There is a belief that the district could solve a lot of its fiscal problems through better efficiency. The reality is that is probably not true. For one thing, Alan Fernandes engaged with a consultant to find ways to save the district money – and they found some.
The problem, as Alan Fernandes and Joe DiNunzio told the Vanguard last week, is that it saves in the tens of thousands of dollars, not the millions needed.
Said Joe DiNunzio: “It’s tens of thousands of dollars. When you look at the compensation gap, it’s $3 million. We’re not going to find it that way.”
How about cutting administrative salaries? Alan Fernandes and Joe DiNunzio quickly pointed out that the district is lower than average in that capacity – and again, we are talking tens of thousands of dollars, not the millions needed.
“I’m happy to do that,” Alan Fernandes stated. “But it’s not going to even pay for the lights.
“And the superintendent is compensated at the average plus or minor of the region… that is a red herring,” he said.
There is a notion that the district can eliminate out of district transfers, shrinking the size of the district and therefore increasing the per pupil amount of the parcel tax.
There is a logic to this approach, but it ultimately fails. It is actually unclear how much such a move would help.
The first part of this is that the district gets about $10,000 (a little more) from the state for each pupil in attendance.
As we know from the discussion on teacher compensation, the average district gets a little over $12,000. Therefore, the district makes up that difference (to about 95 percent of state average) with 
a local parcel tax. The parcel tax, at least by appearance, raises the per pupil spending by about $1125 per student (give or take – I rounded off to estimate it).
So the reasoning goes: the students coming from outside the district – their parents are not paying the parcel tax. So, if you cut them, you save on the margin. There are roughly 700 or so out-of-district transfers, so you could argue that the district could increase per pupil spending by about $100 to $125 per student by eliminating those out-of-district transfers.
Adding to that, the district, if it wanted to close an elementary school, could save about $300,000 the district estimates. And it could save about $500,000.
That is where it gets tricky. The $198 parcel tax generates about $3 million dollars. You might save about a quarter of that this way. So in theory, you might be able to reduce the parcel tax to $150 from $198 through these cuts.
But it is actually a lot more complicated than that.
First problem is that while there are 700 or so out-of-district transfers, if the district eliminated them, it is hard to know how many they could actually eliminate. That is because the district has the ability to limit or restrict people transferring into the system, but once the student is in the system, they are largely considered residents of the district and cannot be removed.
That means two things. First, it would not be a short-term fix. Second, even if they could remove new students over time, it is unclear how many they can remove.
Second, even if you could remove 700 students, it is unclear whether that would be enough to enable you to close a school. There are two factors here. One is those students are at distributed grade levels. The other is that they are distributed across schools.
Third, and this is a point that the district has made over the course of this discussion, the parcel tax is not general fund money. This is a critical point that Alan Fernandes made in our interview and has contributed to the teacher compensation gap.
The money goes for programs – 7th period, counselors, librarians, science, math, athletics and other programs. So. even if you reduced students and increased the per pupil amount of the parcel tax, that money would not be freed up to go for compensation increases.
That leads to a fourth point – closing a school is a political nightmare and it is inherently messy.
When they closed Valley Oak in 2007-08, there were protests, the parents attempted to create a charter school – it was a long, hard and bitter process. When the district talked about closing Emerson they had similar issues. Ultimately the district and voters passed a parcel tax in 2008 in part because they did not want to close another school or reduce music and art programs.
The bottom line here is that closing two schools and reducing students may free up some money, but it doesn’t get them close to the $3 million needed. We estimate only one-quarter to one-third of the way there. You can reduce the size of the parcel tax that way, but you don’t eliminate the need for an additional one.
Alan Fernandes, Joe DiNunzio and their colleagues understood that they really have two choices once they decided to increase teacher compensation – parcel tax or cuts. There are no ways around it. And cutting staff means cutting programs. Even if you reduce the number of students – questionable about how you actually can. especially in the short term – you still are only getting part way there under the best of circumstances.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Repeating article topics and related claims on a daily basis does not make them “true”.
