The Davis Joint Unified School Board last night heard Bruce Colby’s budget projections along with the plan put forward by Superintendent James Hammond that would eliminate 88 overall position, including 68 teachers and half of the counselors in the district. While the news on that front was bleak, the good news appears to be that both the Classified and Certificated employees are moving towards the acceptance of some concessions.
However, as DTA President Ingrid Salim clarified, that these concessions would not solve the problems, there would still be very difficult and painful regardless. Nevertheless the apparent movement was a ray of hope in an otherwise very bleak forecast.
As Mr. Colby pointed out last night, for the first time he can remember the district is not only getting zero COLA, it is actually getting negative COLA. That means that the district is actually drawing a deficit not merely from keeping up with step and column increases, but merely by maintaining existing costs.
The reduction is roughly .38% or $24 per ADA. The total is $200,000 as an on-going reduction.
Mr. Colby as reported that the district faces a cashflow crisis which means that they will be in the negative in cash this year. Cash is what is used to pay the bills. As he later explained, the district gets the bulk of their money from the state in January and May. The rest of the time, they have to do short-term borrowing and their cashflow and reserve position could make it difficult to secure loans to pay the bills including employee salaries.
Bargaining Units Express Willingness To Make Concessions
Jim Herrington represents the classified employees. On Thursday night he told the board:
“My bargaining unit accepts the staff’s analysis of the budget. That there’s a need for across-the-board concessions. While I have some problems with the specifics of the current proposal, I think we can handle that in negotiations. We need to save as many jobs as we can at this time, I’m totally committed to trying to do that. Hopefully we can put the district some place where we can actually focus on what our job is which is taking care of the children’s education and their welfare. That’s what we’re going to try to do.”
Ingrid Salim from DTA:
“I wanted to publicly thank boardmembers Daleiden and Harris for coming and talking to our group. That was the beginning of a different tenor. The last two weeks with the Governor’s proposal and the finalizing the memorandum of understanding for the retirement incentive and then the layoffs that were made public last night are changing the way that people are thinking and talking. We’re having some much more intense conversations right now that I think are moving in different directions and it’s going to be difficult for looking what is up there on the budget proposals. My hope is that we can quickly agree to move to a place we can accept some concessions so that we can mitigate layoffs before the March 13 deadline.”
She later indicated that while they would try to save as many positions as possible, this was still going to be a painful process and that concessions were not a total solution.
Boardmember Richard Harris also expressed appreciation for the meeting and for clearing some of the air between the two sides.
“In year’s past maybe there’s been a view or maybe a perception that we were trying to do things or take things from the teachers. I really appreciated the meeting that Gina [Daleiden] and I were able to go to and talk to the rep council as representatives from the DTA. To have that conversation with people that I respectfully characterize as maybe not trusting us or, I don’t want to use the word adversaries, I don’t think that’s true, but I think the level of communication and maybe what we’ve gone through together maybe wasn’t–we weren’t always on the same page.
The point of that is that I think maybe out of that meeting came an understanding and I hope that it did. You [The DTA] came to us and said that there were still a lot of questions. I feel like we answered a lot of these questions.”
He continued by acknowledging that they had received some suggestions and felt that given the tenor of the conversation some of those concessions could be considered and put on the table for the negotiations.
He acknowledged some of the heat in the community towards the teachers and the questions as to whether they had done all that they could. He felt there were still some differences and factually issues, but overall the discussion was productive and appeared to be productive from everyone’s perspective.
Some Disagree However
Carl Ronning, a math teacher from Davis High School who teachers AP statistics, however aired during public comment a complaint about Superintendent James Hammond’s letter. He does a good job of presenting the teacher’s perspective in all of this, and I think he raises some valid points. In fact, I would agree with much of what he says, however, we are in the budget reality where the choice will come down to more job losses or concessions.
Here is an excerpt of the crux of his statement:
“Dr. Hammond, I find your statement that teachers ‘do not wish to negotiate concessions at this time’ from your latest budget update to be misleading and disrespectful. Your statement ignores past negotiations between teachers and the district. Your statement ignores the modest increases in teachers salaries over the years. Your statement downplays teachers’ contributions to the classrooms. Your statement ignores teachers’ place in the community and your statement fosters an unfair characterization of teachers to the public.
