The numbers work out to roughly $2.4 million district-wide and the district is placing a parcel tax on the ballot in less that four weeks.
Last Thursday members of the Davis Teachers Association showed up at the Davis school board meeting to demonstrate how many teachers would lose their jobs should Measure W fail.
Former DTA President Jerry de Camp said:
“Six months ago, we were in the worst situation I’d ever seen in 27 years with the district. We are facing the same potential next spring if Measure W does not pass.
It’s essential that we understand that Measure W is not ‘something extra.’ Measure W continues programs that we’ve had a long time. It’s not extra.
All the things that Measure W does are things we have come to take for granted. We’ve had the support of the taxpayers over and over. We must have it again now. What we have in this community is so precious and so good — and it’s threatened if Measure W does not pass, because of problems with state funding.”
Last week a column in the Davis Enterprise by Rich Rifkin put the blame for the current budget crisis on employee raises that were handed out a few years ago.
While the 6.5% teachers raise given out just two years ago, did in fact put a strain on district finances and the school board was misled by the district in terms of their ability to pay for that raise in the short run, given the state COLA at that time, it would have been difficult if not impossible for the district to give a considerably lower raise.
Moreover, when we look at the spending by the district since 2002-03, it is unclear that spending is the ultimate problem.
Over that period of seven school years, district spending increased around $14 million from $59.1 million to $73 million. That’s roughly the rate of inflation. Teacher salaries account for $10 million of that money. In 2002-03 teacher salaries accounted for 64% of the total budget, in 2008-09 it accounts for 64.5% of the total budget. In other words, teacher salaries have basically increased in proportion to the rest of the budget.
82% of the budget for 2008-09 goes directly to the classroom.
Let us put it this way, is that not where we want the money to go? Do we not want money to go directly into the classroom?
The primary budget increases over this time come from the state. Now Measure Q did upwardly adjust the parcel tax but only commensurate with the rate of inflation. In real dollars, Measure Q was roughly the same as Measure N’s funding.
Does Davis overpay its teachers?
I do not think so given (a) the relative experience of Davis teachers and (b) the cost of living in Davis compared with the state.
Davis’ average teacher makes $63,378 in total compensation. The statewide average is virtually the same at $63,323. By comparison, Woodland teachers make an average of $57,688. However, not only is the cost of living in Davis higher than in Woodland, but the average Davis teacher has 3 more years of teaching experience than their Woodland counterpart. Moreover Davis has over a 6% higher proportion of credentialed teachers than Woodland.
Recall that the collective bargaining agreement grants for step and column increases to salary and those two factors–credentialed teachers and teaching experience likely account for that difference.
In other words, Davis’ teacher salaries do not appear to be disproportionate either to the statewide average or even Woodland. You also have the bottom line in terms of the overall performance in Davis.
The other factor here is that DJUSD’s belath benefits for teachers was in the lower tier for all districts until their recent increase. Teachers had to pay supplementals to health coverage, particularly to extend their health care benefits to their children. We complain in this society about companies and their responsibility for taking care of their a minimum level of health insurance to make sure that their employees were covered. The district is moving in that direction.
The bottom line, as with elsewhere, is that if you want quality teachers, you have to pay and give increases that are commensurate with surrounding districts.
To me you just cannot put a premium on good teachers. The cost of losing quality teachers and programs makes Measure W a pressing matter. Increasingly, it looks like Measure W will pass. Given where the economy is headed, this will help insure that Davis Schools will be able to function at a high level in the foreseeable future regardless of where the economy goes.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
I got a phone call poll yesterday about W and N. any idea who did this and if they will use the info to lobby me further? DPD, why haven’t you done another W poll closer to the election? Thanks.
I got a phone call poll yesterday about W and N. any idea who did this and if they will use the info to lobby me further? DPD, why haven’t you done another W poll closer to the election? Thanks.
I got a phone call poll yesterday about W and N. any idea who did this and if they will use the info to lobby me further? DPD, why haven’t you done another W poll closer to the election? Thanks.
I got a phone call poll yesterday about W and N. any idea who did this and if they will use the info to lobby me further? DPD, why haven’t you done another W poll closer to the election? Thanks.
Was it a polling question–robocall?
That’s a good idea, I’ll probably do another poll in the next couple of weeks.
Was it a polling question–robocall?
That’s a good idea, I’ll probably do another poll in the next couple of weeks.
Was it a polling question–robocall?
That’s a good idea, I’ll probably do another poll in the next couple of weeks.
Was it a polling question–robocall?
That’s a good idea, I’ll probably do another poll in the next couple of weeks.
yes robo
yes robo
yes robo
yes robo
Trying to find out
Trying to find out
Trying to find out
Trying to find out
“The bottom line, as with elsewhere, is that if you want quality teachers, you have to pay and give increases that are commensurate with surrounding districts.
To me you just cannot put a premium on good teachers. “
Common sense for paying the backbone workers of California .
Rich Rifkin not common sense…
“The bottom line, as with elsewhere, is that if you want quality teachers, you have to pay and give increases that are commensurate with surrounding districts.
To me you just cannot put a premium on good teachers. “
Common sense for paying the backbone workers of California .
Rich Rifkin not common sense…
“The bottom line, as with elsewhere, is that if you want quality teachers, you have to pay and give increases that are commensurate with surrounding districts.
To me you just cannot put a premium on good teachers. “
Common sense for paying the backbone workers of California .
Rich Rifkin not common sense…
“The bottom line, as with elsewhere, is that if you want quality teachers, you have to pay and give increases that are commensurate with surrounding districts.
To me you just cannot put a premium on good teachers. “
Common sense for paying the backbone workers of California .
Rich Rifkin not common sense…
I got the robopoll as well. We were supposed to push 1, 2, or 3 depending on our vote on measure W and measure N.
I got the robopoll as well. We were supposed to push 1, 2, or 3 depending on our vote on measure W and measure N.
I got the robopoll as well. We were supposed to push 1, 2, or 3 depending on our vote on measure W and measure N.
I got the robopoll as well. We were supposed to push 1, 2, or 3 depending on our vote on measure W and measure N.
“Over that period of seven school years, district spending increased around $14 million from $59.1 million to $73 million. That’s roughly the rate of inflation.”
Using the numbers you posted (DJUSD Historical Information) from 2002-03 to 2007-08, the inflation rate in spending for our schools was not “roughly the rate of inflation.” In fact, it was closer to DOUBLE the rate of inflation. And if you go back 5 years more and look at the 10 year period, the annual increases in school spending per student were even higher.
According to your numbers, in 2002-03 the total expenditures for the district were $59.1 million. This year they will be $73.8 million. That accounts for a compounded annual increase of 4.54 percent, while inflation (according to the BLS) was just under 3 percent.
Further, from the 2002-03 school year to 2007-08, the total students in our district (ADA) declined a little bit: from 8,534 to 8,484. Thus, the inflation in expenditures per student is actually a little higher than the bottom line numbers reveal.
If the expenditures had simply kept up with inflation, the district would have spent $68.5 million in 2007-08, fully $5.3 million less than they did. And if we had that $5.3 million, there would be absolutely no need for Measure W.
“Teacher salaries account for $10 million of that money. In 2002-03 teacher salaries accounted for 64% of the total budget, in 2008-09 it accounts for 64.5% of the total budget. In other words, teacher salaries have basically increased in proportion to the rest of the budget.”
This is true. As I pointed out in my column — based in part on the reporting done for the Vanguard by Don Shor — the increased pay and benefits to the teachers was matched by increases in pay and benefits to other district employees as well.
“Over that period of seven school years, district spending increased around $14 million from $59.1 million to $73 million. That’s roughly the rate of inflation.”
Using the numbers you posted (DJUSD Historical Information) from 2002-03 to 2007-08, the inflation rate in spending for our schools was not “roughly the rate of inflation.” In fact, it was closer to DOUBLE the rate of inflation. And if you go back 5 years more and look at the 10 year period, the annual increases in school spending per student were even higher.
According to your numbers, in 2002-03 the total expenditures for the district were $59.1 million. This year they will be $73.8 million. That accounts for a compounded annual increase of 4.54 percent, while inflation (according to the BLS) was just under 3 percent.
Further, from the 2002-03 school year to 2007-08, the total students in our district (ADA) declined a little bit: from 8,534 to 8,484. Thus, the inflation in expenditures per student is actually a little higher than the bottom line numbers reveal.
If the expenditures had simply kept up with inflation, the district would have spent $68.5 million in 2007-08, fully $5.3 million less than they did. And if we had that $5.3 million, there would be absolutely no need for Measure W.
“Teacher salaries account for $10 million of that money. In 2002-03 teacher salaries accounted for 64% of the total budget, in 2008-09 it accounts for 64.5% of the total budget. In other words, teacher salaries have basically increased in proportion to the rest of the budget.”
This is true. As I pointed out in my column — based in part on the reporting done for the Vanguard by Don Shor — the increased pay and benefits to the teachers was matched by increases in pay and benefits to other district employees as well.
“Over that period of seven school years, district spending increased around $14 million from $59.1 million to $73 million. That’s roughly the rate of inflation.”
Using the numbers you posted (DJUSD Historical Information) from 2002-03 to 2007-08, the inflation rate in spending for our schools was not “roughly the rate of inflation.” In fact, it was closer to DOUBLE the rate of inflation. And if you go back 5 years more and look at the 10 year period, the annual increases in school spending per student were even higher.
