(From Press Release) – The Davis Teachers Association is pleased to announce the results of our endorsement process for the fall 2016 November election. With over 92 percent of the vote in favor, DTA has endorsed Measure H. The measure will provide funding to protect the jobs of many valued educators and the learning they produce everyday with the students they serve. The opportunities that the parcel tax affords the students of Davis are part of what make the DJUSD the outstanding district it is.
DTA President, Blair Howard, says that “the Association looks forward to working for the passage of the measure, as well as continuing to advocate at all levels for better funding for all public schools, including Davis Joint Unified.”
The educators of Davis have also voted to endorse both Alan Fernandes and Susan Lovenburg for the two school trustee positions in the November 2016 election. Both candidates have shown through their years of service to the district that they do the hard work of becoming educated on the issues facing the district, that they consider the many sides to each issue, and that they dedicate themselves to ensuring the future stability of the DJUSD.
DTA endorsed Alan in 2012 and 2014 because he has consistently listened to the many voices on the issues facing the district and made decisions to move the district forward, and we continue to support him in his service of the district.
“Alan has been a passionate voice for all stakeholders in the district, and as educators we value his trust in us as the professionals to make decisions and provide input that will support the students we work with everyday. I have enjoyed working with Alan on the Strategic Planning Committee and as a Board member and respect the work he has done. Alan has always sought the honest opinion of the educators of the district” notes Blair Howard.
We are also excited to endorse for the first time Susan Lovenberg. DTA has always respected the time and consideration Susan has put into her work on the board, and even if our perspectives differed, it was done with with respect.
President Blair Howard states that “DTA has chosen to endorse Susan because of what she has accomplished, but also because she has identified the looming teacher shortage as a top issue and acknowledges that while steps have been made to address it, more work needs to be done to to effectively attract and retain top quality employees. Susan tackles tough issues knowing that they may not lead to solutions that please everybody, but strives to do what is best for all students in the district.”
Both candidates are familiar with the issues facing the district, understand the dynamics, and are committed to moving the district forward, which is why the membership voted strongly to endorse them. We are happy to join with the classified staff of the DJUSD represented by CSEA in endorsing these two great candidates. DTA looks forward to engaging with the community to make the case for the reelection of Alan and Susan.
Big surprise, why wasn’t the vote 100%? Did the other 8% vote no because they were unhappy the board didn’t try to extract a higher amount from homeowners?
If the general membership votes on this, why are you surprised that there might be a few more conservative folks among teachers?
It has nothing to do with conservatism when one is voting for a revenue stream which ties into their job security and pay.
So if you were a teacher, you’d support the parcel tax? 92% is a pretty large majority, there are always outliers.
That’s my point, as I stated I’m surprised it wasn’t 100% unless the 8% that voted no wanted even more. So the DTA supporting a school parcel tax really doesn’t mean anything because that’s what everyone would expect them to do.
The DTA gets the money and many or most of their members do not live in Davis and therefore don’t pay the tax. To them it is free money. Getting more back than you pay out has high popularity in all groups.
Parcel tax money doesn’t go towards higher salaries
quielo: To them it is free money.
It’s not free. They’re expected to work for it.
The current financial situation is brought to us by the CTA. They made the determination that it is easier to steal money from poor districts which was the motive force behind the LCFF. Turns out they were right.
That’s pretty categorical coming from a guy who purportedly just moved here.
Just like City sales tax increase money does not go to higher city employee salaries?
No actually they are different. The sales tax is a general tax and can be used for any purpose. A parcel tax is a specific tax that can only be used for designated purposes.
“That’s pretty categorical” Are you referring to me?
Oh please, it all adds to the pot so maybe technically parcel tax money doesn’t go towards higher salaries but if the schools didn’t get the parcel tax funds you can bet that salaries would suffer and there would be lesser teaching positions. So to say that parcel taxes don’t go towards higher salaries is naive at best. Teachers will always be in favor of higher school parcel taxes so to write an article stating they support Measure H like it some kind of huge endorsement is like saying bees support honey.