See yesterday’s article (and comments), regarding all of this.
In addition, one “alternative” is to not approve raises at this time. In fact, that might be the actual outcome – regardless of articles or comments on here.
If you believe that is a reasonable option, then you should vote no. It doesn’t address the retention of teachers in the district and the impact that would have on existing programs. But it would probably reflect your personal priorities and values.
It has nothing to do with my personal values, although the reason for my interest has to do with priorities (and consequences for the city at large).
My other “interest” is in challenging incorrect claims, based upon political agendas.
Again, all discussed yesterday.
But again, I’m referring to what might actually happen, which is beyond my (or your) control. It is absolutely an “alternative”, whether any individual likes it or not.
Here’s an example of an incorrect claim, from yesterday’s article:
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2020/01/measure-g-campaign-explains-why-we-need-another-parcel-tax-part-ii/#comment-418729
Okay, I didn’t have it perfect and I admit I’m not a lawyer but all the kids that are already here and have parents employed in Davis can stay through grade 12. So even if the analysis that there isn’t a net benefit to the district and Davis decided to take a hard line against inter district transfers, an analysis by the way that has been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate, it would take many years to reduce the number of inter district transfers in a meaningful way.
I guess the argument against this is that people who work in Davis but can’t afford to live in Davis shouldn’t be allowed to have their kids in a school nearby where they work because it requires a relatively minor subsidy from the residents of Davis. That is a pretty mean spirited anti-family argument in my humble opinion.
It has everything to do with your personal values.
What personal values are you referring to, Don?
In response to Ron G.’s comment, the current system is likely damaging both the recipient and sending school districts and communities, and is creating unintended consequences.
No one is arguing that current students should be “kicked out”.
Regarding Ron G.’s incorrect claim, I’m actually more curious as to the reason that David defended it. (Given that he seems quite familiar with these types of issues.)
The “defense” of the incorrect statement creates trust issues.
If basic facts can’t even be acknowledged, what hope is there for honest discussion/analysis on here in the first place?
(I actually came to my own conclusion regarding that, a long time ago. And not just related to this particular issue.)
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2020/01/measure-g-campaign-explains-why-we-need-another-parcel-tax-part-ii/#comment-418729
Ron O
Your personal values are clearly reflected in the following:
– that you prefer to keep as much of your own personal wealth regardless of what benefits might accrue to society as a whole. You have failed to specify what is an acceptable amount of spending for education.
– that you don’t particularly value education and how it benefits the generations of children behind us. (This also shows up in your comments calling for restrictions on UCD enrollment so your personal situation won’t be disrupted any further).
– that you don’t want anyone from outside Davis to enjoy any of the amenities of the community created by the endowment of attributes and wealth of our residents and our proximity to a major state-funded institution.
Richard: ALL of your comments directly above are a personal attack.
The fact that you’re comfortable saying this (and that they might even be allowed to remain) is ultimately a reflection of the Vanguard itself. It’s unbecoming of the supposed purpose of this blog.
I will be addressing this type of thing shortly (elsewhere), as I’ve already notified the Vanguard of this.
I’m not sure that those associated with the Vanguard can see the damage that they’re encouraging (and sometimes participating in) against their own publication.
Is that an annual estimate? Who performed this analysis, and what about the gain from selling a school site?
The math behind this isn’t explained. Regardless, why is the goal to subsidize out-of-district students?
Really? And they’re looking for more?
Yes, its an annual estimate
Believe Bruce Colby and Matt Best did the analysis – Matt Best walked me through it last year
There would be no general fund gain from selling a school site, as it would go into facilities funds which are separate
If you’re interested in the math, I can show you it later but it is based on a 700 out of district student transfer estimate and the fact that the current parcel tax of $620 generates $9 million.
For that matter, what is the current level of parcel taxes for DJUSD?
