why do you feel there has to be some special designation for oversight to happen? We, here, are doing at least low level oversight. If you want your oversight committee, I’m not one to discourage it.

    Waiting for this magic mechanism excuses people from getting involved right now (thinking “I’m not going to get involved until they get this special oversight committee going.”) Why wait for that to happen?

    This fall, it’s open season for you to do personal oversight on Measure Q. Go investigate if there’s a nutrition class that’s being paid for by that section of Measure Q and tell us about it in another letter in the Enterprise or here in this blog. For myself, I will at least be expecting some kind of crunch lunch program to take place.

  201. wdf

    Here’s the full article. Maybe you can point out where a nutrition class is mentioned. If it isn’t this article, then please tell me where I can find a document that indicates the kind of double speak that you allege.

    “$200 school tax on ballot – Measure Q will ask for $34 raise in parcel levy
    Davis Enterprise, The (CA) – June 29, 2007
    Author: Jeff Hudson ; Enterprise staff writer

    The Davis school board will ask voters in November to approve a $200-per-home annual tax for the next four years to enrich school programs. The proposal, approved Thursday night, will be known as Measure Q on the Nov. 6 ballot.

    The new measure will include at least $160,000 in new funding for additional math specialists, focusing on grades 4-6, where “at risk” students who fall behind often go on to face difficulties with algebra requirements at the junior high and high school level. There also will be some additional funds for a reading specialist.

    The new measure also will provide $90,000 in funding for more fresh local fruits and vegetables in school lunches — which supporters hailed as a restoration of the “Crunch Lunch” program that was popular with students several years ago, but was later shelved due to budget problems.

    Measure Q will renew funding for a seventh class period at the junior high and high school levels; class size reduction at the elementary school level; and library aides, counselors and nurses around the district.

    Davis voters approved the first instructional parcel tax in 1984, and have given the “thumbs up” for renewals at approximately four-year intervals ever since. A poll conducted this spring showed strong continuing support among voters for the instructional parcel tax.

    Trustee Tim Taylor argued for a six-year renewal this time around, and spoke of raising the parcel tax to $207.

    “Four years from now, with declining enrollment and the cuts we may have to make, this may be a much harder thing to pass,” Taylor said, adding that he believes voters would support a higher amount. “I think it’s time to step out of the box. … Every dollar we can squeeze out of this thing is critical.”

    Trustee Jim Provenza expressed some sympathy with Taylor’s stance, saying, “As long as we are conservative and prudent in our budget, I think the community will support the parcel tax,” even at a higher amount.

    But trustee Sheila Allen said the district’s pollster had suggested that the $200 amount was the upper limit, beyond which it might be difficult to garner the required two-thirds majority for passage. Allen suggested a $198 parcel tax.

    Trustee Keltie Jones — participating in the meeting by phone from the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, four time zones ahead of Davis — pointed out that the current parcel tax is $165.90.

    “Going from the $160s to over $200 would be a big shift for people,” Jones said. “I really feel like going over $200 is a risk.”

    Trustee Gina Daleiden also worried that voters might say “no” if the district asked for more than $200.

    “I want to protect the programs we already have,” Daleiden said. “It might be possible, if our budget picture looked different, I might be inclined to (ask for more). But with no margin of error (in the district’s already tight budget), I don’t want to.”

    About a half-dozen supporters of “Crunch Lunch” touted that program’s nutritional and educational value. Carrie Juchau, garden coordinator at Pioneer Elementary, displayed an impressively large 35-pound cabbage that had been grown by a third-grader.

    Dorothy Peterson, a retired teacher active in farm-to-school programs, said teaching students to enjoy eating fresh local fruits and veggies reinforced recycling and gardening programs at schools.

    “We need edible ethics,” Peterson said.

    Ultimately, after more than two hours of discussion, the trustees reached a compromise, and voted unanimously to ask voters for a four-year parcel tax extension at $200 per home per year, regardless of the size of the home. Residents of apartments and other multi-unit dwellings would pay $100 per home per year.”

  202. wdf

    Here’s the full article. Maybe you can point out where a nutrition class is mentioned. If it isn’t this article, then please tell me where I can find a document that indicates the kind of double speak that you allege.

    “$200 school tax on ballot – Measure Q will ask for $34 raise in parcel levy
    Davis Enterprise, The (CA) – June 29, 2007
    Author: Jeff Hudson ; Enterprise staff writer

    The Davis school board will ask voters in November to approve a $200-per-home annual tax for the next four years to enrich school programs. The proposal, approved Thursday night, will be known as Measure Q on the Nov. 6 ballot.

    The new measure will include at least $160,000 in new funding for additional math specialists, focusing on grades 4-6, where “at risk” students who fall behind often go on to face difficulties with algebra requirements at the junior high and high school level. There also will be some additional funds for a reading specialist.

    The new measure also will provide $90,000 in funding for more fresh local fruits and vegetables in school lunches — which supporters hailed as a restoration of the “Crunch Lunch” program that was popular with students several years ago, but was later shelved due to budget problems.

    Measure Q will renew funding for a seventh class period at the junior high and high school levels; class size reduction at the elementary school level; and library aides, counselors and nurses around the district.

    Davis voters approved the first instructional parcel tax in 1984, and have given the “thumbs up” for renewals at approximately four-year intervals ever since. A poll conducted this spring showed strong continuing support among voters for the instructional parcel tax.

    Trustee Tim Taylor argued for a six-year renewal this time around, and spoke of raising the parcel tax to $207.

    “Four years from now, with declining enrollment and the cuts we may have to make, this may be a much harder thing to pass,” Taylor said, adding that he believes voters would support a higher amount. “I think it’s time to step out of the box. … Every dollar we can squeeze out of this thing is critical.”

    Trustee Jim Provenza expressed some sympathy with Taylor’s stance, saying, “As long as we are conservative and prudent in our budget, I think the community will support the parcel tax,” even at a higher amount.

    But trustee Sheila Allen said the district’s pollster had suggested that the $200 amount was the upper limit, beyond which it might be difficult to garner the required two-thirds majority for passage. Allen suggested a $198 parcel tax.

    Trustee Keltie Jones — participating in the meeting by phone from the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, four time zones ahead of Davis — pointed out that the current parcel tax is $165.90.

    “Going from the $160s to over $200 would be a big shift for people,” Jones said. “I really feel like going over $200 is a risk.”

    Trustee Gina Daleiden also worried that voters might say “no” if the district asked for more than $200.

    “I want to protect the programs we already have,” Daleiden said. “It might be possible, if our budget picture looked different, I might be inclined to (ask for more). But with no margin of error (in the district’s already tight budget), I don’t want to.”

    About a half-dozen supporters of “Crunch Lunch” touted that program’s nutritional and educational value. Carrie Juchau, garden coordinator at Pioneer Elementary, displayed an impressively large 35-pound cabbage that had been grown by a third-grader.

    Dorothy Peterson, a retired teacher active in farm-to-school programs, said teaching students to enjoy eating fresh local fruits and veggies reinforced recycling and gardening programs at schools.

    “We need edible ethics,” Peterson said.

    Ultimately, after more than two hours of discussion, the trustees reached a compromise, and voted unanimously to ask voters for a four-year parcel tax extension at $200 per home per year, regardless of the size of the home. Residents of apartments and other multi-unit dwellings would pay $100 per home per year.”

  203. wdf

    Here’s the full article. Maybe you can point out where a nutrition class is mentioned. If it isn’t this article, then please tell me where I can find a document that indicates the kind of double speak that you allege.

    “$200 school tax on ballot – Measure Q will ask for $34 raise in parcel levy
    Davis Enterprise, The (CA) – June 29, 2007
    Author: Jeff Hudson ; Enterprise staff writer

    The Davis school board will ask voters in November to approve a $200-per-home annual tax for the next four years to enrich school programs. The proposal, approved Thursday night, will be known as Measure Q on the Nov. 6 ballot.

    The new measure will include at least $160,000 in new funding for additional math specialists, focusing on grades 4-6, where “at risk” students who fall behind often go on to face difficulties with algebra requirements at the junior high and high school level. There also will be some additional funds for a reading specialist.

    The new measure also will provide $90,000 in funding for more fresh local fruits and vegetables in school lunches — which supporters hailed as a restoration of the “Crunch Lunch” program that was popular with students several years ago, but was later shelved due to budget problems.

    Measure Q will renew funding for a seventh class period at the junior high and high school levels; class size reduction at the elementary school level; and library aides, counselors and nurses around the district.

    Davis voters approved the first instructional parcel tax in 1984, and have given the “thumbs up” for renewals at approximately four-year intervals ever since. A poll conducted this spring showed strong continuing support among voters for the instructional parcel tax.

    Trustee Tim Taylor argued for a six-year renewal this time around, and spoke of raising the parcel tax to $207.

    “Four years from now, with declining enrollment and the cuts we may have to make, this may be a much harder thing to pass,” Taylor said, adding that he believes voters would support a higher amount. “I think it’s time to step out of the box. … Every dollar we can squeeze out of this thing is critical.”

    Trustee Jim Provenza expressed some sympathy with Taylor’s stance, saying, “As long as we are conservative and prudent in our budget, I think the community will support the parcel tax,” even at a higher amount.

    But trustee Sheila Allen said the district’s pollster had suggested that the $200 amount was the upper limit, beyond which it might be difficult to garner the required two-thirds majority for passage. Allen suggested a $198 parcel tax.

    Trustee Keltie Jones — participating in the meeting by phone from the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, four time zones ahead of Davis — pointed out that the current parcel tax is $165.90.

    “Going from the $160s to over $200 would be a big shift for people,” Jones said. “I really feel like going over $200 is a risk.”

    Trustee Gina Daleiden also worried that voters might say “no” if the district asked for more than $200.

    “I want to protect the programs we already have,” Daleiden said. “It might be possible, if our budget picture looked different, I might be inclined to (ask for more). But with no margin of error (in the district’s already tight budget), I don’t want to.”

    About a half-dozen supporters of “Crunch Lunch” touted that program’s nutritional and educational value. Carrie Juchau, garden coordinator at Pioneer Elementary, displayed an impressively large 35-pound cabbage that had been grown by a third-grader.

    Dorothy Peterson, a retired teacher active in farm-to-school programs, said teaching students to enjoy eating fresh local fruits and veggies reinforced recycling and gardening programs at schools.

    “We need edible ethics,” Peterson said.

    Ultimately, after more than two hours of discussion, the trustees reached a compromise, and voted unanimously to ask voters for a four-year parcel tax extension at $200 per home per year, regardless of the size of the home. Residents of apartments and other multi-unit dwellings would pay $100 per home per year.”

  204. wdf

    Here’s the full article. Maybe you can point out where a nutrition class is mentioned. If it isn’t this article, then please tell me where I can find a document that indicates the kind of double speak that you allege.

    “$200 school tax on ballot – Measure Q will ask for $34 raise in parcel levy
    Davis Enterprise, The (CA) – June 29, 2007
    Author: Jeff Hudson ; Enterprise staff writer

    The Davis school board will ask voters in November to approve a $200-per-home annual tax for the next four years to enrich school programs. The proposal, approved Thursday night, will be known as Measure Q on the Nov. 6 ballot.

    The new measure will include at least $160,000 in new funding for additional math specialists, focusing on grades 4-6, where “at risk” students who fall behind often go on to face difficulties with algebra requirements at the junior high and high school level. There also will be some additional funds for a reading specialist.

    The new measure also will provide $90,000 in funding for more fresh local fruits and vegetables in school lunches — which supporters hailed as a restoration of the “Crunch Lunch” program that was popular with students several years ago, but was later shelved due to budget problems.

    Measure Q will renew funding for a seventh class period at the junior high and high school levels; class size reduction at the elementary school level; and library aides, counselors and nurses around the district.

    Davis voters approved the first instructional parcel tax in 1984, and have given the “thumbs up” for renewals at approximately four-year intervals ever since. A poll conducted this spring showed strong continuing support among voters for the instructional parcel tax.

    Trustee Tim Taylor argued for a six-year renewal this time around, and spoke of raising the parcel tax to $207.

    “Four years from now, with declining enrollment and the cuts we may have to make, this may be a much harder thing to pass,” Taylor said, adding that he believes voters would support a higher amount. “I think it’s time to step out of the box. … Every dollar we can squeeze out of this thing is critical.”

    Trustee Jim Provenza expressed some sympathy with Taylor’s stance, saying, “As long as we are conservative and prudent in our budget, I think the community will support the parcel tax,” even at a higher amount.

    But trustee Sheila Allen said the district’s pollster had suggested that the $200 amount was the upper limit, beyond which it might be difficult to garner the required two-thirds majority for passage. Allen suggested a $198 parcel tax.

    Trustee Keltie Jones — participating in the meeting by phone from the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, four time zones ahead of Davis — pointed out that the current parcel tax is $165.90.

    “Going from the $160s to over $200 would be a big shift for people,” Jones said. “I really feel like going over $200 is a risk.”

    Trustee Gina Daleiden also worried that voters might say “no” if the district asked for more than $200.

    “I want to protect the programs we already have,” Daleiden said. “It might be possible, if our budget picture looked different, I might be inclined to (ask for more). But with no margin of error (in the district’s already tight budget), I don’t want to.”

    About a half-dozen supporters of “Crunch Lunch” touted that program’s nutritional and educational value. Carrie Juchau, garden coordinator at Pioneer Elementary, displayed an impressively large 35-pound cabbage that had been grown by a third-grader.

    Dorothy Peterson, a retired teacher active in farm-to-school programs, said teaching students to enjoy eating fresh local fruits and veggies reinforced recycling and gardening programs at schools.

    “We need edible ethics,” Peterson said.

    Ultimately, after more than two hours of discussion, the trustees reached a compromise, and voted unanimously to ask voters for a four-year parcel tax extension at $200 per home per year, regardless of the size of the home. Residents of apartments and other multi-unit dwellings would pay $100 per home per year.”

  205. Not One Cent

    WDF – Now you tell me, from reading the article you copied from the Davis Enterprise verbatim, what is Measure Q going to be spent for from the list below?
    1) “teaching students to…eat …fruits and veggies”;
    2) or to “reinforce.. recycling”;
    3) or “teaching… gardening programs”;
    4) or “teaching…edible ethics”;
    5) or establishing a “Crunch Lunch” …program…[of] nutritional and educational value”;
    6) or for a “garden coordinator” who will facilitate elementary school children to “display… impressively large 35-pound cabbage[s]…grown by… third-grader[s]”.

    All necessary because the School Board/District permitted junk food to be sold in the schools to raise funding, but now have to undo the damage they did to our kids nutritionally by teaching them good nutrition – a concept that the School Board/District conveniently threw out the window when deciding that money was more important than kids’ health when installing junk food vending machines; allowing bake sales that sold cookies and cakes; and permitting same junk to be sold in the cafeteria.

    You bet I want more oversight, and so should you! Nor do I want parcel tax money to be wasted on any of the nonsense above, when we are faced with the possibility of Emerson closing and more teachers being laid off.

  206. Not One Cent

    WDF – Now you tell me, from reading the article you copied from the Davis Enterprise verbatim, what is Measure Q going to be spent for from the list below?
    1) “teaching students to…eat …fruits and veggies”;
    2) or to “reinforce.. recycling”;
    3) or “teaching… gardening programs”;
    4) or “teaching…edible ethics”;
    5) or establishing a “Crunch Lunch” …program…[of] nutritional and educational value”;
    6) or for a “garden coordinator” who will facilitate elementary school children to “display… impressively large 35-pound cabbage[s]…grown by… third-grader[s]”.

    All necessary because the School Board/District permitted junk food to be sold in the schools to raise funding, but now have to undo the damage they did to our kids nutritionally by teaching them good nutrition – a concept that the School Board/District conveniently threw out the window when deciding that money was more important than kids’ health when installing junk food vending machines; allowing bake sales that sold cookies and cakes; and permitting same junk to be sold in the cafeteria.

    You bet I want more oversight, and so should you! Nor do I want parcel tax money to be wasted on any of the nonsense above, when we are faced with the possibility of Emerson closing and more teachers being laid off.

  207. Not One Cent

    WDF – Now you tell me, from reading the article you copied from the Davis Enterprise verbatim, what is Measure Q going to be spent for from the list below?
    1) “teaching students to…eat …fruits and veggies”;
    2) or to “reinforce.. recycling”;
    3) or “teaching… gardening programs”;
    4) or “teaching…edible ethics”;
    5) or establishing a “Crunch Lunch” …program…[of] nutritional and educational value”;
    6) or for a “garden coordinator” who will facilitate elementary school children to “display… impressively large 35-pound cabbage[s]…grown by… third-grader[s]”.

    All necessary because the School Board/District permitted junk food to be sold in the schools to raise funding, but now have to undo the damage they did to our kids nutritionally by teaching them good nutrition – a concept that the School Board/District conveniently threw out the window when deciding that money was more important than kids’ health when installing junk food vending machines; allowing bake sales that sold cookies and cakes; and permitting same junk to be sold in the cafeteria.

    You bet I want more oversight, and so should you! Nor do I want parcel tax money to be wasted on any of the nonsense above, when we are faced with the possibility of Emerson closing and more teachers being laid off.

  208. Not One Cent

    WDF – Now you tell me, from reading the article you copied from the Davis Enterprise verbatim, what is Measure Q going to be spent for from the list below?
    1) “teaching students to…eat …fruits and veggies”;
    2) or to “reinforce.. recycling”;
    3) or “teaching… gardening programs”;
    4) or “teaching…edible ethics”;
    5) or establishing a “Crunch Lunch” …program…[of] nutritional and educational value”;
    6) or for a “garden coordinator” who will facilitate elementary school children to “display… impressively large 35-pound cabbage[s]…grown by… third-grader[s]”.

    All necessary because the School Board/District permitted junk food to be sold in the schools to raise funding, but now have to undo the damage they did to our kids nutritionally by teaching them good nutrition – a concept that the School Board/District conveniently threw out the window when deciding that money was more important than kids’ health when installing junk food vending machines; allowing bake sales that sold cookies and cakes; and permitting same junk to be sold in the cafeteria.

    You bet I want more oversight, and so should you! Nor do I want parcel tax money to be wasted on any of the nonsense above, when we are faced with the possibility of Emerson closing and more teachers being laid off.

  209. wdf

    From reading it all, and other DJUSD documentation, I understand a “crunch lunch” type program.

    From an oversight standpoint, the most important document is what the original submitted parcel tax says, not what Jeff Hudson says.

    Davis was not the only district around to have junk food vending machines as a fundraising source, only to get rid of them subsequently.

    Good for Davis and all other districts who made a similar move!

    For all your claims and criticisms of DJUSD, a bigger and more troublesome systemic problem to me is a lack of sufficient and consistent funding from the state.

    Although the state restored a lot of K-12 funding in the May revise, they did not cover COLA. That becomes a burden when trying to cover rising energy costs, collateral inflation to supplies, etc. All districts end up having to eat that cost.

    If big government (State of California) cannot be depended on, I’m for local self-sufficiency.

  210. wdf

    From reading it all, and other DJUSD documentation, I understand a “crunch lunch” type program.

    From an oversight standpoint, the most important document is what the original submitted parcel tax says, not what Jeff Hudson says.

    Davis was not the only district around to have junk food vending machines as a fundraising source, only to get rid of them subsequently.

    Good for Davis and all other districts who made a similar move!

    For all your claims and criticisms of DJUSD, a bigger and more troublesome systemic problem to me is a lack of sufficient and consistent funding from the state.

    Although the state restored a lot of K-12 funding in the May revise, they did not cover COLA. That becomes a burden when trying to cover rising energy costs, collateral inflation to supplies, etc. All districts end up having to eat that cost.

    If big government (State of California) cannot be depended on, I’m for local self-sufficiency.

  211. wdf

    From reading it all, and other DJUSD documentation, I understand a “crunch lunch” type program.

    From an oversight standpoint, the most important document is what the original submitted parcel tax says, not what Jeff Hudson says.

    Davis was not the only district around to have junk food vending machines as a fundraising source, only to get rid of them subsequently.

    Good for Davis and all other districts who made a similar move!

    For all your claims and criticisms of DJUSD, a bigger and more troublesome systemic problem to me is a lack of sufficient and consistent funding from the state.

    Although the state restored a lot of K-12 funding in the May revise, they did not cover COLA. That becomes a burden when trying to cover rising energy costs, collateral inflation to supplies, etc. All districts end up having to eat that cost.

    If big government (State of California) cannot be depended on, I’m for local self-sufficiency.

  212. wdf

    From reading it all, and other DJUSD documentation, I understand a “crunch lunch” type program.

    From an oversight standpoint, the most important document is what the original submitted parcel tax says, not what Jeff Hudson says.

    Davis was not the only district around to have junk food vending machines as a fundraising source, only to get rid of them subsequently.

    Good for Davis and all other districts who made a similar move!

    For all your claims and criticisms of DJUSD, a bigger and more troublesome systemic problem to me is a lack of sufficient and consistent funding from the state.

    Although the state restored a lot of K-12 funding in the May revise, they did not cover COLA. That becomes a burden when trying to cover rising energy costs, collateral inflation to supplies, etc. All districts end up having to eat that cost.

    If big government (State of California) cannot be depended on, I’m for local self-sufficiency.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for