According to your numbers, in 2002-03 the total expenditures for the district were $59.1 million. This year they will be $73.8 million. That accounts for a compounded annual increase of 4.54 percent, while inflation (according to the BLS) was just under 3 percent.
Further, from the 2002-03 school year to 2007-08, the total students in our district (ADA) declined a little bit: from 8,534 to 8,484. Thus, the inflation in expenditures per student is actually a little higher than the bottom line numbers reveal.
If the expenditures had simply kept up with inflation, the district would have spent $68.5 million in 2007-08, fully $5.3 million less than they did. And if we had that $5.3 million, there would be absolutely no need for Measure W.
“Teacher salaries account for $10 million of that money. In 2002-03 teacher salaries accounted for 64% of the total budget, in 2008-09 it accounts for 64.5% of the total budget. In other words, teacher salaries have basically increased in proportion to the rest of the budget.”
This is true. As I pointed out in my column — based in part on the reporting done for the Vanguard by Don Shor — the increased pay and benefits to the teachers was matched by increases in pay and benefits to other district employees as well.
“Over that period of seven school years, district spending increased around $14 million from $59.1 million to $73 million. That’s roughly the rate of inflation.”
Using the numbers you posted (DJUSD Historical Information) from 2002-03 to 2007-08, the inflation rate in spending for our schools was not “roughly the rate of inflation.” In fact, it was closer to DOUBLE the rate of inflation. And if you go back 5 years more and look at the 10 year period, the annual increases in school spending per student were even higher.
According to your numbers, in 2002-03 the total expenditures for the district were $59.1 million. This year they will be $73.8 million. That accounts for a compounded annual increase of 4.54 percent, while inflation (according to the BLS) was just under 3 percent.
Further, from the 2002-03 school year to 2007-08, the total students in our district (ADA) declined a little bit: from 8,534 to 8,484. Thus, the inflation in expenditures per student is actually a little higher than the bottom line numbers reveal.
If the expenditures had simply kept up with inflation, the district would have spent $68.5 million in 2007-08, fully $5.3 million less than they did. And if we had that $5.3 million, there would be absolutely no need for Measure W.
“Teacher salaries account for $10 million of that money. In 2002-03 teacher salaries accounted for 64% of the total budget, in 2008-09 it accounts for 64.5% of the total budget. In other words, teacher salaries have basically increased in proportion to the rest of the budget.”
This is true. As I pointed out in my column — based in part on the reporting done for the Vanguard by Don Shor — the increased pay and benefits to the teachers was matched by increases in pay and benefits to other district employees as well.
“Using the numbers you posted (DJUSD Historical Information) from 2002-03 to 2007-08, the inflation rate in spending for our schools was not “roughly the rate of inflation.” In fact, it was closer to DOUBLE the rate of inflation.”
Rich:
The error you are making here is that you are not using the state’s COLA baseline in your index. If you look at the COLA provided by state over this period, the increases in district spending roughly match that, while accounting for the small decline in enrollment.
“Using the numbers you posted (DJUSD Historical Information) from 2002-03 to 2007-08, the inflation rate in spending for our schools was not “roughly the rate of inflation.” In fact, it was closer to DOUBLE the rate of inflation.”
Rich:
The error you are making here is that you are not using the state’s COLA baseline in your index. If you look at the COLA provided by state over this period, the increases in district spending roughly match that, while accounting for the small decline in enrollment.
“Using the numbers you posted (DJUSD Historical Information) from 2002-03 to 2007-08, the inflation rate in spending for our schools was not “roughly the rate of inflation.” In fact, it was closer to DOUBLE the rate of inflation.”
Rich:
The error you are making here is that you are not using the state’s COLA baseline in your index. If you look at the COLA provided by state over this period, the increases in district spending roughly match that, while accounting for the small decline in enrollment.
“Using the numbers you posted (DJUSD Historical Information) from 2002-03 to 2007-08, the inflation rate in spending for our schools was not “roughly the rate of inflation.” In fact, it was closer to DOUBLE the rate of inflation.”
Rich:
The error you are making here is that you are not using the state’s COLA baseline in your index. If you look at the COLA provided by state over this period, the increases in district spending roughly match that, while accounting for the small decline in enrollment.
It interests me that you title your piece, “What are good teachers worth?” I don’t know the specific answer to that, but I believe far more than good teachers are now being paid in most cases.
Unfortunately, we often don’t pay teachers based on merit. In most cases, teachers are paid based on tenure, and they reach their maximum level of pay quite early in their careers. At that point, they have no financial incentive to perform better.
If we instead had a good system for rating the quality of the work of all teachers and paid them accordingly, we would be paying all good teachers more than we do now. We would also be paying below average teachers less.
A few days ago, there was a fascinating piece about a new charter school in a ghetto in New York City on NYTimes.com. The notable difference in that school was they are paying teachers — only really good teachers, that is — $125,000 per year, while the non-classroom expenses, including principal pay ($90k), is held to a bare minimum.
This is from the article: “The Equity Project Charter School (TEP) will open in September 2009 in Manhattan’s Washington Heights community, and it will aim to enroll middle school students at risk of academic failure. Students with the lowest test scores will be given admissions priority. In order to recruit the country’s top teachers to work with these at-risk students, the school’s founding principal will cut administrative costs and put a higher percentage of the school’s public funding into teacher salaries. He’s also seriously raising teacher qualifications, offering teachers a potential $25,000 bonus, and expanding the school day and work year for teachers. The principal will make $90,000. There will be no vice principal.”
My bet is that TEP will be a success. I am of the belief that a great classroom teacher is by far the most important input a school can plow money into.
It interests me that you title your piece, “What are good teachers worth?” I don’t know the specific answer to that, but I believe far more than good teachers are now being paid in most cases.
Unfortunately, we often don’t pay teachers based on merit. In most cases, teachers are paid based on tenure, and they reach their maximum level of pay quite early in their careers. At that point, they have no financial incentive to perform better.
If we instead had a good system for rating the quality of the work of all teachers and paid them accordingly, we would be paying all good teachers more than we do now. We would also be paying below average teachers less.
A few days ago, there was a fascinating piece about a new charter school in a ghetto in New York City on NYTimes.com. The notable difference in that school was they are paying teachers — only really good teachers, that is — $125,000 per year, while the non-classroom expenses, including principal pay ($90k), is held to a bare minimum.
This is from the article: “The Equity Project Charter School (TEP) will open in September 2009 in Manhattan’s Washington Heights community, and it will aim to enroll middle school students at risk of academic failure. Students with the lowest test scores will be given admissions priority. In order to recruit the country’s top teachers to work with these at-risk students, the school’s founding principal will cut administrative costs and put a higher percentage of the school’s public funding into teacher salaries. He’s also seriously raising teacher qualifications, offering teachers a potential $25,000 bonus, and expanding the school day and work year for teachers. The principal will make $90,000. There will be no vice principal.”
My bet is that TEP will be a success. I am of the belief that a great classroom teacher is by far the most important input a school can plow money into.
It interests me that you title your piece, “What are good teachers worth?” I don’t know the specific answer to that, but I believe far more than good teachers are now being paid in most cases.
Unfortunately, we often don’t pay teachers based on merit. In most cases, teachers are paid based on tenure, and they reach their maximum level of pay quite early in their careers. At that point, they have no financial incentive to perform better.
If we instead had a good system for rating the quality of the work of all teachers and paid them accordingly, we would be paying all good teachers more than we do now. We would also be paying below average teachers less.
A few days ago, there was a fascinating piece about a new charter school in a ghetto in New York City on NYTimes.com. The notable difference in that school was they are paying teachers — only really good teachers, that is — $125,000 per year, while the non-classroom expenses, including principal pay ($90k), is held to a bare minimum.
This is from the article: “The Equity Project Charter School (TEP) will open in September 2009 in Manhattan’s Washington Heights community, and it will aim to enroll middle school students at risk of academic failure. Students with the lowest test scores will be given admissions priority. In order to recruit the country’s top teachers to work with these at-risk students, the school’s founding principal will cut administrative costs and put a higher percentage of the school’s public funding into teacher salaries. He’s also seriously raising teacher qualifications, offering teachers a potential $25,000 bonus, and expanding the school day and work year for teachers. The principal will make $90,000. There will be no vice principal.”
My bet is that TEP will be a success. I am of the belief that a great classroom teacher is by far the most important input a school can plow money into.
It interests me that you title your piece, “What are good teachers worth?” I don’t know the specific answer to that, but I believe far more than good teachers are now being paid in most cases.
Unfortunately, we often don’t pay teachers based on merit. In most cases, teachers are paid based on tenure, and they reach their maximum level of pay quite early in their careers. At that point, they have no financial incentive to perform better.
If we instead had a good system for rating the quality of the work of all teachers and paid them accordingly, we would be paying all good teachers more than we do now. We would also be paying below average teachers less.
A few days ago, there was a fascinating piece about a new charter school in a ghetto in New York City on NYTimes.com. The notable difference in that school was they are paying teachers — only really good teachers, that is — $125,000 per year, while the non-classroom expenses, including principal pay ($90k), is held to a bare minimum.
This is from the article: “The Equity Project Charter School (TEP) will open in September 2009 in Manhattan’s Washington Heights community, and it will aim to enroll middle school students at risk of academic failure. Students with the lowest test scores will be given admissions priority. In order to recruit the country’s top teachers to work with these at-risk students, the school’s founding principal will cut administrative costs and put a higher percentage of the school’s public funding into teacher salaries. He’s also seriously raising teacher qualifications, offering teachers a potential $25,000 bonus, and expanding the school day and work year for teachers. The principal will make $90,000. There will be no vice principal.”