If you own property in Davis, check your current property tax bill. Simple.
You might want to think about how your questions might be answered with a bit of effort on your part.
If you don’t own property in the DJUSD, why would you care?
Yeah, go ahead and call that a “persona attack”… I call it exposing a…
So, it just “sits” there – if not needed for that purpose?
I don’t know who either of the folks are that you’re referring to, regarding the projected $300K annual savings. Is there a link to the actual documentation/analysis, which shows how this was derived?
Both folks are Associate Superintendents.
In terms of just sitting there. Depends. The district repurposed Valley Oak into a preschool and the Da Vinci campus. They sold Grande and turned it into a housing develop (I’m sure you’d love that). The money for the sale went into facilities.
Terrific. No link to their analysis?
I suspect that any school that is sold would probably be sold to a developer. However, that might make more sense than keeping an unneeded school open.
If they were completely crazy and politically tone deaf the district could sell the soccer fields near Nugget to a developer and add the money to the facilities budget. At the end of the day it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. Remember the district got a parcel tax through that only funded about half of the facilities needs of the district. Closing a school would reduce the unfunded facilities needs marginally but wouldn’t really make much difference since our needs are so much greater than our resources.
By the way Folsom recently was planning a single new high school with a budget around the same amount as our entire facilities parcel tax.
Ron O
Not every agency analysis is posted on the Internet. And not all articles (in fact very few) have links to such studies, if and when they exist and are available. You can go to the district HQ on Russell and ask for Matt Best or Bruce Colby (I know both of them–it’s pretty easy to do in this town), and they probably could give you a short explanation or maybe even the study. Those numbers are quite similar to what was estimated for Valley Oak.
Ron G… I suspect you don’t know the half of it… short version is that the long vacant Grade site is actually linked to the Nugget Fields/Wildhorse school site… long story would have to be done off-line.
“Messy business”, that. But David is correct that the proceeds of the sales, by law, had/has to go to facilities, not GF…
Still, would not surprise me one scintilla if they do exactly that… it has been discussed for years, @ DJUSD… the impediment… timing… market timing… maximizing the value of an “investment”, even though DJUSD acquired the site at $0.00, but the City had to make significant concessions (monetary, or equivalent to) to the developer…
A “dark underbelly” as it were…
Also, what would be the savings from laying-off teachers (who would no longer be needed) if the 700 out-of-district students were eventually removed from the system?
That’s the tricky question. Because you eliminate teaching positions but that saving is offset by the lose of $10K per student in ADA money. So is that a real savings? At best, you end up with the $100 to $125 per student marginal savings on the parcel tax but even that is not true general fund money.
That’s why I ran this analysis, the more I look at these numbers, the more I think it’s a very small savings for a very big district wide impact.
You still haven’t explained that, but it appears that this figure does NOT account for the savings resulting from laying-off unneeded teachers (and/or, eventually closing a school).
At this point, I frankly don’t trust the information you’re presenting. Yesterday, you defended an incorrect claim, and have yet to acknowledge that fact.
That’s what happens when those with a political agenda present their own (partial) version of unvetted fiscal analyses. (And ultimately, that can include analyses that are created by an entity that has a vested interest in the outcome.)
You are confusing AVERAGE and MARGINAL costs to serve out of district students. Labor is the only real variable cost of the district, and labor is about 80% of total costs. So reducing the number of out of district students might reduce total costs by only 80% of the average cost. Yet the state funding for out of district students is about 90% of the average costs. That means that out of district students bring a 10% revenue increment above additional MARGINAL costs. The district clearly has done the math and realized that it can gain net revenues by allowing more out of district students. (Thank god they are better at finances than you are.)
In addition, a reduction of 700 students spread across 13 grades will not be sufficient to close a school. An elementary school has about 500 students, and at most 400 are from out of district (and probably less as most out of district transfers are in secondary grades.) This would require a major reconfiguration of grade levels, which was already turned down several years ago when discussing the Emerson closure.