Quielo:
You stated this:
(Full disclosure – I am a music teacher and DTA Site Representative, as well as on the Measure H Community Committee as I am a Davis resident and homeowner)
Parcel tax money go directly to pay for specific programs as noted by the school district and Measure H Campaign. These monies do not go to increased salaries for us, nor increased benefits. The proof is on http://www.districtdollars.org, and can be found in the reports done by the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee. The most recent report is here: http://www.djusd.net/file/1368362980686/1376458807489/9022121806930502672.pdf and you can find reports for previous years if you search “parcel tax oversight” into the search box at http://www.djusd.net
No Measure H monies will go toward higher salaries, benefits, etc; they go directly toward the funding of programs that otherwise would not be funded.
You also state this:
This is your opinion. If you have a fact or facts to back up this claim (that the CTA, aka, the teachers of California, are the reason why we have funding problems in the schools), please show your proof and explain your point with facts.
To respond further to the state’s and schools’ funding troubles, here is what I have learned: The biggest and most impacting reason we have funding trouble now is due to the loss of funds during the Great Recession through greatly reduced state income for those years. Further we did not, due to the LCFF, end up with a larger portion of new monies, due to our student population here in town. We could also tribute Ca’s original school funding issues to the enactment of Prop. 13, which led to the first Parcel Tax being passed back in 1984.
Between those two things (add in there Prop 13’s funding losses), and without the parcel tax, the DJUSD would be funded around $1300 less per student than is the state average. (Numbers come from the DJUSD presentation about the Parcel Tax here on page 6: http://djusd-ca.schoolloop.com/file/1368362980686/1403330976221/5333178086391953111.pdf).
BP, you state this:
This is about the farthest thing from the truth. Salaries are contracted and agreed upon by the district and union, approved by the board. For salaries to be reduced at any point, the union and district must communally agree to it. It has nothing to do with passage of parcel taxes.
To suggest that failure of the parcel tax will lower people’s salaries as a backhanded way to suggest that the parcel tax goes to increased salaries is false and completely misleading.
As to where money is spent… the parcel tax monies have to be used for the specified purposes… yet that can free up money from the unrestricted sources… accountants can make the numbers say what they want to…
So, $1 million on parcel tax revenue can free up same amount in ‘general fund’, which can be used for salary increases or any other purpose…
Exactly.
hpierce:
You state this:
This is not true. Parcel Tax funds do not go to programs or other aspects of the district currently funded through state funding (ie, replacing that funding). They to directly to programs not funded through the monies received from the State of Ca or Federal Govt, that would otherwise have been lost years ago.
If I’m being given money by grandma to pay my rent then that frees up money for other uses.
BP
That is a false comparison. Please refer to my previous comment.
Greg… I’ll stand corrected, IF you can point me to verifiable info that shows that no funds (as in zero) are expended from the GF that go towards the same programs that the parcel taxes fund.
hpierce,
Please check the oversight committee’s reports and http://www.districtdollars.org as I posted above to see more information on how the money is spent and if parcel tax dollars are being spent appropriately as per the board resolution. You can see on the district website’s fact sheet and webpages which programs and which parts of programs the parcel tax funding goes toward. I would encourage you to check out those websites and reports, and I would encourage you to speak to Mr. Poppenga, who is currently on the Oversight Committee. He can inform you that the money is spent as it should be, as he posted in a short piece here some months ago. You can do a search to find that piece.
None of the money goes to raises because the raises were already approved by the last union contract before the parcel tax vote. So the District needs more money to pay the higher salaries they have already approved, but the money is going to other things somehow.
So Greg, if H fails are the worst teachers going to get laid off or the newer better more enthuastic ones? Can’t see why the District has problems hiring newer better enthuastic teachers. Must be the pay.
Sam, the layoff process is purely by seniority overall as an elementary teacher, and seniority by dept as a secondary teacher. Layoffs have nothing to do with teaching ability.
That’s Sam’s point.
and parcel taxes have nothing to do with wages, they are negotiated separately.
why are you guys worried about what a tiny minority of teachers say, 8% has generated this whole discussion that moved off the more important issue of who the dta endorsed and why they ignored poppenga.
” Layoffs have nothing to do with teaching ability,” With the flood of LCFF money many districts are justifying raises as in the best interest of the kids. None that I have seen have laid off the teachers hired at the previous pay scale.
If the previous pay scale prevented them from hiring qualified help why don’t they get rid of those incompetents now that they can pay more?
you are assuming there are incompetents. you are assuming they can get rid of them if they were incompetent.
“you are assuming there are incompetents” The districts receiving LCFF grants could use the money to reduce class size, hire tutors, lengthen the school year, et. Instead they choose to pay existing employees more and claim that the increased compensation is needed to “attract and retain good teachers”.This certainly implies that the teachers hired under the old scale are incompetent.
DavisProgressive,
stating that the DTA “ignored” poppenga is quite a strong charge depending on what you mean by ignored. can you please clarify “ignored?”
I will tell you that all four candidates received the same opportunity and access as far as I’ve seen it. No candidate was left out, given more time/access, or prevented from equal access and time.
“92% is a pretty large majority, there are always outliers.”
Strangely enough, 92% is almost the same percentage of PhDs who identify as liberal. (That other 8% must have great early education experiences to get that far.).
BP wrote:
> why wasn’t the vote 100%?
Maybe 8% of the teachers that plan to retire soon live in town and are not old enough to get the senior exemption from the parcel tax?
Some DTA members have commented that they feel that school parcel taxes are not a stable form of school funding. Problem is, I’m not sure that there is any more stable funding that is available. At least none other has been proposed.
Really disappointed in DTA. I would think they would endorse all three. Is there really a huge difference between Poppenga and the other two and if so, I would like to hear it.
Aren’t you forgetting someone? Did you mean all four?
They’re never going to support Granda
Then you should’ve wrote 3 of the 4.
And, arguably, a good reason to vote for Granda…
Chamber Fan: Really disappointed in DTA. I would think they would endorse all three. Is there really a huge difference between Poppenga and the other two and if so, I would like to hear it.
I understand that they interviewed candidates seeking their endorsement. Maybe his interview wasn’t as strong?
wdf1, I have some very recent experience with candidate interviews, and it was definitely a learning experience. I came out of one of the interviews,and was told, You don’t know how to talk the “union language” The same interview question can have very different meanings depending on what the leanings are of the interviewing panel/body. Bob’s contemplative approach to problem solving may not have been what the teachers union wanted to hear . . . because it opens up the possibility that they are going to face a change in the status quo.
JMO
Chamber Fan:
This is not how it works for any election. When there are 2 seats open for a City Council or School Board, every individual can vote for up to those two spots. This is the same way that we run DTA Endorsement Elections.
There are two open seats and four people running. We were given the opportunities (as is the case in all local elections) to vote for the two we would want to see as our board members. The members spoke, and the two chosen were Alan and Susan.
I will reserve my personal opinion on the candidates, but I can tell you that to me, what is important in someone I vote for on the board (as a DTA member and Site Representative) is that said person is respectful of all schools and programs, has shown a width, depth, and breadth of understanding of school programs, funding, and resources, has shown through action, deed, or statement that they are supportive of teachers’ needs and interests, and that they have factual based new and fresh ideas for moving the district forward.
Greg, in your opinion, do any of the four candidates fail to meet your stated criteria (copied and pasted below)?
[…] what is important in someone I vote for on the board (as a DTA member and Site Representative) is that said person is respectful of all schools and programs, has shown a width, depth, and breadth of understanding of school programs, funding, and resources, has shown through action, deed, or statement that they are supportive of teachers’ needs and interests, and that they have factual based new and fresh ideas for moving the district forward.
Mr. Williams:
As I am a Measure H Community Committee Member and DTA Site Rep, and in representing myself that way in this thread and in others on the VG through this campaign season, I won’t get into my personal opinions on each candidate here. But, I would be more than glad to meet with you to chat, if you like, over coffee as to my personal thoughts about the candidates.
Thanks for understanding.
Greg, please call me Matt. Mr. Williams is my father. 8>)
I would love to sit down with you. Please feel free to send me an e-mail at mattwill@pacbell.net and we can come up with a time and place that works for us both.
I absolutely do understand.