My bet is that TEP will be a success. I am of the belief that a great classroom teacher is by far the most important input a school can plow money into.
“The error you are making here is that you are not using the state’s COLA baseline in your index.”
Show me the COLA index and exactly how it is calculated, then.
“The error you are making here is that you are not using the state’s COLA baseline in your index.”
Show me the COLA index and exactly how it is calculated, then.
“The error you are making here is that you are not using the state’s COLA baseline in your index.”
Show me the COLA index and exactly how it is calculated, then.
“The error you are making here is that you are not using the state’s COLA baseline in your index.”
Show me the COLA index and exactly how it is calculated, then.
I don’t know how the state calculates COLA, I can find out though.
I don’t know how the state calculates COLA, I can find out though.
I don’t know how the state calculates COLA, I can find out though.
I don’t know how the state calculates COLA, I can find out though.
“I don’t know how the state calculates COLA, I can find out though.”
This explains just how the state COLA is calculated. It is within the Welfare and Inistitutions Code. It is based on something called the California Necessities Index, and that is based on the CPI for our region:
“12201. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the payment schedules set forth in Section 12200 shall be adjusted annually to reflect any increases or decreases in the cost of living. Except as provided in subdivision (e), these adjustments shall become effective January 1 of each year. The cost-of-living adjustment shall be based on the changes in the California Necessities Index, which as used in this section shall be the weighted average of changes for food, clothing, fuel, utilities, rent, and transportation for low-income consumers. The computation of annual adjustments in the California Necessities Index shall be made in accordance with the following steps:
(1) The base period expenditure amounts for each expenditure category within the California Necessities Index used to compute the annual grant adjustment are:
Food…………………………. $ 3,027
Clothing (apparel and upkeep)…… 406
Fuel and other utilities……….. 529
Rent, residential……………… 4,883
Transportation………………… 1,757
———–
Total………………………. $10,602
(2) Based on the appropriate components of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage change shall be determined for the 12-month period which ends 12 months prior to the January in which the cost-of-living adjustment will take effect, for each expenditure category specified in paragraph (1) within the following geographical areas: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, San Francisco-Oakland, San Diego, and, to the extent statistically valid information is available from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, additional geographical areas within the state which include not less than 80 percent of recipients of aid under this chapter.”
Bottom line, the COLA should be almost exactly the same as the CPI, as far as I can tell. I have no idea what makes you think the COLA is twice the CPI.
“I don’t know how the state calculates COLA, I can find out though.”
This explains just how the state COLA is calculated. It is within the Welfare and Inistitutions Code. It is based on something called the California Necessities Index, and that is based on the CPI for our region:
“12201. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the payment schedules set forth in Section 12200 shall be adjusted annually to reflect any increases or decreases in the cost of living. Except as provided in subdivision (e), these adjustments shall become effective January 1 of each year. The cost-of-living adjustment shall be based on the changes in the California Necessities Index, which as used in this section shall be the weighted average of changes for food, clothing, fuel, utilities, rent, and transportation for low-income consumers. The computation of annual adjustments in the California Necessities Index shall be made in accordance with the following steps:
(1) The base period expenditure amounts for each expenditure category within the California Necessities Index used to compute the annual grant adjustment are:
Food…………………………. $ 3,027
Clothing (apparel and upkeep)…… 406
Fuel and other utilities……….. 529
Rent, residential……………… 4,883
Transportation………………… 1,757
———–
Total………………………. $10,602
(2) Based on the appropriate components of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage change shall be determined for the 12-month period which ends 12 months prior to the January in which the cost-of-living adjustment will take effect, for each expenditure category specified in paragraph (1) within the following geographical areas: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, San Francisco-Oakland, San Diego, and, to the extent statistically valid information is available from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, additional geographical areas within the state which include not less than 80 percent of recipients of aid under this chapter.”
Bottom line, the COLA should be almost exactly the same as the CPI, as far as I can tell. I have no idea what makes you think the COLA is twice the CPI.
“I don’t know how the state calculates COLA, I can find out though.”
This explains just how the state COLA is calculated. It is within the Welfare and Inistitutions Code. It is based on something called the California Necessities Index, and that is based on the CPI for our region:
“12201. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the payment schedules set forth in Section 12200 shall be adjusted annually to reflect any increases or decreases in the cost of living. Except as provided in subdivision (e), these adjustments shall become effective January 1 of each year. The cost-of-living adjustment shall be based on the changes in the California Necessities Index, which as used in this section shall be the weighted average of changes for food, clothing, fuel, utilities, rent, and transportation for low-income consumers. The computation of annual adjustments in the California Necessities Index shall be made in accordance with the following steps:
(1) The base period expenditure amounts for each expenditure category within the California Necessities Index used to compute the annual grant adjustment are:
Food…………………………. $ 3,027
Clothing (apparel and upkeep)…… 406
Fuel and other utilities……….. 529
Rent, residential……………… 4,883
Transportation………………… 1,757
———–
Total………………………. $10,602
(2) Based on the appropriate components of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage change shall be determined for the 12-month period which ends 12 months prior to the January in which the cost-of-living adjustment will take effect, for each expenditure category specified in paragraph (1) within the following geographical areas: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, San Francisco-Oakland, San Diego, and, to the extent statistically valid information is available from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, additional geographical areas within the state which include not less than 80 percent of recipients of aid under this chapter.”
Bottom line, the COLA should be almost exactly the same as the CPI, as far as I can tell. I have no idea what makes you think the COLA is twice the CPI.
“I don’t know how the state calculates COLA, I can find out though.”
This explains just how the state COLA is calculated. It is within the Welfare and Inistitutions Code. It is based on something called the California Necessities Index, and that is based on the CPI for our region:
“12201. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the payment schedules set forth in Section 12200 shall be adjusted annually to reflect any increases or decreases in the cost of living. Except as provided in subdivision (e), these adjustments shall become effective January 1 of each year. The cost-of-living adjustment shall be based on the changes in the California Necessities Index, which as used in this section shall be the weighted average of changes for food, clothing, fuel, utilities, rent, and transportation for low-income consumers. The computation of annual adjustments in the California Necessities Index shall be made in accordance with the following steps:
(1) The base period expenditure amounts for each expenditure category within the California Necessities Index used to compute the annual grant adjustment are:
Food…………………………. $ 3,027
Clothing (apparel and upkeep)…… 406
Fuel and other utilities……….. 529
Rent, residential……………… 4,883
Transportation………………… 1,757
———–
Total………………………. $10,602
(2) Based on the appropriate components of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage change shall be determined for the 12-month period which ends 12 months prior to the January in which the cost-of-living adjustment will take effect, for each expenditure category specified in paragraph (1) within the following geographical areas: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, San Francisco-Oakland, San Diego, and, to the extent statistically valid information is available from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, additional geographical areas within the state which include not less than 80 percent of recipients of aid under this chapter.”
Bottom line, the COLA should be almost exactly the same as the CPI, as far as I can tell. I have no idea what makes you think the COLA is twice the CPI.
One way to rate teachers is to look at test scores and the direction test scores are going. The overall performance has been quite high in Davis. That is an indication of good teachers.
As you look at budget increases you also have to look at program changes. One reason costs have increased is that there are more teachers and the average class size has dropped 6%. Overall cost have increased 24% but 6% of that is because of improved class size. That leave 18% for salary and other cost increases.
One more thing – the sttate is preparing to cut school funding even more – as we type.
One way to rate teachers is to look at test scores and the direction test scores are going. The overall performance has been quite high in Davis. That is an indication of good teachers.
As you look at budget increases you also have to look at program changes. One reason costs have increased is that there are more teachers and the average class size has dropped 6%. Overall cost have increased 24% but 6% of that is because of improved class size. That leave 18% for salary and other cost increases.
One more thing – the sttate is preparing to cut school funding even more – as we type.
One way to rate teachers is to look at test scores and the direction test scores are going. The overall performance has been quite high in Davis. That is an indication of good teachers.
As you look at budget increases you also have to look at program changes. One reason costs have increased is that there are more teachers and the average class size has dropped 6%. Overall cost have increased 24% but 6% of that is because of improved class size. That leave 18% for salary and other cost increases.
One more thing – the sttate is preparing to cut school funding even more – as we type.
One way to rate teachers is to look at test scores and the direction test scores are going. The overall performance has been quite high in Davis. That is an indication of good teachers.
As you look at budget increases you also have to look at program changes. One reason costs have increased is that there are more teachers and the average class size has dropped 6%. Overall cost have increased 24% but 6% of that is because of improved class size. That leave 18% for salary and other cost increases.
One more thing – the sttate is preparing to cut school funding even more – as we type.
Rich:
Here are the state’s COLA numbers:
2003-04: -1.2%
2004-05: 2.41%
2005-06: 4.23%
2006-07: 5.92%
2007-08: 4.53%
2008-09: 0.7%
As the previous poster points out the COLA does not directly translate into number that we see for total expenditures for teachers.
There are two reasons for that:
1. Class size, the district has utilized local funding (i.e. the parcel tax to reduce the size of classes above and beyond what the state funds for or requires).
2. Step and Column increases. That means that because our teachers are more experienced than other districts, our costs have gone up.