You’ll forgive me if I (or anyone) would need to see an actual analysis of the incremental”vs. fixed costs before coming to any kind of agreement regarding the analyses. (Note that “fixed costs” are not necessarily “fixed”, as in the case of reducing the number of teachers and/or closing schools.)
It doesn’t seem likely that this blog would be conducive to such an analysis (to put it mildly).
That’s a personal attack, and is ultimately a reflection of the Vanguard itself, as it’s allowed to remain. It’s unfortunate that communications consistently devolve to this level.
There has been no analysis presented on here.
Would be nice if, at least on this issue, if comments, questions, etc. could be limited to folk who actually live within the district, and can vote on the measure @ hand… experienced educators/educational professionals should be given slack on that.
But that ain’t going to be a ‘happening thing’…
Well, that would disqualify me. But I pay taxes here, so I don’t see why I should be excluded from the conversation.
I think there is too much limiting of speech already. We need less censorship not more.
Don… I concede your point… to an extent… you concede you pay parcel taxes, but are not in a position to vote… others “hide” that. You are transparent, and I respect that… feel free to join in (IMO), because you have also shared that some or all of your kids were DJUSD students… you are right for challenging me for being too narrow… mea culpa…
But there are others…
You mean that the half million people who commute into San Francisco each day should have absolutely no say in how SF is governed? That’s taking “local” government to an extreme that undermines the very nature of democracy.
Not my intent, but “having say”? Right to vote? Disclosing your “interests”?
Yeah, I could see myself commenting on what is going on in my old ‘home town’… but I’d be up front in disclosing my current status… no longer a resident, etc. Maybe that’s just me.
Not sure if we disagree, but if we do, let’s leave it as agreeing to disagree..
Did the consultants cost tens of thousands of dollars?
I’m sure they cost thousands but if they can help you raise millions it is likely worth it.
#groan#. RG, it says they only showed tens of thousands – and I know of few consultants who can do a deep-dive for under five-figures. AND . . . it’s only potential savings. So the question stands . . .
Who are you referring to, and why have you brought this up?
Because.
Could the 700 out of district students be charged $1125/year to make up for the parcel tax amount the district doesn’t get because they are out of district? It seems that would be a fair since otherwise they are costing the district money?
There is no legal way for the district to do that.
They can “legally” decline to admit new out-of-district enrollments, thereby addressing the problem over time.
It appears that the school district has no interest in doing so, as it might ultimately lead to layoffs of unneeded teachers and/or closure of unneeded schools. The school district itself has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
By forgoing its own vested interests, the situation would likely improve in both the “receiving” and “sending” communities.
Interdistrict transfer students are not a problem.
Interdistrict transfers are not harmful to either community.
Those of us who were parents of inter district students felt we had good reasons for enrolling them here. I believe we also contributed in many ways to the district. In our case, both parents worked in the district, and our kids had attended day care and school here since kindergarten.
When our kids were here, there was a ranking system of priority that was something like this:
— child has a parent who works for the district
— child has a parent who works in the district
— child has a sibling attending school in the district
— child has attended school or day care in the district since kindergarten. That was actually the legal basis for some to remain. It was the basis of our successful appeal to the county board of education, though it was never adjudicated. They granted our appeal individually, not as a precedent.
Interdistrict transfers were always on a space-available basis. Having created a surplus of capacity by over-building schools in response to unrealistic enrollment projections, the district has plenty of space available. The alternative would be to close one of the elementary schools. Take your pick: which one?
At least then, these were not people living and working elsewhere who simply brought their kids into DJUSD. Situations do change, jobs change, people move around, and well-meaning parents wish to provide continuity for their kids.
There has always been an undercurrent that inter district families are somehow gaming the system or costing the district money. They’re not.
Basically the interdistrict transfer “issue” is not relevant to the parcel tax proposal. Yet countless comments have now been posted on it.