Teachers are not a source of funding. Any additional cuts that you must get are not as a result of teachers denying the district funding. Your statement dismisses Davis teachers’ participation in the ongoing budget process. For as long as I’ve been a teacher in Davis, teachers have never received more than COLA in any given year. COLA is not a raise, it is as stated, a cost of living adjustment which is meant to be applied to all the pieces of the budget including step and column maintenance.
When COLA has not been applied to teacher salaries, as has been the case in the vast majority of teacher contracts, teachers are giving an ongoing permanent salary concession. Over the last fifteen years, this practice has resulted in a conservative estimated salary reduction between $9000 and $11000 for each cell on the salary schedule. This translates to between a $4 and $4.8 million savings for the district this year. And because the savings is the result of an ongoing percentage reduction and therefore compounded annually the savings to the district grows each year.
Over the last 16 years, the top teacher’s salary has increase 16% while the top administrator’s salary has increased 89%. It should also be noted that the lowest assistant superintendent salary is about 40% greater than the superintendent’s salary of ten years ago. I don’t begrudge the salary increases given to administrators, I bring this up in light of the highly publicized salary concessions made by the district administrators. Perhaps if teachers too had such salary increases, we would be more amiable to salary concessions.”
Closing Schools Is Not An Option Under Consideration
Given the severity of the cuts, rumors are likely to spread that the district will consider closing schools as a means of cost reduction, however, the board and administration were very adamant that this was not under consideration at this time and that they do not view this as a means to reduce costs.
Board President Tim Taylor responding to a question from myself said:
“No, we have not had any dialogue or any official consideration of school closures. It is certainly something that we as a community have lived through painfully, however, we are going through and have ahead of us a whole lot of pain still.”
Bruce Colby explained that while the district could save up to $300,000 to $400,000 from closing an elementary and $500,000 to $600,000 closing a junior high, however, the first thing the district needs is the capacity for the other elementary schools to absorb the additional students. When Valley Oak was closed that pushed the elementary schools to 90 plus percent capacity, so at this time the elementary schools are running at 90% capacity and therefore there is not really excessive capacity at the sites to absorb a school closure.
He also said when the district discussed we would have to spend a million dollars on portables to add capacity, and we don’t have the ability to add capacity to a site because we have no facility money either.
James Hammond suggested also that we think about the long term ramifications.
“There could be immediate savings that’s on an ongoing basis for what we perceive to be a three to five year problem. Culturally we could have decades of issues related to something so traumatic.”
He expressed concern that school closure discussions would once again pit one part of town against another. He did not see that as a helpful discussion at this time.
He told me privately, “the Superintendent is adamantly and unequivocally against closing a school.” The school board did not seem inclined to want to get into it either.
Susan Lovenberg told me privately that while nothing is absolute, the only way she would consider a school closure is if it was in the best interest of the students and she does not see it right now.
So hopefully that dispels that rumor and talk before it starts.
Overall this is going to be a very painful period for the community. The fact that the teachers and classified staff are willing to talk about concessions will make it easier. The board voted unanimously to accept the goals of the Davis Schools Foundation, part of their goal is to alleviate the student-teacher ratio which is climbing up to 30 to 1 for lower elementary classes. The board stressed this is temporary and will go back down to previous levels when the crisis subsides.
I feel like unfortunately, the board and administration have become very good at handling these sorts of crises. We will not see the repeat of the angst from 2008 when programs and schools were on the shelf and the city was thrown into turmoil. However, 68 teachers, and 88 total positions are on the chopping block. There will be a devastating impact on the school counselors who spoke last night and pointed out that half of their numbers would be cut and that puts students at risk.
There are no good cuts at this point. This is all bone. And yes folks, I can report that the sky is falling and it is up to this community to work together to prop it up until we can ride out the storm.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]He also said when the district discussed we would have to spend a million dollars on portables to add capacity, and we don’t have the ability to add capacity to a site because we have no facility money either.[/i]
What? How is it that the district is building a stadium, but doesn’t have any facility money?