Matt
Fortunately, most citizens don’t give a damn about who politicians, celebrities, or unions choose to endorse. It does make you wonder, though, whether or not an organization that endorses Lovenburg is competent enough to justify paying itself out of parcel tax revenue. My vote would be “not.” Oink!
NPIV:
I rarely respond to you, because I think your posts are full of uncalled for and generally quite mean personal attacks that have no business in our local (or any) politics and have very little bearing in fact.
But here, you are personally attacking a well respected and twice elected public official for no reason other than being endorsed by the DTA, while using that as a way to demean the DTA, aka, the great, talented, and well respected teachers of the DJUSD.
You should also step back for a moment and realize that you have also just greatly demeaned a great portion of Davis, as she has been elected twice already by a large portion of our community.
I also I want you to know that I believe this is the first time in 3 elections that she was endorsed by the DTA. I know she wasn’t endorsed 4 years ago, and I don’t believe she was either 8 years ago. This says to me that she has earned trust and respect over her 2 terms.
On a side note, I take issue with your thinly veiled attempt at a seriously demeaning comment about the teachers of the DJUSD. I’m guessing you haven’t met many in person or you would have a far different opinion of us all. I am proud of my district’s teachers-I know a great many of them and know them to be phenomenal at what they do. I am always greatly impressed by them, their intelligence, their passion, their dedication, their care for the students they teach, the district they work for, and the community they work in, along with their ability to be great leaders in our schools, and for how they work so tirelessly to support the children of this community. They represent the best of our community in many ways. I am proud to call them my colleagues.
DTA also represents and protects the marginal, and outright under-qualified teachers of the DJUSD. They are a minority, but DTA “has their back”… our kids had some… they exist [and have existed over the years]… but between ‘tenure’ and DTA support, they had to have a very long and persistent pattern before they were “encouraged” to move along…
DJUSD is essentially a “closed shop” related to DTA. Even a part-time teacher needs to pay the dues, although DTA never stands up for them, no matter how competent.
If DTA dissolves, with passage of Measure H, I’ll heartily support measure H.
Not a happening thing…
hpierce,
I am having a hard time with these seemingly contrary comments of yours:
and
Can you help clarify?
Sure Greg… a highly competent part time teacher can expect no support from DTA for salary, benefits, or job security, but they still pay the dues…
A ‘tenured’ full time teacher, unless they break the law, can count on the union to represent them…
And DTA has a complex set of rules to get a minor exemption to pay only ‘representation dues’, without paying for the ‘political’ dues… and that has to be renewed each year, in our experience. I also don’t believe that the ‘representation dues’ only go for non-political things… experience.
Does that answer your query?
hpierce,
This simply isn’t true:
And I will use myself as an example.
I am a part time teacher (80%), am tenured, and I am fully supported by my union. Further, I was only 40% in my 3rd year 10 years ago, but I earned tenure and have always had the DTA support me when asked. Benefits kick in for teachers, once a teacher reaches 50% employment, regardless of status. All teachers in the district have access to DTA support, regardless of tenure status or workload. But here’s the thing – I think you are addressing the difference between what is a “temporary” and “probationary” worker which, by law and contract are “at will” employees, and a tenured teacher, which have earned protections as to not be released “at will” and without due process.
Ok Greg, let’s use another REAL example… or two… a 25% employee, or a substitute teacher… they pay full freight on dues… what does DTA do for them?
@ 80%, that’s darn near full time…
Substitute teachers do not pay DTA fees.
Also, no teacher is ever hired at 25%. And teachers hired and working at less than full time, as I said earlier, get full support from the DTA minus the temp/prob vs. tenured issue, which purely has to do with being “at will” or having due process protections.
Finally, no, 80% is not full time.
Please do not move the goal posts.
OK… a credentialed teacher @ DPNS… part of the DJUSD program… they work less than 25% time, and have to pay union dues… response?
What is the rate for dues? We know what it was for our family member, it did not seem salary related…
And yes, I mistrust unions, particularly when part of the dues go to CTA…
hpierce, I’m unsure of your motives here. Are you trying to get answers because you don’t know, or are you just trying to win a point by trying to play a “gotchya” game while moving the goal posts?
I would love to hear an actual response to my two posts.
Edit to add:
you wrote this:
Could you show me where you get this information?
You said, the district does not hire [credentialed teachers] folk,
You accused me of being wrong… you are either wrong, or you are … [the “L” word]
A DPNS teacher (via adult school) is hired by DJUSD [@ less than 50% time… [and in some cases @ or below 25% time], and pays into CalStrs and pays dues to DTA (CTA, also, unless they go thru a laborious process, needing to be renewed each year).
Would hope that a teacher could at least present full facts, rather than just saying “you’re wrong”… so much for the theory that all teachers/DTA members are gifted/talented/professional… your responses have some truth, but ignore other truths…
Hpierce-Did your account get hacked by a Russian or a 400lb hacker? I’m worried because I agree with your statement about the DTA.
hpierce
I am more than happy to have a conversation about the misconceptions that are easy to have about our district, teachers, and our union, and the parcel tax, and I am more than glad to leave it at agreeing to disagree on points, but as soon as someone goes down the road of blatant and completely uncalled for disrespect, that’s where I’m out.
But I want to thank you for answering my question. Your motives are now quite clear.
Greg,
Thank you for your well-considered response. To avoid doubt, please understand that the comments that follow are also well-considered and do not intend any disrepect of you.
First, you misunderstood the target of my “attack.” I was criticizing DTA for its endorsement of Lovenburg, definitely NOT using Lovenburg as a means to insult DTA. Based on solid experience and good reasons, I have no respect for Lovenburg, and I consider the opinion of the broader community to be essentially unknowable since only a minority will vote in the election. However, the DTA had an opportunity to examine fact and did a very poor job coming to conclusions. The DTA might or might not have self-interest at stake in seeing Lovenburg re-elected; I have no idea about the cause of its very poor judgement in this case.
On a less important note, please try to view my comments in the Vanguard as being less intentional insults and more deliberate sarcasm and irony. I certainly see nothing wrong with insulting public figures and institutions, but if that were my main focus, I would not only use much stronger language, but I would probably be censored by the Vanguard’s ever-vigilant moderators.
Finally, I have great respect for the vast majority of teachers, especially DJUSD teachers. However, I have no respect for a policy that provides for layoffs based solely on seniority and/or that raises hurdles to firing someone for incompetence. Tenure is an out-dated notion in direct conflict with quality and incentives for improvement.
By the way, you and your colleagues have built a wonderful music education program within DJUSD, and oddly enough, that is one of the main reasons I may vote FOR Measure H and AGAINST Lovenburg. Oink!
Greg,
My response to your comments on my comment ended up linked to the wrong line of dialog. Just wanted you to know I did respond. . . a little further down the page. . . Oink!
Quielo:”The current financial situation is brought to us by the CTA. They made the determination that it is easier to steal money from poor districts which was the motive force behind the LCFF. Turns out they were right.”
You obviously don’t know anything about how LCFF works.
As for the DTA endorsing the two incumbents. They got it half right.
Mali, one of us does not know it works. Here is an article from Edsource about Yuba City. Torlakson as you may know wears the CTA “special underwear”. Yuba city took the LCFF money and just gave it to the teachers. No additional programs whatsoever. This is the reason our teachers are not getting a raise but perhaps you know more about it than EdSource…
“In a June 2015 letter to county and district superintendents, Torlakson wrote that “a district may be able to document in its LCAP that its salaries result in difficulties in recruiting, hiring or retaining qualified staff, which adversely affects the quality of the district’s education program,” especially for high-needs students “and that the salary increase will address these adverse impacts.” But Torlakson indicated that a district would then have to set measurable goals in an LCAP to justify using supplemental and concentration dollars: A raise would reduce teacher turnover or increase high-needs students’ academic achievement, for example.
Torlakson’s letter superseded an earlier interpretation by the Department of Education that had taken a harder line. It said that there could be across-the-board raises using supplemental and concentration dollars “only in limited circumstances” and districts would face a “heavy burden” to justify it. Advocacy groups for low-income students criticized Torlakson at the time for backing away from that position.
The California Teachers Association has repeatedly cited Torlakson’s letter, as did Yuba City’s teachers, in calls for across-the-board raises. The Yuba City teachers union cited a statewide Ed-Data salary comparison that showed the district’s teachers on average earned 13 percent — $9,494 — less than the statewide average for teacher pay in a unified district. The union attributed many of the resignations or retirement of 70 teachers this year — about 10 percent of the district’s teachers — to the pay disparity.
Board President Lonetta Riley, a member of the board for 18 years, said there’s no extensive evidence of that. The district presented its own salary comparison to a fact-finder that put Yuba City roughly in the middle range of local districts’ pay levels, although starting pay is lower, Deputy Superintendent Robert Shemwell acknowledged.”
One of the architects of LCFF was Goodwin Liu who now as a State Supreme Court Associate Justice recently was in the minority when he voted to hear an appeal of Vergara that was overturned by the Appeals Court. Hardly a CTA shill wouldn’t you say?
As for spending money from LCFF on raises it was totally predictable. How do you attract teachers to underperforming schools in challenging communities? One way is you offer them more money.
My problem with what you said was that “CTA made the determination that it was easier to steal money from poor districts.” This statement was without foundation or evidence. CTA doesn’t steal money from anyone they negotiate with districts for it.
The problem with LCFF as pointed out by the PPIC, in a report they issued on the topic, is that districts like Davis that have low numbers of students that meet the criteria don’t get the same funding for those students on a per capita basis. This results in Davis being underfunded and unable to compete with other districts for teachers and other staff whose compensation needs may override other considerations.
The question that DTA should have asked, and I have no idea if they did, is if the candidates supported the passage of LCFF and how they believe its fiscal impact on DJUSD should be mitigated. I believe if they had asked that question they might have come up with a different endorsement list at least for one of the incumbents.
LAShcoolreport:
“A state lawmaker is challenging California Superintendent of Public InstructionTom Torlakson‘s recent assertion that grants intended to help low-income, English learners and foster youth can be used for across-the-board teacher raises.
Assemblymember Shirley Weber, a Democrat from San Diego, says Torlakson’s interpretation of the law could completely erode the purpose of the grants, opening up other uses of the money that the legislature did not contemplate.
“That is not what we intended at the state level,” she told LA School Report.
“It seems like it’s never going to end, there is no question about it, and that’s my great concern,” she added. “Once you open up this, you open up something else, and then you find yourself in a position having taken this money for these schools and these kids and not being able to produce the results.”
The California Teachers Association, a major donor to Torlakson’s relection campaign last year, backed Torlakson’s interpretation and said it “believes the law is clear: The money can be used to attract and retain quality teachers in the classroom,” according to California Public Radio.”
I will agree that there are people that actually thought this was supposed to help kids rather than just being a CTA fraud. They are finding out the truth now…
Here is another one for you:
https://edsource.org/2016/complaint-says-district-must-revise-lcap-in-passing-big-pay-raise/562315
In the first step toward a potential lawsuit, a public interest law firm on Monday filed a complaint with the state alleging that the West Contra Costa Unified School District violated the disclosure requirements of the state’s Local Control Funding Formula when it approved a pay raise for district staff. It charged that the district failed to explain to the public how the pay raise might affect spending commitments, including money targeted for English learners, low-income students and foster youths.
The 11-page complaint by San Francisco-based Public Advocates doesn’t claim that the district categorically cannot grant the pay increase – totaling $25.8 million over three years – it approved last month. But the law firm says that West Contra Costa Unified never told the public last summer that it might use $4.3 million that it is required to spend this year to improve programs and services for high-needs students to help pay for the across-the-board raises for staff.
End result, money is funnelled away from better performing districts and the homowners in these districts are in essence paying for the poorer performing districts through higher parcel taxation.
Vote NO on Prop H.
Part of this tax was originally sold to us as only a temporary tax to bridge the gap in state funds.
Those state funds have largely been reimplemented yet the school district still wants to keep this “temporary” tax.
Say no, it’s time the district lives within its means.
And if you want someone who will spend school funds wisely vote for Granda.
Barack Palin: “Those state funds have largely been reimplemented yet the school district still wants to keep this “temporary” tax.”
Reimplemented to other districts, perhaps, but not to DJUSD.
For those folk who are concerned about CalPers rates of return and liabilities, look @ CalStrs, and the UC system… in the latter case, there were no employer or employee contributions at all for several years..
Comparing, CalPers is healthiest… [or, less ill… take your pick]
greg brucker – i’m not trying to put you on the spot here, i really am asking this honestly. why susan and alan and not bob?
Don’t ask Greg. He is working on another campaign, one that could lose votes wading into an endorsement fight about the school board election. His decision to stay out of it after first putting a toe into the water was the correct decision. Your question should be found in the story in quotes from DTA President Blair Howard. If those are unsatisfactory you should ask DTA not Greg Brucker.
DP –
I mentioned above that I’m not going to get into my personal beliefs of the board candidates here on the VG as I’m representing myself as a Measure H Committee member.
I did give a few guidelines for what I personally look for in a school board member (not all that I hope to see, but a basic rundown), but that is as far as I will go here. Please refer to the press release for the statement about “why.”
Thanks for understanding.
Greg… you say my motives are quite clear… I rebut by saying yours are, also…
My motive is to speak truth, as I know it… including, not all teachers are cut from the same cloth… some of the DJUSD teachers are of border-line competence, but have a leg up on more competent teachers by being ‘longer in the tooth’, and protected by the DTA and their ‘work rules’.
That said, the truly good/great teachers, regardless of tenure, the ones we want to support and encourage, and retain, deserve more compensation. But as it stands, DTA demands that every boat must float the same. DTA [teachers’ unions in general] opposes merit pay. Some junior teachers, based on merit, should be compensated more than some of those ‘cruising’ teachers, just counting the years [and we have a bunch of those].
DTA would have us believe they are all demi-gods… the finest of the finest… NO!
I will follow up on the link you provided, and will seek to speak with Bob P (who I intend to vote for, one of few (very few!) folk that I’ve done the lawn sign thing for). [like, 4 times in the last 35 years] Will refrain from other Measure H comments until I have drilled down further. I thank you, in advance, for the link.
Have a great day.
DP’s 7:22 post is noteworthy… we (and I’m somewhat culpable) have started straying…
Why not Propenga, indeed? At this point, he is my only ‘solid’ vote…
GB has said that the vote of DTA folk was done just like the election… top two… not a “litmus test”… not a “qualified” endorsement… it is obvious most DTA folk would opine, “anyone but ****”… [in my opinion, a knee-jerk reaction… suspect that candidate would support teachers, staff, but still be a financial conservative]
What is not clear is the “turn-out” of that DTA vote… not cited as far as I can find… what %-age of the DTA members voted? If only ‘status quo’ DTA folk voted, that could be ‘telling’…
Greg said “They to directly to programs not funded through the monies received from the State of Ca or Federal Govt, that would otherwise have been lost years ago.”
What he failed to mention is that in 2009 when those programs were going to be lost the DTA was asked to take a 2.5% pay cut in order to save those programs and prevent more than half of the layoff notices going out that year. The DTA was more than willing to have the new teachers laid off than take a pay cut. So the Davis Schools Foundation raised money to save those teachers jobs and the Davis voters voted on temporary parcel taxes to keep those teachers through the economic downturn. Then the teachers union pushes the State to direct more money to poorer districts through LCFF because they know that districts like Davis will approve additional parcel taxes in order to save programs like music.
So now we have a choice. We can vote to pay more taxes to bridge the funding gap that the teachers union created for themselves, the same union that was unwilling in 2009 to take a pay cut as Davis homeowners were asked to pay higher property taxes, or we can decided to stop getting milked dry by the teachers union.
I’m with you on this Sam, vote NO on H.
BTW, as I understand it much if not all of the state funding has been restored to DJUSD. It’s just we don’t get as much as other poor performing districts do. Seems if you do a bad job educating kids the penalty is you get more money.
Another clear misunderstanding of how things work. LCFF is not based on how a district performs it is based on what percentage of the district is in groups at high risk for underperforming.
And what are the outcomes of the districts that are at high risk of underperforming?
Answer—–> they underperform and get more money.
that money comes with a lot of strings and they run a real risk if they don’t show improvement of getting hammered
How do they get hammered? Do they hammer them with even more money?
that brings up a question – did you google it before posting your comment?
“that money comes with a lot of strings and they run a real risk if they don’t show improvement of getting hammered”
Clearly you do not understand how things work. It’s really very simple.
1: Districts Get Money
2: Districts Give across the board raises to employees
3: Pensions are spiked
4: State says “what happened to the money and how come the students are not doing better?”
5: Districts say “it’s a long term benefit and we have a 47 year plan of analysis in the LCAP”
6: State says give us back the money
7: Districts says “we have already committed the money to paying the new pension costs, if you try to take back the money we will have to close schools and punish the kids, Ha Ha Ha! Find yourself a rolling doughnut”
Pure nonsense.
“Pure nonsense.” The concept that the CTA bribes politicians to pass legislation that sounds like it does something but really is just a payoff to the CTA for their donations? Too crazy?
Sam: What he failed to mention is that in 2009 when those programs were going to be lost the DTA was asked to take a 2.5% pay cut in order to save those programs and prevent more than half of the layoff notices going out that year.
DTA agreed to a 2.7% paycut in spring 2010.
Sam: Then the teachers union pushes the State to direct more money to poorer districts through LCFF because they know that districts like Davis will approve additional parcel taxes in order to save programs like music.
DTA doesn’t pull strings in this district the way that is often implied. If that were the case, then we wouldn’t be seeing news articles like this.
Passing the school parcel tax secures local funds to support local educational priorities. If you rely on state funding to fund our schools, then we are beholden to the state’s agenda, and I find often that the state’s educational agenda doesn’t make sense. They don’t care about visual art, performing arts, athletics, library services, student government, foreign languages, journalism (school newspaper), CTE, nor much else apart from what can produce some sort of direct quantified result in standardized tests. Why? Because those are the kinds of programs that will get cut first in school budget crisis, and they are activities that don’t lend themselves to direct measurement in standardized tests.
If Measure H passes, that will lock in funding support for those programs, because you have to declare what the money is to be spent on. If the state were to go into another recession and state funding is reduced, then the budget would be cut against the state’s priorities rather than local priorities.
Thank you wdf for bringing in real facts.
Sam,
I don’t appreciate the insinuation you are making with this statement:
It is clear you are positioning yourself in an anti-union anti-DTA stance.
I’d strongly recommend you get your facts straight before accusing someone else of “failing to mention” anything.
And for the record, I have always voted to take a pay cut to save teachers and spoken out strongly in favor of doing so as a Site Rep. I believe that is a fundamental responsibility of unions in hard times to do the right thing for those we work with, and those we serve (the students), as it would preserve programs, keep class sizes lower, etc.
“Thank you wdf for bringing in real facts.”
So DTA members took the 2.5% pay cut the district was asking for in 2009?
“DTA agreed to a 2.7% paycut in spring 2010.”
They agreed to take furlough days, so they were able to work less hours for the same pay. Not really the same as taking a pay cut. Then the DTA asked the District for a bonus payment equal to the 2.7% in 2012 right after Measure C was approved!
“It is clear you are positioning yourself in an anti-union anti-DTA stance”
I do not like how the DTA has handled themselves over the past 8 years. Very slow to help close any funding gaps the District has, but very quick to put their had out when the taxpayers send the District any money.
“I’d strongly recommend you get your facts straight”
Let me know what facts are incorrect.
Appears to be good “fact-checking”…
Who bought the most seats in the June primary? Anti-union forces funneling money through EdVoice to people like Aguiar-Curry who got about $2 million from the likes of Walmart and other anti-union so called reformers.
By the way, it wasn’t CTA who pushed LCFF it was the large districts LA, San Diego, SF, Oakland, Sacramento, Fresno and others that were the main beneficiaries of the concentration funds. Locally, the question we and DTA should be asking is which school board incumbent supported LCFF against the interests of the district they were elected to represent. Then you can figure out why DTA got it half right.
We agree on that. There is an incumbent whose day job involves obsequiousness towards Sacramento. She needs to go.
” the large districts LA, San Diego, SF, Oakland, Sacramento, Fresno and others that were the main beneficiaries of the concentration funds” No they were just the passthrough. The money ended up in CTA pockets.