If you don’t want to pass a parcel tax to give the teachers a raise, then vote against it. Contribute to the opposition campaign. But I suggest you stop scapegoating a whole category of DJUSD students on behalf of your opposition.
That is a complete mischaracterization of the comments I made. I suggest you stop doing this, as it borders on a personal attack. (Of which there’s still no “shortage” of, on here.) Most of your comments are irrelevant, in regard to what I’ve put forth.
If you want to respond to what I’ve actually stated, that might be more useful.
This comment is probably more relevant, due to your qualifier “at least then“. It is likely becoming less of a “justification”.
Pursuing students from out-of-district solely for the purpose of avoiding layoffs or school closures is not a good justification, and likely hurts (both) the “sending” and “receiving” districts, in different ways. It is also not an environmentally-sound approach.
I will go ahead and put forth some of the reasons I see, regarding how this hurts (both) the “sending” and “receiving” districts:
Sending District:
Removes per-student funding, received from the state. (Which might even be HIGHER, in the student’s home district – leading to a net loss of state funding.)
Creates a disincentive to improve schools (e.g., via a parcel tax) in the student’s home district.
“Leaves behind” children whose parents are not in a position to take advantage of opportunities to ensure attendance at the “receiving district”. This approach might favor those who are already better-situated to take advantage of superior educational facilities, leading to deterioration of the “sending” school. (The same thing might apply to teachers who are motivated enough to pursue external employment – leaving those “behind” who are less-able to take advantage of such opportunities, and further deterioration of schools.)
Receiving District:
Excess funding (and a superior system) encourages teachers to pursue employment in the receiving district, rather than pursuing employment (and improving the system) in their home district. Creating unnecessary motor vehicle commuting, and adding “strength” to a system that is extremely resistant to “right-size” itself to match the changing needs of the community.
Ensures that no parcel taxes are paid, by those living outside the district. Of which there has been no complete financial analysis, regarding the impact.
Ron Oertel: It is the right of attendance by parent employment that allows the district the opportunity to hire many very good teachers who otherwise wouldn’t choose to work in our district. IMO, many of these teachers provide value to our community that far exceeds the $1125/year that you worry about.
I think Don Shor, who isn’t a DJUSD teacher and by his own admission lives outside the district, easily provides more than $1125/year of real and intangible value to Davis by his being willing to set up his wonderful business here, where my wife likes to go and shop.
Any tax policy will not achieve 100% consensus, and will be an inevitable compromise triangulating on all the given parameters. As a Davis homeowner, voter, and taxpayer, etc., I think I’m informed enough to know what I’m getting and what drawbacks there are. On balance I think the measure provides a significant net benefit to the community, and I’m willing to support Measure G.
For me the overriding issue is that the State Legislature isn’t going to specifically cater to Davis issues and needs. Nor will the federal government come riding in to rescue us. It takes local initiative and resources to address local aspirations and values.
And again, part of the “financial impact” would necessarily include the possible elimination of some unneeded positions, and/or school closures.
I realize that neither of those options are popular, among some. (And, I would not blame them for feeling that way.) But, it may not be in a community’s overall best interest to maintain the status quo in a declining-resident enrollment district.
As a side note to Hiram’s comment (which I just saw as I was writing this), it might be noted that someone like Don DOES pay parcel taxes, as an owner of a business property. But again, my comments are not intended to be personal in nature, nor am I discussing specific/limited examples.
Jean, Don is correct… the principle is that education, up to 12th grade, is a right, therefore not subject to fees…
“Also, what would be the savings from laying-off teachers (who would no longer be needed) if the 700 out-of-district students were eventually removed from the system?”
Teachers are a moneymaker for the district. The ADA generated by each teacher far exceeds the salary and benefits each teacher receives. Say each teacher represents 30 ada at $10,000/ada. That teacher would be generating $300,000 in income and would be receiving around $100,000 a year in total compensation. These are rough estimates by the way. My point is you seem to be bringing up issues without really understanding the financial consequences of your positions.