Here is the way the state figures out COLA–remember it is what the state funds for COLA, that means during economic downturns that number is held up and then funding gets released back into the system. That’s why we saw the big increases in staff spending between 2005 and 2007. The state did not fully fund COLA for the years prior to that and they will not fully fund COLA for this next year either.
So they should fund COLA this year at 5.5% but instead are funding it at .7%.
Read here for more details on COLA
Rich:
Here are the state’s COLA numbers:
2003-04: -1.2%
2004-05: 2.41%
2005-06: 4.23%
2006-07: 5.92%
2007-08: 4.53%
2008-09: 0.7%
As the previous poster points out the COLA does not directly translate into number that we see for total expenditures for teachers.
There are two reasons for that:
1. Class size, the district has utilized local funding (i.e. the parcel tax to reduce the size of classes above and beyond what the state funds for or requires).
2. Step and Column increases. That means that because our teachers are more experienced than other districts, our costs have gone up.
Here is the way the state figures out COLA–remember it is what the state funds for COLA, that means during economic downturns that number is held up and then funding gets released back into the system. That’s why we saw the big increases in staff spending between 2005 and 2007. The state did not fully fund COLA for the years prior to that and they will not fully fund COLA for this next year either.
So they should fund COLA this year at 5.5% but instead are funding it at .7%.
Read here for more details on COLA
Rich:
Here are the state’s COLA numbers:
2003-04: -1.2%
2004-05: 2.41%
2005-06: 4.23%
2006-07: 5.92%
2007-08: 4.53%
2008-09: 0.7%
As the previous poster points out the COLA does not directly translate into number that we see for total expenditures for teachers.
There are two reasons for that:
1. Class size, the district has utilized local funding (i.e. the parcel tax to reduce the size of classes above and beyond what the state funds for or requires).
2. Step and Column increases. That means that because our teachers are more experienced than other districts, our costs have gone up.
Here is the way the state figures out COLA–remember it is what the state funds for COLA, that means during economic downturns that number is held up and then funding gets released back into the system. That’s why we saw the big increases in staff spending between 2005 and 2007. The state did not fully fund COLA for the years prior to that and they will not fully fund COLA for this next year either.
So they should fund COLA this year at 5.5% but instead are funding it at .7%.
Read here for more details on COLA
Rich:
Here are the state’s COLA numbers:
2003-04: -1.2%
2004-05: 2.41%
2005-06: 4.23%
2006-07: 5.92%
2007-08: 4.53%
2008-09: 0.7%
As the previous poster points out the COLA does not directly translate into number that we see for total expenditures for teachers.
There are two reasons for that:
1. Class size, the district has utilized local funding (i.e. the parcel tax to reduce the size of classes above and beyond what the state funds for or requires).
2. Step and Column increases. That means that because our teachers are more experienced than other districts, our costs have gone up.
Here is the way the state figures out COLA–remember it is what the state funds for COLA, that means during economic downturns that number is held up and then funding gets released back into the system. That’s why we saw the big increases in staff spending between 2005 and 2007. The state did not fully fund COLA for the years prior to that and they will not fully fund COLA for this next year either.
So they should fund COLA this year at 5.5% but instead are funding it at .7%.
Read here for more details on COLA
“Here are the state’s COLA numbers:
2003-04: -1.2%
2004-05: 2.41%
2005-06: 4.23%
2006-07: 5.92%
2007-08: 4.53%
2008-09: 0.7%
Those are the actual adjustments, but not the actual COLAs. As the LAO site states (and you repeat), the actual adjustments may be higher or lower in a given year than the COLA formula calls for.
It is also notable that the LAO is critical of the COLA formula, finding that it is overstating inflation:
“Over the past four years (2004–05 through 2007–08), the state paid approximately $8.3 billion to fund COLAs for K–14 education. Had the K–12 COLA been calculated over the same time period using either the Governor’s proposed index or our alternative, the costs would have been less—$5.4 billion or $6.9 billion, respectively. This is because, as illustrated in Figure 5, the existing COLA rate has been notably higher than the two proposed alternatives in recent years.”
The bottom line for me is this: our district could manage its budget far better if it restricted the growth of the expenditures it controls to an inflator capped at the CPI for the previous 3 years. That would flatten out our budget cycle and help prevent a crisis by giving out contracts which we find are unaffordable in the out years.
“Here are the state’s COLA numbers:
2003-04: -1.2%
2004-05: 2.41%
2005-06: 4.23%
2006-07: 5.92%
2007-08: 4.53%
2008-09: 0.7%
Those are the actual adjustments, but not the actual COLAs. As the LAO site states (and you repeat), the actual adjustments may be higher or lower in a given year than the COLA formula calls for.
It is also notable that the LAO is critical of the COLA formula, finding that it is overstating inflation:
“Over the past four years (2004–05 through 2007–08), the state paid approximately $8.3 billion to fund COLAs for K–14 education. Had the K–12 COLA been calculated over the same time period using either the Governor’s proposed index or our alternative, the costs would have been less—$5.4 billion or $6.9 billion, respectively. This is because, as illustrated in Figure 5, the existing COLA rate has been notably higher than the two proposed alternatives in recent years.”
The bottom line for me is this: our district could manage its budget far better if it restricted the growth of the expenditures it controls to an inflator capped at the CPI for the previous 3 years. That would flatten out our budget cycle and help prevent a crisis by giving out contracts which we find are unaffordable in the out years.
“Here are the state’s COLA numbers:
2003-04: -1.2%
2004-05: 2.41%
2005-06: 4.23%
2006-07: 5.92%
2007-08: 4.53%
2008-09: 0.7%
Those are the actual adjustments, but not the actual COLAs. As the LAO site states (and you repeat), the actual adjustments may be higher or lower in a given year than the COLA formula calls for.
It is also notable that the LAO is critical of the COLA formula, finding that it is overstating inflation:
“Over the past four years (2004–05 through 2007–08), the state paid approximately $8.3 billion to fund COLAs for K–14 education. Had the K–12 COLA been calculated over the same time period using either the Governor’s proposed index or our alternative, the costs would have been less—$5.4 billion or $6.9 billion, respectively. This is because, as illustrated in Figure 5, the existing COLA rate has been notably higher than the two proposed alternatives in recent years.”
The bottom line for me is this: our district could manage its budget far better if it restricted the growth of the expenditures it controls to an inflator capped at the CPI for the previous 3 years. That would flatten out our budget cycle and help prevent a crisis by giving out contracts which we find are unaffordable in the out years.
“Here are the state’s COLA numbers:
2003-04: -1.2%
2004-05: 2.41%
2005-06: 4.23%
2006-07: 5.92%
2007-08: 4.53%
2008-09: 0.7%
Those are the actual adjustments, but not the actual COLAs. As the LAO site states (and you repeat), the actual adjustments may be higher or lower in a given year than the COLA formula calls for.
It is also notable that the LAO is critical of the COLA formula, finding that it is overstating inflation:
“Over the past four years (2004–05 through 2007–08), the state paid approximately $8.3 billion to fund COLAs for K–14 education. Had the K–12 COLA been calculated over the same time period using either the Governor’s proposed index or our alternative, the costs would have been less—$5.4 billion or $6.9 billion, respectively. This is because, as illustrated in Figure 5, the existing COLA rate has been notably higher than the two proposed alternatives in recent years.”
The bottom line for me is this: our district could manage its budget far better if it restricted the growth of the expenditures it controls to an inflator capped at the CPI for the previous 3 years. That would flatten out our budget cycle and help prevent a crisis by giving out contracts which we find are unaffordable in the out years.
Whether or not COLA overstates inflation is largely irrelevant, that is the money that the district gets from the state.
Once the district gets that money, the employees want a comparable cost of living increase in their salaries, and based on the system that is set up, they largely will get it one way or the other.
I don’t know that you can cap spending based on things that are outside of the direct and immediate control of the district.
What I think the district tries to do is bump its margins by increasing its reserves. Part of the problem that happened prior to this current administration was the we relied too heavily on one-time monies for on-going expenses. We have moved away from that for the most part, but we have also eaten up some of that reserve buffering the blow to the budget last year.
The bottom line for me, and I’m sure Bruce Colby would be open to a good conservation with you, I think the district is doing as good a job at managing their current budget as possible. There will not be a pay increase for teachers other than the mandatory step and column increases that are built into the CBA.
Whether or not COLA overstates inflation is largely irrelevant, that is the money that the district gets from the state.
Once the district gets that money, the employees want a comparable cost of living increase in their salaries, and based on the system that is set up, they largely will get it one way or the other.
I don’t know that you can cap spending based on things that are outside of the direct and immediate control of the district.
What I think the district tries to do is bump its margins by increasing its reserves. Part of the problem that happened prior to this current administration was the we relied too heavily on one-time monies for on-going expenses. We have moved away from that for the most part, but we have also eaten up some of that reserve buffering the blow to the budget last year.
The bottom line for me, and I’m sure Bruce Colby would be open to a good conservation with you, I think the district is doing as good a job at managing their current budget as possible. There will not be a pay increase for teachers other than the mandatory step and column increases that are built into the CBA.
Whether or not COLA overstates inflation is largely irrelevant, that is the money that the district gets from the state.
Once the district gets that money, the employees want a comparable cost of living increase in their salaries, and based on the system that is set up, they largely will get it one way or the other.
I don’t know that you can cap spending based on things that are outside of the direct and immediate control of the district.
What I think the district tries to do is bump its margins by increasing its reserves. Part of the problem that happened prior to this current administration was the we relied too heavily on one-time monies for on-going expenses. We have moved away from that for the most part, but we have also eaten up some of that reserve buffering the blow to the budget last year.
The bottom line for me, and I’m sure Bruce Colby would be open to a good conservation with you, I think the district is doing as good a job at managing their current budget as possible. There will not be a pay increase for teachers other than the mandatory step and column increases that are built into the CBA.
Whether or not COLA overstates inflation is largely irrelevant, that is the money that the district gets from the state.
Once the district gets that money, the employees want a comparable cost of living increase in their salaries, and based on the system that is set up, they largely will get it one way or the other.
I don’t know that you can cap spending based on things that are outside of the direct and immediate control of the district.
What I think the district tries to do is bump its margins by increasing its reserves. Part of the problem that happened prior to this current administration was the we relied too heavily on one-time monies for on-going expenses. We have moved away from that for the most part, but we have also eaten up some of that reserve buffering the blow to the budget last year.
The bottom line for me, and I’m sure Bruce Colby would be open to a good conservation with you, I think the district is doing as good a job at managing their current budget as possible. There will not be a pay increase for teachers other than the mandatory step and column increases that are built into the CBA.
“Over that period of seven school years, district spending increased around $14 million from $59.1 million to $73 million. That’s roughly the rate of inflation.”
That is not the rate of inflation. CPI is the rate of inflation.
COLA isn’t CPI, and the state doesn’t always fully fund COLA.
“I don’t know that you can cap spending based on things that are outside of the direct and immediate control of the district.”
It isn’t outside the direct control of the district. They approve the contracts. The major portion of the district’s expenses (as with any business) is payroll. Managing expenses is precisely the job of the school board.
“Over that period of seven school years, district spending increased around $14 million from $59.1 million to $73 million. That’s roughly the rate of inflation.”
That is not the rate of inflation. CPI is the rate of inflation.
COLA isn’t CPI, and the state doesn’t always fully fund COLA.
“I don’t know that you can cap spending based on things that are outside of the direct and immediate control of the district.”
It isn’t outside the direct control of the district. They approve the contracts. The major portion of the district’s expenses (as with any business) is payroll. Managing expenses is precisely the job of the school board.
“Over that period of seven school years, district spending increased around $14 million from $59.1 million to $73 million. That’s roughly the rate of inflation.”
That is not the rate of inflation. CPI is the rate of inflation.
COLA isn’t CPI, and the state doesn’t always fully fund COLA.
“I don’t know that you can cap spending based on things that are outside of the direct and immediate control of the district.”
It isn’t outside the direct control of the district. They approve the contracts. The major portion of the district’s expenses (as with any business) is payroll. Managing expenses is precisely the job of the school board.
“Over that period of seven school years, district spending increased around $14 million from $59.1 million to $73 million. That’s roughly the rate of inflation.”
That is not the rate of inflation. CPI is the rate of inflation.
COLA isn’t CPI, and the state doesn’t always fully fund COLA.
“I don’t know that you can cap spending based on things that are outside of the direct and immediate control of the district.”
It isn’t outside the direct control of the district. They approve the contracts. The major portion of the district’s expenses (as with any business) is payroll. Managing expenses is precisely the job of the school board.
I am all for paying teachers a decent wage. However, the fact of the matter is the school district did not have the money to pay the COLA through their own negligence bc of sloppy accounting practices. Had the true financial picture been available at the time of the raise, the teachers would never have gotten the COLA they did.
So now John Q. Taxpayer is being asked to cough up the money to pay for the school district’s and board’s mistake – once again. And of course we have to or else we will be “punishing the children” for the wrongs of the school district/board. This same tiresome litany goes on year after year.
As long as John Q. Taxpayer is willing to let these con artists at the school district/board get away with this, and not hold their feet to the fire for more accountability, we will get more of the same waste and “mistakes”.
Who says Measure W will probably pass? Don’t count your chickens just yet. If Measure W does pass, I am going to hold you – DPD – accountable for your arguments in favor of Measure W.
When the same wasteful scenarios play out after W passes (assuming it even does), I’m going to remind you of what you told us – that better practices have been put in place so this never happens again. For instance, if Measure W passes, Emerson better survive intact – or there is going to be hell to pay!
I am all for paying teachers a decent wage. However, the fact of the matter is the school district did not have the money to pay the COLA through their own negligence bc of sloppy accounting practices. Had the true financial picture been available at the time of the raise, the teachers would never have gotten the COLA they did.
So now John Q. Taxpayer is being asked to cough up the money to pay for the school district’s and board’s mistake – once again. And of course we have to or else we will be “punishing the children” for the wrongs of the school district/board. This same tiresome litany goes on year after year.
As long as John Q. Taxpayer is willing to let these con artists at the school district/board get away with this, and not hold their feet to the fire for more accountability, we will get more of the same waste and “mistakes”.
Who says Measure W will probably pass? Don’t count your chickens just yet. If Measure W does pass, I am going to hold you – DPD – accountable for your arguments in favor of Measure W.
When the same wasteful scenarios play out after W passes (assuming it even does), I’m going to remind you of what you told us – that better practices have been put in place so this never happens again. For instance, if Measure W passes, Emerson better survive intact – or there is going to be hell to pay!
I am all for paying teachers a decent wage. However, the fact of the matter is the school district did not have the money to pay the COLA through their own negligence bc of sloppy accounting practices. Had the true financial picture been available at the time of the raise, the teachers would never have gotten the COLA they did.
So now John Q. Taxpayer is being asked to cough up the money to pay for the school district’s and board’s mistake – once again. And of course we have to or else we will be “punishing the children” for the wrongs of the school district/board. This same tiresome litany goes on year after year.
As long as John Q. Taxpayer is willing to let these con artists at the school district/board get away with this, and not hold their feet to the fire for more accountability, we will get more of the same waste and “mistakes”.
Who says Measure W will probably pass? Don’t count your chickens just yet. If Measure W does pass, I am going to hold you – DPD – accountable for your arguments in favor of Measure W.
When the same wasteful scenarios play out after W passes (assuming it even does), I’m going to remind you of what you told us – that better practices have been put in place so this never happens again. For instance, if Measure W passes, Emerson better survive intact – or there is going to be hell to pay!
I am all for paying teachers a decent wage. However, the fact of the matter is the school district did not have the money to pay the COLA through their own negligence bc of sloppy accounting practices. Had the true financial picture been available at the time of the raise, the teachers would never have gotten the COLA they did.
So now John Q. Taxpayer is being asked to cough up the money to pay for the school district’s and board’s mistake – once again. And of course we have to or else we will be “punishing the children” for the wrongs of the school district/board. This same tiresome litany goes on year after year.
As long as John Q. Taxpayer is willing to let these con artists at the school district/board get away with this, and not hold their feet to the fire for more accountability, we will get more of the same waste and “mistakes”.
Who says Measure W will probably pass? Don’t count your chickens just yet. If Measure W does pass, I am going to hold you – DPD – accountable for your arguments in favor of Measure W.
When the same wasteful scenarios play out after W passes (assuming it even does), I’m going to remind you of what you told us – that better practices have been put in place so this never happens again. For instance, if Measure W passes, Emerson better survive intact – or there is going to be hell to pay!
“However, the fact of the matter is the school district did not have the money to pay the COLA through their own negligence bc of sloppy accounting practices. Had the true financial picture been available at the time of the raise, the teachers would never have gotten the COLA they did.”
Actually neither of those statements are true. Had the district known the true shape of their finances (and remember they have since hired a new CBO and a new Superintendent) the teachers probably would have gotten a very similar raise in 2006. That is due to where the COLA ended up being in 2006. The COLA comes from the state and the teachers would have been able to argue for their fairshare of that COLA. One source told me, that they probably would have gotten 5.5% rather than 6.5%.
However, that is not why we face a $2.4 million deficit in 2008-09. That has to do with the state budget figure and the fact that the district is getting .7% of the COLA rather than 5.5% that would ordinarily go to them.
“However, the fact of the matter is the school district did not have the money to pay the COLA through their own negligence bc of sloppy accounting practices. Had the true financial picture been available at the time of the raise, the teachers would never have gotten the COLA they did.”
Actually neither of those statements are true. Had the district known the true shape of their finances (and remember they have since hired a new CBO and a new Superintendent) the teachers probably would have gotten a very similar raise in 2006. That is due to where the COLA ended up being in 2006. The COLA comes from the state and the teachers would have been able to argue for their fairshare of that COLA. One source told me, that they probably would have gotten 5.5% rather than 6.5%.
However, that is not why we face a $2.4 million deficit in 2008-09. That has to do with the state budget figure and the fact that the district is getting .7% of the COLA rather than 5.5% that would ordinarily go to them.
“However, the fact of the matter is the school district did not have the money to pay the COLA through their own negligence bc of sloppy accounting practices. Had the true financial picture been available at the time of the raise, the teachers would never have gotten the COLA they did.”
Actually neither of those statements are true. Had the district known the true shape of their finances (and remember they have since hired a new CBO and a new Superintendent) the teachers probably would have gotten a very similar raise in 2006. That is due to where the COLA ended up being in 2006. The COLA comes from the state and the teachers would have been able to argue for their fairshare of that COLA. One source told me, that they probably would have gotten 5.5% rather than 6.5%.
However, that is not why we face a $2.4 million deficit in 2008-09. That has to do with the state budget figure and the fact that the district is getting .7% of the COLA rather than 5.5% that would ordinarily go to them.
“However, the fact of the matter is the school district did not have the money to pay the COLA through their own negligence bc of sloppy accounting practices. Had the true financial picture been available at the time of the raise, the teachers would never have gotten the COLA they did.”
Actually neither of those statements are true. Had the district known the true shape of their finances (and remember they have since hired a new CBO and a new Superintendent) the teachers probably would have gotten a very similar raise in 2006. That is due to where the COLA ended up being in 2006. The COLA comes from the state and the teachers would have been able to argue for their fairshare of that COLA. One source told me, that they probably would have gotten 5.5% rather than 6.5%.
However, that is not why we face a $2.4 million deficit in 2008-09. That has to do with the state budget figure and the fact that the district is getting .7% of the COLA rather than 5.5% that would ordinarily go to them.
Don:
With all due respect, I think you know as well as anyone else, that step and column payscales are not going to be changed under a collective bargaining situation.
Don:
With all due respect, I think you know as well as anyone else, that step and column payscales are not going to be changed under a collective bargaining situation.
Don:
With all due respect, I think you know as well as anyone else, that step and column payscales are not going to be changed under a collective bargaining situation.
Don:
With all due respect, I think you know as well as anyone else, that step and column payscales are not going to be changed under a collective bargaining situation.
I have been told (and I can’t remember by whom, so I won’t attribute this) that the step-and-column increases are supposed to be deducted from an “new” money that is on the negotiating table when the teacher contract comes up. In 2006 the step-and-column amounted to about 1.5%. So even if they are automatic as part of the agreement, they would come out of COLA.
Unfortunately, COLA this year will be so low that there won’t be even enough to cover that. So the parcel tax will help make that up and enable the district to maintain current teacher staffing.
Declining enrollment is also supposed to be factored in as an offset to “new” money. It wasn’t in 2006. So the raise was higher than it “should” have been.
My point is that the board has to give guidance to the district administrators as they go into negotiations. Rich has one reasonable proposal: that the board commit to a budget process linked to CPI. You’d have to add “not to exceed COLA in a particular year.” It would be great to have some kind of commitment from board members that they will adhere to prudent fiscal policies. I admire Bruce Colby and believe he is committed to proper fiscal management and a prudent reserve. But it is the board that sets the direction.
I have been told (and I can’t remember by whom, so I won’t attribute this) that the step-and-column increases are supposed to be deducted from an “new” money that is on the negotiating table when the teacher contract comes up. In 2006 the step-and-column amounted to about 1.5%. So even if they are automatic as part of the agreement, they would come out of COLA.
Unfortunately, COLA this year will be so low that there won’t be even enough to cover that. So the parcel tax will help make that up and enable the district to maintain current teacher staffing.
Declining enrollment is also supposed to be factored in as an offset to “new” money. It wasn’t in 2006. So the raise was higher than it “should” have been.
My point is that the board has to give guidance to the district administrators as they go into negotiations. Rich has one reasonable proposal: that the board commit to a budget process linked to CPI. You’d have to add “not to exceed COLA in a particular year.” It would be great to have some kind of commitment from board members that they will adhere to prudent fiscal policies. I admire Bruce Colby and believe he is committed to proper fiscal management and a prudent reserve. But it is the board that sets the direction.
I have been told (and I can’t remember by whom, so I won’t attribute this) that the step-and-column increases are supposed to be deducted from an “new” money that is on the negotiating table when the teacher contract comes up. In 2006 the step-and-column amounted to about 1.5%. So even if they are automatic as part of the agreement, they would come out of COLA.
Unfortunately, COLA this year will be so low that there won’t be even enough to cover that. So the parcel tax will help make that up and enable the district to maintain current teacher staffing.
Declining enrollment is also supposed to be factored in as an offset to “new” money. It wasn’t in 2006. So the raise was higher than it “should” have been.
My point is that the board has to give guidance to the district administrators as they go into negotiations. Rich has one reasonable proposal: that the board commit to a budget process linked to CPI. You’d have to add “not to exceed COLA in a particular year.” It would be great to have some kind of commitment from board members that they will adhere to prudent fiscal policies. I admire Bruce Colby and believe he is committed to proper fiscal management and a prudent reserve. But it is the board that sets the direction.
I have been told (and I can’t remember by whom, so I won’t attribute this) that the step-and-column increases are supposed to be deducted from an “new” money that is on the negotiating table when the teacher contract comes up. In 2006 the step-and-column amounted to about 1.5%. So even if they are automatic as part of the agreement, they would come out of COLA.
Unfortunately, COLA this year will be so low that there won’t be even enough to cover that. So the parcel tax will help make that up and enable the district to maintain current teacher staffing.
Declining enrollment is also supposed to be factored in as an offset to “new” money. It wasn’t in 2006. So the raise was higher than it “should” have been.
My point is that the board has to give guidance to the district administrators as they go into negotiations. Rich has one reasonable proposal: that the board commit to a budget process linked to CPI. You’d have to add “not to exceed COLA in a particular year.” It would be great to have some kind of commitment from board members that they will adhere to prudent fiscal policies. I admire Bruce Colby and believe he is committed to proper fiscal management and a prudent reserve. But it is the board that sets the direction.
Comment about feelings some have that bad teachers stick around but younger, better teachers are vulnerable to cuts:
I do not believe that standardized testing is the complete way to measure or prove mastery of skills in students, but it is the best thing that’s available to quantify efficiently.
We are entering an era where standardized tests are being used, increasingly, to measure both student and teacher performance.
It goes into API scores and AYP scores. Those things get published in the newspaper and posted online for all to see. It isn’t hard to know how your school is doing. If it’s doing poorly, it tends to reflect poorly on the job performance of the principal and the teachers.
These are the beginning steps of teacher accountability. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) rasies the bar each year, until by ~2014, at or very near 100% of students are supposed to be competent in defined standards for reading and math.
Personally I don’t think 100% is a regularly achievable goal and would expect to see some revised goal of slightly under 100%.
Nevertheless when critics complain about slackers being kept on to burden the tax system, I would point out that the mechanism is in place to make potential changes in how teachers are held accountable.
What other group of publicly funded employees are under this kind of standardized, quantifiable accountability? I’m having a hard time coming up with another group. Occasionally statistics come into play for fire and police departments.
If teachers even agree to be held up to this kind of scrutiny (publicized standardized test scores), then I think it’s worth it to not be so eager to cut teachers’ salaries.
I would expect that in the near future, collective bargaining negotiations will have to address, rather directly, consequences for under performing teachers.
Comment about feelings some have that bad teachers stick around but younger, better teachers are vulnerable to cuts:
I do not believe that standardized testing is the complete way to measure or prove mastery of skills in students, but it is the best thing that’s available to quantify efficiently.
We are entering an era where standardized tests are being used, increasingly, to measure both student and teacher performance.
It goes into API scores and AYP scores. Those things get published in the newspaper and posted online for all to see. It isn’t hard to know how your school is doing. If it’s doing poorly, it tends to reflect poorly on the job performance of the principal and the teachers.
These are the beginning steps of teacher accountability. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) rasies the bar each year, until by ~2014, at or very near 100% of students are supposed to be competent in defined standards for reading and math.
Personally I don’t think 100% is a regularly achievable goal and would expect to see some revised goal of slightly under 100%.
Nevertheless when critics complain about slackers being kept on to burden the tax system, I would point out that the mechanism is in place to make potential changes in how teachers are held accountable.
What other group of publicly funded employees are under this kind of standardized, quantifiable accountability? I’m having a hard time coming up with another group. Occasionally statistics come into play for fire and police departments.
If teachers even agree to be held up to this kind of scrutiny (publicized standardized test scores), then I think it’s worth it to not be so eager to cut teachers’ salaries.
I would expect that in the near future, collective bargaining negotiations will have to address, rather directly, consequences for under performing teachers.
Comment about feelings some have that bad teachers stick around but younger, better teachers are vulnerable to cuts:
I do not believe that standardized testing is the complete way to measure or prove mastery of skills in students, but it is the best thing that’s available to quantify efficiently.
We are entering an era where standardized tests are being used, increasingly, to measure both student and teacher performance.
It goes into API scores and AYP scores. Those things get published in the newspaper and posted online for all to see. It isn’t hard to know how your school is doing. If it’s doing poorly, it tends to reflect poorly on the job performance of the principal and the teachers.
These are the beginning steps of teacher accountability. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) rasies the bar each year, until by ~2014, at or very near 100% of students are supposed to be competent in defined standards for reading and math.
Personally I don’t think 100% is a regularly achievable goal and would expect to see some revised goal of slightly under 100%.
Nevertheless when critics complain about slackers being kept on to burden the tax system, I would point out that the mechanism is in place to make potential changes in how teachers are held accountable.
What other group of publicly funded employees are under this kind of standardized, quantifiable accountability? I’m having a hard time coming up with another group. Occasionally statistics come into play for fire and police departments.
If teachers even agree to be held up to this kind of scrutiny (publicized standardized test scores), then I think it’s worth it to not be so eager to cut teachers’ salaries.
I would expect that in the near future, collective bargaining negotiations will have to address, rather directly, consequences for under performing teachers.
Comment about feelings some have that bad teachers stick around but younger, better teachers are vulnerable to cuts:
I do not believe that standardized testing is the complete way to measure or prove mastery of skills in students, but it is the best thing that’s available to quantify efficiently.
We are entering an era where standardized tests are being used, increasingly, to measure both student and teacher performance.
It goes into API scores and AYP scores. Those things get published in the newspaper and posted online for all to see. It isn’t hard to know how your school is doing. If it’s doing poorly, it tends to reflect poorly on the job performance of the principal and the teachers.
These are the beginning steps of teacher accountability. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) rasies the bar each year, until by ~2014, at or very near 100% of students are supposed to be competent in defined standards for reading and math.
Personally I don’t think 100% is a regularly achievable goal and would expect to see some revised goal of slightly under 100%.
Nevertheless when critics complain about slackers being kept on to burden the tax system, I would point out that the mechanism is in place to make potential changes in how teachers are held accountable.
What other group of publicly funded employees are under this kind of standardized, quantifiable accountability? I’m having a hard time coming up with another group. Occasionally statistics come into play for fire and police departments.
If teachers even agree to be held up to this kind of scrutiny (publicized standardized test scores), then I think it’s worth it to not be so eager to cut teachers’ salaries.
I would expect that in the near future, collective bargaining negotiations will have to address, rather directly, consequences for under performing teachers.
I admire Bruce Colby and believe he is committed to proper fiscal management and a prudent reserve. But it is the board that sets the direction.
True that the board has the ultimate say, but the district staff regularly weigh in on their recommendations, and frequently (not always) those recommendations are followed.
Colby has a reputation of being “Mr. Doom and Gloom” at board meetings (granted, he recently came into a situation that wasn’t great to begin with), but I think his way of presenting a stark situation brings reality to the board discussions.
He has always been available to answer questions that I have. I don’t always understand his answers, but he is patient when I ask him to clarify. As a public employee, that is the appropriate professional demeanor to have with the tax-paying public.
I admire Bruce Colby and believe he is committed to proper fiscal management and a prudent reserve. But it is the board that sets the direction.
True that the board has the ultimate say, but the district staff regularly weigh in on their recommendations, and frequently (not always) those recommendations are followed.
Colby has a reputation of being “Mr. Doom and Gloom” at board meetings (granted, he recently came into a situation that wasn’t great to begin with), but I think his way of presenting a stark situation brings reality to the board discussions.
He has always been available to answer questions that I have. I don’t always understand his answers, but he is patient when I ask him to clarify. As a public employee, that is the appropriate professional demeanor to have with the tax-paying public.
I admire Bruce Colby and believe he is committed to proper fiscal management and a prudent reserve. But it is the board that sets the direction.
True that the board has the ultimate say, but the district staff regularly weigh in on their recommendations, and frequently (not always) those recommendations are followed.
Colby has a reputation of being “Mr. Doom and Gloom” at board meetings (granted, he recently came into a situation that wasn’t great to begin with), but I think his way of presenting a stark situation brings reality to the board discussions.
He has always been available to answer questions that I have. I don’t always understand his answers, but he is patient when I ask him to clarify. As a public employee, that is the appropriate professional demeanor to have with the tax-paying public.
I admire Bruce Colby and believe he is committed to proper fiscal management and a prudent reserve. But it is the board that sets the direction.
True that the board has the ultimate say, but the district staff regularly weigh in on their recommendations, and frequently (not always) those recommendations are followed.
Colby has a reputation of being “Mr. Doom and Gloom” at board meetings (granted, he recently came into a situation that wasn’t great to begin with), but I think his way of presenting a stark situation brings reality to the board discussions.
He has always been available to answer questions that I have. I don’t always understand his answers, but he is patient when I ask him to clarify. As a public employee, that is the appropriate professional demeanor to have with the tax-paying public.
I really think that Don Shor , Rich Rifkin , and DPD , would really make a diffreence in Alaska , along with Sarah Palin…They seem to be more of the crowd for you guys.
I really think that Don Shor , Rich Rifkin , and DPD , would really make a diffreence in Alaska , along with Sarah Palin…They seem to be more of the crowd for you guys.
I really think that Don Shor , Rich Rifkin , and DPD , would really make a diffreence in Alaska , along with Sarah Palin…They seem to be more of the crowd for you guys.
I really think that Don Shor , Rich Rifkin , and DPD , would really make a diffreence in Alaska , along with Sarah Palin…They seem to be more of the crowd for you guys.
I have no idea what you mean, anonymous, perhaps you ought to read the blog and my recent commentary on Sarah Palin.
I have no idea what you mean, anonymous, perhaps you ought to read the blog and my recent commentary on Sarah Palin.
I have no idea what you mean, anonymous, perhaps you ought to read the blog and my recent commentary on Sarah Palin.
I have no idea what you mean, anonymous, perhaps you ought to read the blog and my recent commentary on Sarah Palin.
Makes you wonder if anonymous really understands the issues and the fact that Rifkin, DPD, and Shor are all coming at this from different angles.
Makes you wonder if anonymous really understands the issues and the fact that Rifkin, DPD, and Shor are all coming at this from different angles.
Makes you wonder if anonymous really understands the issues and the fact that Rifkin, DPD, and Shor are all coming at this from different angles.
Makes you wonder if anonymous really understands the issues and the fact that Rifkin, DPD, and Shor are all coming at this from different angles.
Rifkin said: “Teachers are paid based on tenure, and they reach their maximum level of pay quite early in their careers”
Obviously Rifkin is speaking of things he knows nothing about because it takes teachers in most districts in California 20 years or more to reach the top of the pay scale. I think in Davis it takes 20 years, in Woodland 20 years and Fairfield 24 years.
As for his adherence to the BLS statistics on inflation all of his metrics are arbitrary. By going back 10 years he omits the Pete Wilson years when teachers got almost no raises for 8 years. Also what is so sacred about the BLS numbers anyway? Who cares, they have been erroneously understating the cost of living and inflation for years. How about using the inflation in housing values in Davis of course this is not relevent to Rifkin who, I’ve been told, lives in his parents home. Is that true? Does he even pay them rent? So its easy for him to rail against working people when he doesn’t face the same reality of the average working person trying to support a family.
Rifkin said: “Teachers are paid based on tenure, and they reach their maximum level of pay quite early in their careers”
Obviously Rifkin is speaking of things he knows nothing about because it takes teachers in most districts in California 20 years or more to reach the top of the pay scale. I think in Davis it takes 20 years, in Woodland 20 years and Fairfield 24 years.
As for his adherence to the BLS statistics on inflation all of his metrics are arbitrary. By going back 10 years he omits the Pete Wilson years when teachers got almost no raises for 8 years. Also what is so sacred about the BLS numbers anyway? Who cares, they have been erroneously understating the cost of living and inflation for years. How about using the inflation in housing values in Davis of course this is not relevent to Rifkin who, I’ve been told, lives in his parents home. Is that true? Does he even pay them rent? So its easy for him to rail against working people when he doesn’t face the same reality of the average working person trying to support a family.
Rifkin said: “Teachers are paid based on tenure, and they reach their maximum level of pay quite early in their careers”
Obviously Rifkin is speaking of things he knows nothing about because it takes teachers in most districts in California 20 years or more to reach the top of the pay scale. I think in Davis it takes 20 years, in Woodland 20 years and Fairfield 24 years.
As for his adherence to the BLS statistics on inflation all of his metrics are arbitrary. By going back 10 years he omits the Pete Wilson years when teachers got almost no raises for 8 years. Also what is so sacred about the BLS numbers anyway? Who cares, they have been erroneously understating the cost of living and inflation for years. How about using the inflation in housing values in Davis of course this is not relevent to Rifkin who, I’ve been told, lives in his parents home. Is that true? Does he even pay them rent? So its easy for him to rail against working people when he doesn’t face the same reality of the average working person trying to support a family.
Rifkin said: “Teachers are paid based on tenure, and they reach their maximum level of pay quite early in their careers”
Obviously Rifkin is speaking of things he knows nothing about because it takes teachers in most districts in California 20 years or more to reach the top of the pay scale. I think in Davis it takes 20 years, in Woodland 20 years and Fairfield 24 years.
As for his adherence to the BLS statistics on inflation all of his metrics are arbitrary. By going back 10 years he omits the Pete Wilson years when teachers got almost no raises for 8 years. Also what is so sacred about the BLS numbers anyway? Who cares, they have been erroneously understating the cost of living and inflation for years. How about using the inflation in housing values in Davis of course this is not relevent to Rifkin who, I’ve been told, lives in his parents home. Is that true? Does he even pay them rent? So its easy for him to rail against working people when he doesn’t face the same reality of the average working person trying to support a family.
“Good help is hard to find”
Having good teachers in Davis schools in the next few years will be of little consequence.
The days of high test scores and the lovely sound of the Madrigal singers will be silenced. The milk toast University offspring will all be attending private schools.
How could this be you screechingly exclaim? Pure unadmitted and unadulterated fear from our excellent tenured public school teachers.
With the social engineering presently being further extended to our community. Once committed and tenured teachers will be retiring in droves.
They just won’t be able to take much more. Competent younger teachers will see more sterling opportunities in say: Rocklin. Granite Bay, and some of your toney Bay Area settings etc.
Budget wise it’s going to be costly as well. After personally conducting aptitude tests at some larger public high schools, I became familiar with the on campus police department. Indeed these school districts had to field there own police forces to protect teachers and property.
I’m afraid Marc Hicks is not going to be able to contain the new levels of school delinquincy that looms on the horizon for the Davis Sr. H.S..
“Good help is hard to find”
Having good teachers in Davis schools in the next few years will be of little consequence.
The days of high test scores and the lovely sound of the Madrigal singers will be silenced. The milk toast University offspring will all be attending private schools.
How could this be you screechingly exclaim? Pure unadmitted and unadulterated fear from our excellent tenured public school teachers.
With the social engineering presently being further extended to our community. Once committed and tenured teachers will be retiring in droves.
They just won’t be able to take much more. Competent younger teachers will see more sterling opportunities in say: Rocklin. Granite Bay, and some of your toney Bay Area settings etc.
Budget wise it’s going to be costly as well. After personally conducting aptitude tests at some larger public high schools, I became familiar with the on campus police department. Indeed these school districts had to field there own police forces to protect teachers and property.
I’m afraid Marc Hicks is not going to be able to contain the new levels of school delinquincy that looms on the horizon for the Davis Sr. H.S..
“Good help is hard to find”
Having good teachers in Davis schools in the next few years will be of little consequence.
The days of high test scores and the lovely sound of the Madrigal singers will be silenced. The milk toast University offspring will all be attending private schools.
How could this be you screechingly exclaim? Pure unadmitted and unadulterated fear from our excellent tenured public school teachers.
With the social engineering presently being further extended to our community. Once committed and tenured teachers will be retiring in droves.
They just won’t be able to take much more. Competent younger teachers will see more sterling opportunities in say: Rocklin. Granite Bay, and some of your toney Bay Area settings etc.
Budget wise it’s going to be costly as well. After personally conducting aptitude tests at some larger public high schools, I became familiar with the on campus police department. Indeed these school districts had to field there own police forces to protect teachers and property.
I’m afraid Marc Hicks is not going to be able to contain the new levels of school delinquincy that looms on the horizon for the Davis Sr. H.S..
“Good help is hard to find”
Having good teachers in Davis schools in the next few years will be of little consequence.
The days of high test scores and the lovely sound of the Madrigal singers will be silenced. The milk toast University offspring will all be attending private schools.
How could this be you screechingly exclaim? Pure unadmitted and unadulterated fear from our excellent tenured public school teachers.
With the social engineering presently being further extended to our community. Once committed and tenured teachers will be retiring in droves.
They just won’t be able to take much more. Competent younger teachers will see more sterling opportunities in say: Rocklin. Granite Bay, and some of your toney Bay Area settings etc.
Budget wise it’s going to be costly as well. After personally conducting aptitude tests at some larger public high schools, I became familiar with the on campus police department. Indeed these school districts had to field there own police forces to protect teachers and property.
I’m afraid Marc Hicks is not going to be able to contain the new levels of school delinquincy that looms on the horizon for the Davis Sr. H.S..
“How about using the inflation in housing values in Davis of course this is not relevent to Rifkin who, I’ve been told, lives in his parents home. Is that true? Does he even pay them rent? So its easy for him to rail against working people when he doesn’t face the same reality of the average working person trying to support a family.”
I’ll second that !!!!!!!!
“How about using the inflation in housing values in Davis of course this is not relevent to Rifkin who, I’ve been told, lives in his parents home. Is that true? Does he even pay them rent? So its easy for him to rail against working people when he doesn’t face the same reality of the average working person trying to support a family.”
I’ll second that !!!!!!!!
“How about using the inflation in housing values in Davis of course this is not relevent to Rifkin who, I’ve been told, lives in his parents home. Is that true? Does he even pay them rent? So its easy for him to rail against working people when he doesn’t face the same reality of the average working person trying to support a family.”
I’ll second that !!!!!!!!
“How about using the inflation in housing values in Davis of course this is not relevent to Rifkin who, I’ve been told, lives in his parents home. Is that true? Does he even pay them rent? So its easy for him to rail against working people when he doesn’t face the same reality of the average working person trying to support a family.”
I’ll second that !!!!!!!!
“Had the district known the true shape of their finances (and remember they have since hired a new CBO and a new Superintendent) the teachers probably would have gotten a very similar raise in 2006. That is due to where the COLA ended up being in 2006. The COLA comes from the state and the teachers would have been able to argue for their fairshare of that COLA. One source told me, that they probably would have gotten 5.5% rather than 6.5%. However, that is not why we face a $2.4 million deficit in 2008-09. That has to do with the state budget figure and the fact that the district is getting .7% of the COLA rather than 5.5% that would ordinarily go to them.”
I’m not following your argument. If the local school district did not have the money to pay the teachers the COLA at the time, then how could the school district reponsibly go ahead and give it to them anyway if the money wasn’t there? Then you argue we are in a budget crisis now bc the school district cannot afford to pay the COLA promised. You can’t have it both ways!
“Had the district known the true shape of their finances (and remember they have since hired a new CBO and a new Superintendent) the teachers probably would have gotten a very similar raise in 2006. That is due to where the COLA ended up being in 2006. The COLA comes from the state and the teachers would have been able to argue for their fairshare of that COLA. One source told me, that they probably would have gotten 5.5% rather than 6.5%. However, that is not why we face a $2.4 million deficit in 2008-09. That has to do with the state budget figure and the fact that the district is getting .7% of the COLA rather than 5.5% that would ordinarily go to them.”
I’m not following your argument. If the local school district did not have the money to pay the teachers the COLA at the time, then how could the school district reponsibly go ahead and give it to them anyway if the money wasn’t there? Then you argue we are in a budget crisis now bc the school district cannot afford to pay the COLA promised. You can’t have it both ways!
“Had the district known the true shape of their finances (and remember they have since hired a new CBO and a new Superintendent) the teachers probably would have gotten a very similar raise in 2006. That is due to where the COLA ended up being in 2006. The COLA comes from the state and the teachers would have been able to argue for their fairshare of that COLA. One source told me, that they probably would have gotten 5.5% rather than 6.5%. However, that is not why we face a $2.4 million deficit in 2008-09. That has to do with the state budget figure and the fact that the district is getting .7% of the COLA rather than 5.5% that would ordinarily go to them.”
I’m not following your argument. If the local school district did not have the money to pay the teachers the COLA at the time, then how could the school district reponsibly go ahead and give it to them anyway if the money wasn’t there? Then you argue we are in a budget crisis now bc the school district cannot afford to pay the COLA promised. You can’t have it both ways!
“Had the district known the true shape of their finances (and remember they have since hired a new CBO and a new Superintendent) the teachers probably would have gotten a very similar raise in 2006. That is due to where the COLA ended up being in 2006. The COLA comes from the state and the teachers would have been able to argue for their fairshare of that COLA. One source told me, that they probably would have gotten 5.5% rather than 6.5%. However, that is not why we face a $2.4 million deficit in 2008-09. That has to do with the state budget figure and the fact that the district is getting .7% of the COLA rather than 5.5% that would ordinarily go to them.”
I’m not following your argument. If the local school district did not have the money to pay the teachers the COLA at the time, then how could the school district reponsibly go ahead and give it to them anyway if the money wasn’t there? Then you argue we are in a budget crisis now bc the school district cannot afford to pay the COLA promised. You can’t have it both ways!
That’s because you do not understand how collective bargaining works. In general, teachers and other employee unions are willing to allow the possibility of layoffs in exchange for salary increases (knowing that it is unlikely that those layoffs would occur).
So let us say that the district had a full understanding of finances at the time, they would have said, if we give you a raise of x-amount, we would have to lay some employees off. The teachers would say, you do what you have to do.
Hence I think DPD is probably right on this point, not knowing the specifics of this situation. I have sat in many bargaining rooms, and from the teacher’s perspective it makes sense.
That’s because you do not understand how collective bargaining works. In general, teachers and other employee unions are willing to allow the possibility of layoffs in exchange for salary increases (knowing that it is unlikely that those layoffs would occur).
So let us say that the district had a full understanding of finances at the time, they would have said, if we give you a raise of x-amount, we would have to lay some employees off. The teachers would say, you do what you have to do.
Hence I think DPD is probably right on this point, not knowing the specifics of this situation. I have sat in many bargaining rooms, and from the teacher’s perspective it makes sense.
That’s because you do not understand how collective bargaining works. In general, teachers and other employee unions are willing to allow the possibility of layoffs in exchange for salary increases (knowing that it is unlikely that those layoffs would occur).
So let us say that the district had a full understanding of finances at the time, they would have said, if we give you a raise of x-amount, we would have to lay some employees off. The teachers would say, you do what you have to do.
Hence I think DPD is probably right on this point, not knowing the specifics of this situation. I have sat in many bargaining rooms, and from the teacher’s perspective it makes sense.
That’s because you do not understand how collective bargaining works. In general, teachers and other employee unions are willing to allow the possibility of layoffs in exchange for salary increases (knowing that it is unlikely that those layoffs would occur).
So let us say that the district had a full understanding of finances at the time, they would have said, if we give you a raise of x-amount, we would have to lay some employees off. The teachers would say, you do what you have to do.
Hence I think DPD is probably right on this point, not knowing the specifics of this situation. I have sat in many bargaining rooms, and from the teacher’s perspective it makes sense.
I’ve observed that few professions seem to get as much appreciation as grade school teachers.
I couldn’t imagine a hyptothetical local measure to support attorneys ever getting as much grassroots support.
I’ve observed that few professions seem to get as much appreciation as grade school teachers.
I couldn’t imagine a hyptothetical local measure to support attorneys ever getting as much grassroots support.
I’ve observed that few professions seem to get as much appreciation as grade school teachers.
I couldn’t imagine a hyptothetical local measure to support attorneys ever getting as much grassroots support.
I’ve observed that few professions seem to get as much appreciation as grade school teachers.
I couldn’t imagine a hyptothetical local measure to support attorneys ever getting as much grassroots support.