The board also discussed measures P&W later after most of the audience had left. They discussed looking at replacing measures P&W with a new combined measure which would increase the special assessment from the current $320 to $400 or more, and remove the restrictions on how it could be spent. Mr. Taylor commented that if a portion of it could possibly be used for teacher raises, the DTA would have a vested interest in working hard and getting the message out to ensure that it passed. They also discussed changing the special assessment so that it would be in place for the next 6 or 8 yr period vs. the current. Mr. Harris commented that given many Davisites are coping with furlough days and pay cuts, the timing for a measure such as this would have to be carefully considered. Before any further steps are taken citizens would be polled to see how receptive they might be to voting for changing this measure. The Board wants information in 2 weeks on the cost of such a poll.
The writing on the wall seems pretty clear. The board will pursue an new an even larger special assessment, with the goal of making it permanent. Given the massive backlog of school facilty repairs we can probably expect that after this special measure passes, there will be another right behind it for a special school infrastructure repair bond measure.
My mistake…, that’s measures Q&W, not P&W.
Mr. Taylor commented that if a portion of it could possibly be used for teacher raises, the DTA would have a vested interest in working hard and getting the message out to ensure that it passed.
It was Harris who first raised the issue, that when he met with the DTA exec committee in person, the DTA reps themselves who suggested that idea.
The board will pursue an new an even larger special assessment, with the goal of making it permanent.
“Permanent” is a point of speculation on your part. The context of the discussion was that, following past patterns of recessions, it wasn’t reasonable to see state revenue pick up until ~2014. The best to hope for is that state funding remains flat from the 2010-2011 budget through the 2012-2013 budget. Q & W expire in 2012. The discussion was how to bridge that lack of funds, and a larger question is whether it makes sense to fund everything that has been cut.
This is a community crisis that requires a community wide response. I believe that we should do our part to help out. Parents of school age kids, parents of not yet school age kids, parents of graduated from school age kids, teachers, administrators, businesses, everyone. We all have a stake in maintaining the quality of our schools. Times are tough and it’s not easy for anyone, but we can do a lot if we all work together. Please everyone, dig deep for our kids’ education.
I might be more inclined to dig deep for the benefit of other districts around us. The suffering is not equal and I wonder where the greater progressive ideal can be found in all of this mess.
“What? How is it that the district is building a stadium, but doesn’t have any facility money?”
Excellent point.
Also, the comment made about the two DHS foundations (one collecting money for stadium renovations; the other raising funding to keep existing programs going) competing for the same pot of money – the taxpayers’ collective pockets, questioning where our priorities should be (on the stadium or saving teachers) was another good point made in an earlier post wrt a similar article.
“Over the last 16 years, the top teacher’s salary has increase 16% while the top administrator’s salary has increased 89%… Perhaps if teachers too had such salary increases, we would be more amiable to salary concessions.”
Another very valid point.
“They discussed looking at replacing measures P&W with a new combined measure which would increase the special assessment from the current $320 to $400 or more, and remove the restrictions on how it could be spent.”
I suspect this one is DOA, in light of the current economy, and the idea of no restrictions on how the money is to be spent.
I suspect this one is DOA, in light of the current economy, and the idea of no restrictions on how the money is to be spent.
I think that was only one board member’s thought about removing restrictions. I know that others on the board recognize that it’s necessary to be specific on a parcel tax if you want support.
The downside is you sometimes end up funding things through the parcel tax that aren’t congruent with economic times that existed when the parcel tax originally passed.
[quote]“What? How is it that the district is building a stadium, but doesn’t have any facility money?”
Excellent point.[/quote]
The stadium was built with CFD (community facilities district) money that is paid for with your parcel tax.
Here’s the powerpoint presentation where it was discussed in the board meeting a year ago:
[url]https://davis.csbaagendaonline.net/cgi-bin/WebObjects/davis-eAgenda.woa/files/MTIzNjIzNTk0Njg0MC9kYXZpc2VBZ2VuZGEvOTYvMTgxNi9GaWxlcw==/01-08-09_measure_acfd2_meld_pre-1-8-09-v2.pdf[/url]
[i]The stadium was built with CFD (community facilities district) money that is paid for with your parcel tax.[/i]
I did learn last year that the stadium is funded with CFD money, which means Mello-Roos taxes. My question is, if the district decided that the stadium was the best use of this money, how does that square with statements now that “we have no facility money”, and that there is a “massive backlog of school facility repairs”? It makes it sound like football scored 28-0 against academics.
It seems to me that if they wanted to show goodwill, they could postpone phase 2 of the stadium, and do some of these other repairs that the teachers want. It would be more than goodwill. If they have to have larger classes, it really does help some to renovate the rooms.
I’m on 8 percent furlough right now, which is really an 8 percent pay cut, and I can say this: Even though the new math building is no substitute for missing pay, it does somewhat work as an apology. It means that they are doing what they can for academics, instead of giving us a dark cloud with a dark lining.
I think a reasonable and prudent person reading a statement prefaced with “The writing on the wall seems pretty clear” and followed by “The board will pursue a new and even larger special assessment with the goal of making it permanent” would understand that this is my personal opinion (or speculation)of what may happen and not a statement of fact that I have discovered a wall with a plan incribed and signed by the board members detailing a new special assessment measure.
It is also my opinion that if the proposal is to put the measure in place for 6 to 8 years you can reasonably assume it will become permanent. If it makes it on the ballot for the November election and is implemented effective Jan 2011, it would be in place through 2017 or 2019. I do not believe the DJUSD or even the people of Davis are going to wake up in 6 or 8 years and say it’s time let the measure expire, resulting in an immediate $6,000,000 cut to the DUSD budget regardless of what the economy is like. We will have all become very comfortable and happy with the enrichment programs, smaller class sizes and all of the other goodies the funds bring.
With regards to my thoughts on special bond measure for infractructure, Emerson Jr High alone apparently has approx $15,000,000 in needed improvements. I will admit I have no idea the size of the DJUSD facility funds budget, but if there wasn’t even enough to fully fund the stadium, how are they going to swallow all of the other necessary repairs and upgrades, unless by special bond measure.
I would personally vote for a renewed Q&W as long as it came with restrictions on what the funds could be used for, and those restrictions did not include teacher raises. As a Registered Nurse who is a state employee absorbing a 14 per cent pay cut with no end in site I have little sympathy for those who feel they should be immune from having to bear their share of the burden. Teachers jobs are no more difficult or easier than anyone elses. I would also like to see the 150-200 out of district students who attend Davis schools be required to pay an amount equal to what Davisites pay for measures Q&W.
My question is, if the district decided that the stadium was the best use of this money, how does that square with statements now that “we have no facility money”, and that there is a “massive backlog of school facility repairs”?
Personally, I feel somewhat ambivalent that the stadium was chosen. If a different project had been selected a year ago, I’d probably have felt the same. There would be criticism from others that a different project wasn’t chosen, and that now we have no facilities money.
If we want to upgrade schools other school facilities, then we probably have to pass another bond measure.
What leaves me incredulous is that last year the board put up three facilities projects as high priorities of interest — the stadium, Emerson JH, and the DHS MPR. When the board solicited public input to decide which project they would fund, 14 community members showed up to support the stadium project and made some pretty good arguments at the time. No one else came to speak up for any other project. [Maybe the video archive of the meeting is still up; I think it was December or January. If not, the minutes can be retrieved online]
It leaves me wondering, why should anyone have reasonably expected a different outcome? It surprised me that Emerson advocates didn’t show up; they were out in force a few months earlier when it came to considering closing the campus.
If you don’t seriously organize and speak up when given the chance, it’s likelier you’ll see decisions that you don’t like.
It seems to me that if they wanted to show goodwill, they could postpone phase 2 of the stadium, and do some of these other repairs that the teachers want. It would be more than goodwill. If they have to have larger classes, it really does help some to renovate the rooms.
Phase 2 is funded by a special Blue & White Foundation fundraising campaign. People so far have donated money to them specifically for phase 2. You don’t get credibility in fundraising by changing your goals after you collected the money.
[i]There would be criticism from others that a different project wasn’t chosen, and that now we have no facilities money.[/i]
This is dodging the issue. The board picked spectator sports over academics. Even if no had asked for anything else, they should have been guided by common sense.
[i]No one else came to speak up for any other project.[/i]
Dozens of teachers petitioned them to renovate Emerson instead of building the stadium. Just because a noisy group showed up at one particular meeting, that does not mean that no one asked for anything else. The teachers clearly did ask; it was documented on this web site.
[i]Phase 2 is funded by a special Blue & White Foundation fundraising campaign.[/i]
All of it? I thought that each phase costs $4 million, and I thought that Blue and White hasn’t even reached $1 million. I’m not saying that any money from Blue and White should be used for any purpose other than what Blue and White dictates. If the school board says that no Mello-Roos money will be spent on Phase 2, then I withdraw the question. Although it would raise another question: How is the school district spending its Mello-Roos money? The money is earmarked for facilities by state law, so where is it going?
There is a rumor going around town that Blue and White is paying for the whole stadium, not just Phase 2.
“It makes it sound like football scored 28-0 against academics.”
Welcome to America Professor Kuperberg. The public love football and teevee… mathematics and logic, not so much.
As for stronger academics: Don’t be too harsh on workload and grading. In Davis it is more about the grades than what is taught or learned. In many instances Davis parents give lip service to academics so long as it does not interfere with the parents dream of their kids heading off to the ivy league. So grades are what they want from teachers and when push comes to shove… stronger academics are thrown under the bus.
I have lived here off and on for 20 some years and that is what I have seen. Appearance, facade and a bit of reaction in a supposedly liberal leaning town. That said my child attended elementary school here and the classroom teachers were outstanding.
Principals and administrators… there are more administrators than can be justified pulling down 6 figure salaries. But like UC, administrators get high percentage pay hikes and lavish bonuses and well professors get pay cuts.
This is where America’s priorities are in a system of corporate owned governance.
[i]Welcome to America Professor Kuperberg. The public love football and teevee… mathematics and logic, not so much.[/i]
Look, if most folks in Davis want high school football, they can have it. I’m not going to hold back the tide. What I’m saying is, if football fans turn around and want “shared sacrifice” from the teachers, then it’s their own fault if they’re at the wrong end of the field.
[i]In Davis it is more about the grades than what is taught or learned. In many instances Davis parents give lip service to academics so long as it does not interfere with the parents dream of their kids heading off to the ivy league.[/i]
I am one of those parents, and this is just not a reasonable interpretation. Yes, it would be great if my kids went to Ivy League schools. Or, to say this carefully, if they went to good universities; it doesn’t have to be the Ivy League, because that is an overrated brand. But you don’t get into schools like this just with good grades, and you also wouldn’t enjoy attending them if good grades are your only preparation.
It takes a lot for me to say that a course is hard. The truth is that some of the AP courses at Davis High School really are hard courses. They are impressive courses and I have great respect for them. It’s nonsense to say that the students in these courses are just greedy for grades.
As for stronger academics: Don’t be too harsh on workload and grading. In Davis it is more about the grades than what is taught or learned. In many instances Davis parents give lip service to academics so long as it does not interfere with the parents dream of their kids heading off to the ivy league. So grades are what they want from teachers and when push comes to shove… stronger academics are thrown under the bus.
You have impressive standards, then (or maybe I’ve indeed succumbed to the “soft bigotry of low expectations” ;-/ ). I have found the standards in Davis in every grade to be more demanding than what I remember in my upbringing.
I also agree with Kuperberg’s assessment that many high school classes (AP being good examples) are impressive by college standards. My high school kid puts a lot of time to try to do well in those classes; sometimes I wish it weren’t so much.
How is the school district spending its Mello-Roos money? The money is earmarked for facilities by state law, so where is it going?
I may be going out on a limb, here, but I think Mello-Roos taxes are assessed for a fixed period of time (~30 years?) and then they expire. Phase I of the stadium was financed by the remaining amount of uncommitted CFD money available to the district.
I think the district could get more Mello-Roos money if it approved major development, but I don’t think that is the disposition of this community.
Blue and White had been a major advocate for the stadium, but their fundraising is focused on Phase 2.
[i]Phase I of the stadium was financed by the remaining amount of uncommitted CFD money available to the district.[/i]
I certainly hope that you are going out on a limb, and that the district did not blow everything that they had left on the stadium. I’m also skeptical, because I think that 30 years of Mello Roos is on a larger scale than this.
[i]Blue and White had been a major advocate for the stadium, but their fundraising is focused on Phase 2.[/i]
They promised big fundraising well before Phase 1 broke ground. A rear-loaded commitment is then a hard-line tactic designed to maximize influence. The idea of the stadium got a lot of press last year, but the funding decisions have barely been explained at all.
None of us should have to go out on a limb about the funding for an $8 million construction project. It’s too bad that they are treating the whole thing as last year’s touchdown.
I certainly hope that you are going out on a limb, and that the district did not blow everything that they had left on the stadium. I’m also skeptical, because I think that 30 years of Mello Roos is on a larger scale than this.
I will have to research (when I have a moment) this to verify. I know occasional readers of this blog know more about this type of funding.
The idea of the stadium got a lot of press last year, but the funding decisions have barely been explained at all.
None of us should have to go out on a limb about the funding for an $8 million construction project. It’s too bad that they are treating the whole thing as last year’s touchdown.
Last year the budget impact to the district was softened by federal stimulus money. That was one-time money that is now gone. It also meant that DSF fundraising was more subdued. Blue and White took advantage of that interval to advocate and fundraise for the stadium.
I imagine Blue and White fundraising will probably have to slow down because of the current school budget cuts.
“You have impressive standards, then (or maybe I’ve indeed succumbed to the “soft bigotry of low expectations” ;-/ ). I have found the standards in Davis in every grade to be more demanding than what I remember in my upbringing.”
I had three students graduate from DHS/UCD, and I can say categorically that a lot more was demanded of me during my school days than was demanded from my children at DHS. One of my children was dyslexic and tossed into the useless DHS Transition Academy program – a dumping ground for students w learning disabilities or behavioral problems.
I had to do a lot of home schooling of my children bc very basic elements of education were either not taught or glossed over by the Davis schools. For instance, I was shocked out of my gourd when my high schooler came home and had no idea what a paragraph was. Never were my kids taught how to diagram a sentence. In elementary school, my kids had some really good teachers, but they were very few and far between. Thank goodness for the good teachers!
And far too often, all three of my children were bullied in school at all grade levels. With one child it consistently involved the police, bc the school would do nothing. One of the bullies ended up in jail bc of what was done to other innocents and my child. The discipline problems these days are considerably worse than when I went to school, which distracts teachers from their core duties of educating students. All of this is anecdotal, but was my particular family’s experience with the Davis school system.
However, all three of my children received an excellent education at UCD – one graduated in Physiology, one in Math, one in Genetics. That is why I am alarmed at the privitization of the UC system, so middle class kids are not going to be able to afford going to a UC school to get a decent education. And I’ll put in a good word for Sacramento City Community College as well, where my dyslexic child finally got the assistance needed to go on and get the education that should have been provided in high school.
[quote]Phase I of the stadium was financed by the remaining amount of uncommitted CFD money available to the district.
I certainly hope that you are going out on a limb, and that the district did not blow everything that they had left on the stadium. I’m also skeptical, because I think that 30 years of Mello Roos is on a larger scale than this.
[/quote]
Further comments regarding facilities financing:
This is one area where I don’t have enough of a handle to answer your query. I suggest contacting Bruce Colby, DJUSD CBO, at bcolby@djusd.k12.ca.us. He may just invite you to call him up to explain.
I also remembered that DJUSD also has access to more facilities money if it sells its undeveloped properties — the Grande site that you may have heard of, probably a couple of others. Money from such a sale can’t be used to pay the operating expenses of the district, but could be available to pay for other facilities projects.
What California schools were like when times were better in 2006-07:
[url]http://www.edsource.org/data_StaffPupilRatios0607.html[/url]
[quote]“Two-thirds of adults surveyed in a Public Policy Institute of California poll say they support higher taxes to maintain funding for K-12 schools. And a full 82 percent, including a majority of Republicans polled, oppose cutting K-12 education to reduce the state budget deficit. No other part of state spending comes close to engendering such support in the poll, which was released Wednesday.”
Source: [url]http://educatedguess.org/blog/2010/01/28/ppic-poll-tax-us-to-protect-k-12-schools/[/url][/quote]
Additional PPIC sources:
[url]http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?p=990[/url]
[url]http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_110MBS.pdf[/url]