DJUSD has one of the best school finance people around in Bruce Colby. His job is to do these kinds of fiscal analyses and when he says inter district transfers are a positive for the district you should be assured he knows what he is talking about.
Perhaps instead of going off half c–ked with arguments that seem intended to support an ideology but don’t pencil out you might take the time to reach out to Mr. Colby. I know he has always been approachable and patient when it comes to explaining the district budget to the public.
If that was the case, there wouldn’t be a need for parcel taxes.
The problem is that it isn’t “penciling-out”. (Where have I heard that term, before?)
I seem to be the only one challenging the status quo on here (which is consuming more effort than I’d really care to expend), although I don’t have an “ideology” related to this issue. Maybe we can just leave it at that.
I don’t blame teachers (or anyone) trying to protect their jobs (or seek raises), but that’s not a rational basis for a community decision. (Maybe that’s an “ideology”?) I am somewhat uncomfortable pointing this out on here.
“ If that was the case, there wouldn’t be a need for parcel taxes.”
That comment suggests you may want to inform yourself more about school finances.
ADA is a little over $10,000 per pupil
Student to teachers in elementary are in the low 20s. Let’s say 24 students per teacher for the sake of argument.
That would be that each elementary classroom is generating around $240,000 in ADA for a teacher making somewhere between $60 and $100K in total comp.
Once again, Ron G.’s comment seems to be the “incorrect” one. Or more accurately, “incomplete”. It implies that “teachers” are responsible for bringing in ADA, and disregards the ancillary costs that correspond with the ADA.
If you want to take Ron G’s argument further, teachers are “creating” ancillary costs (in addition to their salary), as a result of their “ADA-generation”.
Perhaps they should stop pursuing ADA, and thin their ranks.
I’ll stand by my analysis.
Also I have no idea what you are talking about with “ancillary costs.”
Perhaps you mean the counselors, nurses, administrators, librarians, speech therapists and other professionals who are supported with the ada generated by teachers in the classroom.
Yes – all of the costs associated with “generating ADA”, as you put it.
I’m not sure that you have the total compensation figures listed accurately, either. I recall seeing some on this blog that are around $100K in salary, alone. For what I view as something less than a full-time job that is highly secure.
I’m still wondering how common it is for teachers to ask voters directly for a raise, in California.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think that most people would necessarily argue against a raise. But, if the school is resistant to “right-sizing” itself (while simultaneously defending the manner in which parcel taxes are allocated), I think they’re going to experience a tougher-than-normal effort to successfully convince voters. Especially when considering all of the parcel taxes that they ALREADY receive.
(Just my opinion.)
“ I’m not sure that you have the total compensation figures listed accurately, either. I recall seeing some on this blog that are around $100K in salary, alone. ”
The only salary that would have been over $100K is a principal salary. Top teacher salary is well short.
In terms of how often – I believe that the board said this might be the first parcel tax for teacher salary increase.
Looks like there may be an initiative to provide an “alternative” source of funding for schools throughout California:
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/politics/verify-no-there-will-not-be-any-ballot-measures-to-repeal-proposition-13-in-the-upcoming-election/103-501851ca-f044-45a1-a674-3b31c07bb750
Now, this would be a “battle” of two well-armed opponents! Stand back, if this gets on the ballot.
“I recall seeing some on this blog that are around $100K in salary, alone. For what I view as something less than a full-time job that is highly secure.”
Not even after 25 years does a teacher in Davis get $100,000 in salary.
According to the last contract with DTA the highest pay on the salary schedule for a teacher with 25 years experience and a BA +90 units or a master’s degree +30 units is $89,268.
In Woodland that same teacher or one with the same experience but 15 fewer units would be making $95,210.
In Sacramento that same teacher with only 20 years of service would be earning $100,975 with better benefits.
In Elk Grove after 22 years $94,099.
From a previous discussion in October: