Focusing the Debate on Davis High School's Stadium Renovation

Back in December, the DJUSD school board made the decision to prioritize the modernization of the football stadium over that of Emerson Junior High. This has generated a lot of criticism for the school district from a number of different quarters. In general this criticism has been ill-founded and based on misconceptions of funding and other factors.

The purpose of this article is to clarify some of the issues. While there seems to be a good deal of criticism to go around, it should be criticism that is fact-based rather than based on misinformation.

I largely decided to do this article because the school board and district's perspective is, we had a full public discussion about this at least twice in open meetings. People can view the tapes of those meetings if they are confused.

That is of course not how it works. The district needs to do a better job of communicating with the public. People do not watch the meetings and they will not watch the tapes of the meeting. At least most people will not. They may not even read the newspaper on the issue. But that will not stop them from forming opinions and even expressing those opinions.

Likely then that means the issue of communication falls to entities such as the Vanguard which can breakdown complex issues and discuss them at length rather than being confined to 500 words, 800 words, even 1200 words.

For that reason I have decided to go ahead with this explanation, even though I'm not sure what decision I would have made had I been a board member in December or February. Criticisms as I said should be fact-based and then people can make up their own minds.

A letter appears February 20, 2009 in the Davis Enterprise from 24 teachers at Cesar Chavez Elementary School.

They wrote:

"Fourth, we oppose the plan to build a $10 million high school stadium while there are schools such as Emerson Junior High which, last year, was under consideration for closure due to dilapidated facilities. Additionally, the long-term effects of the stadium financing on the general fund are not clearly delineated, and a clear payment plan has not been developed."

For this we need to back up several steps. Last spring, the district was facing a $4.5 million deficit. To that into perspective, what we face now which is roughly $3.1 million is a two year deficit. The scale of that deficit dwarfed this one in a lot of ways. So one thing the district was looking at was they knew off the bat they could save over $600,000 by closing a school.

The next part of this was the condition of Emerson Junior High. The district knew that it needed upgrades and repairs. However, what they did not know at that time was whether those needed upgrades and repairs were safety violations. This all happened so quickly that the district was in danger of making decisions based on less than complete information. This is very important to understand, to a good degree, the condition of the facilities in Spring of 2008 was unknown and all discussions were speculation.

Based on this and the problems of logistics that arose, the district made the decision not to close Emerson Junior High at that time and evaluate the facilities at a later point.

In June 2008, the district completed its evaluation. The evaluations indicate that the district will need to spend between $10 and $15 million on upgrades to Emerson. However, what they were told was that this was not an imminent safety problem. Much of the needed upgrades and repairs were to get it up to date with current code requirements. According to the consultants at the December meeting, that can happen at any time. Basically those requirements only kick in if the school were to do a major construction project.

School board Tim Taylor made it a point to talk about this back in December. He acknowledged rumors of deteriorating conditions in the buildings at Emerson but again added that there rumors were not borne out by the actual surveys by architects.

So when the teachers say there were school such as Emerson that were under consideration for closure due to dilapidated facilities, that is both misleading and really out of date information. The correct statement would have been that the district was looking to cut costs last spring and the conditions of the buildings while not known at the time, were cited as a possible reason for closure of the school.

I have said before and I will say again, I do not believe that any board members or any administrator wants to close Emerson. That is based on personal discussions with just about all of them. Moreover, looking at the three year finances, I do not see a reason that the district would need to close Emerson. They may play with the configurations, but I believe with strong certainty that Emerson is in no danger at this point of closing.

I spent more space than anticipated addressing the Emerson rumor, but that was important to put to bed. At a future point, there will be an article that fully explains the financing of the football stadium at Davis High School.

At this point, here is what we know. The district believes it can get redevelopment money for a portion of this project. That redevelopment money can only be used for school facilities, not for teacher salaries or other instructional expenses.

Second, the district is planning on borrowing about $4 million against future revenues from the school district's community facilities districts. Again those funds can be used for school facilities only, not for teacher salaries.

See a pattern here. I am uncertain what the teachers meant when they stated: "the long-term effects of the stadium financing on the general fund are not clearly delineated." To my knowledge there will be no impact on the general fund since these monies do not and CANNOT come from general fund monies.

There has been considerable public outcry to this point about the project. In part the money issue is driving this. Part of that stems from the perception that the district is starving for money on one hand but taking up a $10 million project on the other. Again, that perception is wrong and misplaced because of the differential in types of funding.

The other issue with funding is that the district chose DHS over Emerson. They did this in December. There is no getting around the fact that they consciously prioritized DHS Stadium over Emerson. As I have already explained that does not mean they are closing Emerson. They simply believe that DHS Stadium is more pressing.

Again, I turn to a letter to the editor, this one from New Year's eve:

"Unquestionably, the appalling condition of the Blue Devils' stadium calls for its replacement. But in these desperate economic times is a costly restoration the best option? Especially when it likely means stalling desperately needed restoration at Emerson."

One of the questions is of course whether the restoration at Emerson is really desperately needed.

However, what is clear is that this is not merely an issue of the football program at the high school. This is not merely a matter of putting academics ahead of athletics or the appearance of vice-versa.

What this comes down to is a health and safety issue. The district was told by consultants and by students that there are safety issues not just with the football field, but with the track and with the stands. The district believes they face liability if this issue is not corrected and that liability would come out of the general fund whereas the repair comes from facilities money.

Again, that is the issue and the basis on which they made their decision. Are there alternatives to renovating the field? That is subject to debate and discussion. The district seemed to consider alternatives such as using Toomey Field, that seemed to be cost-prohibitive as well. Moreover it was impractical for everyday usage. Remember it is not merely the athletics programs that use the facilities but there is everyday usage.

Regardless, I think the question about alternatives is a fair discussion point. I also think the question about prioritization is a fair discussion point as long as understand the facts at this time suggest that Emerson is not going to be shutdown due to health and safety issues and the district's consultants believe that DHS Stadium faces more imminent and significant health and safety concerns than Emerson.

So to quickly summarize here: Emerson is not closing due to health and safety concerns. DHS Stadium will not use monies that could go to the classroom. The district believes the situation is more critical at DHS Staidum where Emerson mainly faces code upgrades that are not needed until construction occurs in the future.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Should DJUSD Alter its Secondary Education Grade Level Configuration and School Facilities?

An interesting discussion is beginning in the next few weeks, there will be site level meetings beginning tonight at Emerson, tomorrow night at Harper, next Tuesday at Holmes, and a week from Thursday at Davis High. The purpose of these meetings will be to gather input from parents and local residents in particular about grade-level configuration and district facilities.

Currently Davis High School is set up as a Grade 10 through 12 school. That is rather unusual however, most high schools, 90 percent in California in fact, are 9 through 12. Such a configuration represents both advantages and disadvantages as we learned last year through some preliminary discussion.

One of the big advantages is that it allows 9th graders to remain on junior high campuses rather than pushing them to the high school where they face added pressures as has been stated a number of times--it tends to keep the ninth graders younger rather than mixing them with 16 to 18 year-olds.

On the downside, the curriculum for 9th graders is set up more like that of the high school, this forces the junior high to provide those level classes to 9th graders resulting in inefficiencies and economy of scale problems.

In an November interview with the Enterprise, Superintendent James Hammand emphasized the fact that no decision had been made yet.

He said:

"One of the main things I'm seeking is for people to evaluate grade configuration through a couple of lenses... One is the programmatic and instructional lens. Are we configured the best way possible, the best way to maximize student achievement"

"The other lens is the fiscal and physical lens. When you take a headcount of our students, and look at our facilities, are we as efficient and effective as we can be?"

However, a number of groups and community members have expressed concerns about the change.

Becky Linville, Eric Davis, and Paul Stukas recently wrote a letter in opposition to the current proposal:

"We write on behalf of the Davis Friends of Neighborhood Schools, formed to support the current grade-level configuration of Davis schools (K-6, 7-9 and 10-12). We oppose the Davis Joint Unified School District's expected proposal to move approximately 680 ninth-graders into the crowded Davis High School campus of 1,700-plus students.

The district has shown no evidence that such a reconfiguration will assist the academic or emotional growth of our ninth-graders, or any other students in the district. Why risk our district's current academic achievements and low dropout rate by such a profound change?"

On the group's website:

"Friends of Neighborhood Schools believes there should be a compelling reason to change the Grade Level Configuration of the Davis Schools. At this point, we do not believe a compelling case has been shown. We have not seen any evidence or research that shows changes to the Grade Level Configuration will improve the quality of our children's education.

If 680 ninth graders are moved to the high schools next school year, there will be a net increase of approximately 400 students at DHS (assuming Da Vinci High School moves to Valley Oak and 80% of the Da Vinci students will move). Many people in Davis think DHS is too crowded now; how will it be with a net increase of 400 students? [NOTE: The Da Vinci Charter Academy petition approved by the School Board includes 10-12th grades at Valley Oak, and 7-9th grades phased in at Emerson Jr. High]."

The big question at this point is whether this is a fiscal decision or an educational decision. There seems to be costs associated with the current model in terms of providing the range of classes for 9th graders. On the other hand, it appears that moving kids to the high school would have drawbacks as well. As the group stated above, Davis High is already considered too large, and now you could propose making it a campus of 1700 students. The alternative would be to create two smaller high schools, but that would incur cost of converting a Junior High Campus, possibly Harper into a High School Campus.

The real question is whether the current system is actually broke rather than whether Davis schools are unusual. The fiscal environment make such matters important, but educational considerations ought to first come first.

Board President Gina Daleiden:

"I would like the discussion to include a broad conversation about our educational system, including financial, education and facilities uses in the future... It is very difficult to look at any of these pieces in isolation."

Boardmember Sheila Allen:

"I'll be interested in a balanced analysis of both the educational and fiscal impacts of various grade and site configurations. While we need to continue to look for financial efficiencies, we have to ensure that our excellent programs are supported by the structure at our schools."

Boardmember Susan Lovenburg:

"We must consider carefully the educational and social aspects of a change in our current grade configuration, as well as the financial implications. How do we best serve our students given the resources available? And understanding what the community values is an important part of making this decision."

While the issue is likely to cause controversy, the district appears at this point to be going about this the right way, by having meetings and reaching out to the community first before any decision is made. That is the fortunate part of acting proactively rather than what happened last Spring when the district was in crisis and desperately looking for any way possible to save money.

Here are the times and the locations:

* TONIGHT at Emerson Junior High

* TOMORROW NIGHT at Harper Junior High

* Tuesday, Jan. 27, at Holmes Junior High

* Thursday, Jan. 29, at Davis High School

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Looking at the Facility Needs for Emerson and Davis High School

There were a lot of strange looks at the Facilities Masterplan introduced back on December 18 to the Davis School Board. The ultimate price for the long and exhaustive wish list was $200 million. Some asked what the value of such a pie-in-the-sky masterplan was, and they would be right to a certain extent. However forgotten there is the fact that this the beginning of the process, not the end of the process of developing a masterplan. Everything possible is now on the table and now begins the process of winnowing down to a workable and realistic plan.

There were two projects however that are not going to wait that long. The highest priority project right now is the track and football field at the Davis High School. Second on the list is upgrades to Emerson Junior High School.



The costs for these projects are considerable, their need is great however.

The school board put the Track and Field as the highest priority. Some in West Davis are undoubtedly groaning. However, there is a logic here that needs to be understood. You get a sense of it watching the presentation on the state of the field. I got a sense of it talking to a few high school students who use the field as well. Basically it is a big safety hazard in several different ways.







The two biggest are the condition of the track itself which makes for treacherous footing and has resulted in numerous injuries. Also the condition of the stands is very dangerous and has also caused numerous injuries. In short, it is a safety hazard and a huge liability for the school district.

The changes needed at Emerson fall into the code compliance category. I'm not going to say they are aren't potential safety hazards but they are not immediate safety hazards. Moreover, according to the consultant the need to make these upgrades is not as immediate. What he told the board was that until the school district has to work on these facilities, they do not need to make the upgrades. Once they work on the facility they would have to upgrade it. That gives the district some time to play with.






The basic hope is that some of the money needed to upgrade the track and field complex at the high school can be raised privately through the Blue and White Foundation. At the meeting, Foundation president Michael McDermott said that the Foundation has raised about $200,000 and has pledges for another $100,000, numbers paled of course by the $5 to $10 million project.

The school district does not have much money in their facilities fund. They basically used the rest of it to complete the King High construction. The $4.5 million that the district got from Montgomery went to pay off the bond they took out for King High when the district discovered that they were lacking the money they thought they had for the project.

There is expressed concern that this means that Emerson will close. There have certainly been rumors to that effect. However, the most important thing that came to light during the meeting on December 18 is the fact that really, Emerson's needs are not huge safety concerns. Emerson according to what we heard and what Board Member Tim Taylor said is not suffering from deteriorating conditions to its buildings. What it needs is to become code compliant and that is something that is neither an immediate need nor urgent.

Moreover, all five board member expressed some form of support for Emerson, it is just they all recognized that the safety hazards of the high school track push that need to front.

As mentioned previous Mr. Taylor dismissed concerns about deteriorating conditions at Emerson as not borne out by surveys by district architects. Board President Gina Daleiden said that the projects are not mutually exclusive. Sheila Allen emphasized the importance of the academic program and facilities at Emerson. Susan Lovenburg wants the planning for a modernization of Emerson to be further fleshed out.

She said:

"I'd like to see some phased-in approaches to Emerson' as well as 'some exploration of different types of programs that could attract additional funding from state, federal and private sources."

In short, as I have been stating all along here, I do not think people at Emerson have all that much to worry about assuming that the district can find ways to remain in the black. The most important asset that Emerson has going for it right now is geography, the logistics of closing it would be considerable.

So while DHS has been pushed up to the front, Emerson seems in good stead.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

OPEN LETTER TO THE DAVIS JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Congratulations for your important and impressive victory in Measure W. The people of Davis, as they did last spring with their donations to the Davis Schools Foundation, have affirmed their support for education. It is a resounding victory that carries with it a good deal of responsibility.

The people have entrusted to you the education of their children. You do not need me to tell you how big a responsibility that entails.

During the course of the campaign, I had the chance to speak with many, many people in the community about the schools. I would like to share some of my thoughts with you in a moment.

But first I would like to say I worked so hard to get the facts out for this measure because I believe in education. As I have said so many times on the blog, I sat up in the audience all too many nights last spring until all too late into the evening. I talked with parents and students and shared their anxieties and concerns. I supported Measure W first and foremost for them, never again did I want students to worry about the possibility of their schools closing and their teachers fired.

I have heard concerns about fiscal mismanagement, transparency, and accountability from many quarters in the community—including from people that it might surprise you to learn shared this concern. However, I believe that I have thoroughly reviewed and observed district practices. I believe that the district has gone to great lengths to be both transparent and accountable. I look forward to working in the future toward both of those goals.

Now however I offer some critiques and hopefully constructive criticism.

First, this has to be the last parcel tax until Measures Q and W expire in three years. The community was willing to back this one, but they were getting a bit leery. I support education strongly, the state budget is going to be a huge challenge, I can only hope that given a year at least where the district is assured that they will have the necessary funding, that the district finds ways to keep afloat in tough economic times. The taxpayers of Davis face all sorts of potentially new taxes, fees for service, and water rate increases in the coming years. I worry about their ability to make ends meet in these tough economic times. As such, I will state plainly right now, I will not support another parcel tax before these two parcel taxes expire. Furthermore, I urge the district to find a way to renew only Measure Q when the time comes, that means find a way to account for the $120 per year that Measure W provides even if the state does not.

Second, there needs to be community outreach on Valley Oak. There is still a lot of bitterness out there. I understand that Measure Q and Measure W passed despite the closure of Valley Oak and at times it passed with the support of many of those same parents, but there are two groups that you need to focus on. First, those parents and community members who fought so hard for to keep Valley Oak open. And second those in the community that really believed it was a special and unique school and who believe that there were racial elements that came into play.

I spoke with so many this year and many of them told me this fall that they were torn. They had always supported education, always voted for whatever measures were on the ballot to support education, but they were angry about Valley Oak. Those people in the end voted for W as they voted for Q, but do not let this fact mask a very serious animosity that has developed out there. A number of very prominent people did not endorse Measure W because of Valley Oak and they only in the last week and through great effort of many decided to hold their nose and vote for it.

I will never forget right before the election going on a police ride along of all things, and as we drove past Korematsu, the police officer told me that he had mixed feeling about that school. He described to me how he had worked at Valley Oak in his capacity as a police officer as he had several other schools over his lengthy career. But he said Valley Oak was different. They made him feel like he was part of the school itself. He did not feel like a visitor there. At one point, there was a troubled student without male role models in his life and they asked just to talk to him about ten minutes at recess.

To me this story reinforces to me that yes you can duplicate programs but a school is more than a sum of its programs. That is not to take away from the great things that this district does at every school. But I, like so many others believe that Valley Oak was special and unique that the district did this community and that neighborhood a great disservice by closing the school. The district and the board have not made amends for that or acknowledged that to the citizens of the community. And yet, the devoted parents and community leaders there remained loyal to this district and supported Measure W even as their hearts were breaking over the loss of their school. Talk to them, and you will see, the hurt feelings and raw emotions still. You will also see the love for schools and the commitment to education.

Third, again along the same lines, during the course of the budget struggle, there was another struggle that lost attention. In 2007, there was a serious push for stronger work toward closing the achievement gap. There were period but persistent concerns about race relations on the high school campus and elsewhere in the district. There was the controversy about the STAR testing. There were concerns raised by longtime and prominent members of the community that issues that were addressed in a 1990 report laid on the shelf for years, un-acted upon. These issues came back up in 2007. They have disappeared during the struggle for the budget. These are serious issues and they need to have renewed focus. The problem is no less real in 2008 going into 2009. The fact that the district will have fewer resources to deal with this problem means that we must be that much more aggressive at addressing it.

Fourth, there are serious issues of mistrust regarding Emerson Junior High. These are not merely manifested on the blog, but also in emails on several email lists developed to mobilize people to fight to keep Emerson open. Interestingly, not one email went out on that list urging people to vote Yes on W prior to the vote. There are people in this part of Davis that really believe that Emerson’s closure is fait accompli. I do not believe that is the case at all. From every conversation I have had with the district or board members, while they cannot promise that Measure W’s passage means Emerson stays open, I believe it would be logistically infeasible to close it.

However, I would suggest that there needs to be more communication between the school board, the district, and West Davis about the exact concerns about Emerson and the real prospects for it closing. Level with the public in advance if there is reason for concern and reassure them if there is not. Communication and trust are the keys. I understand that in the rush of the spring budget crisis, these discussions could not happen, but they can happen now and they need to.

Finally, Bruce Colby a couple of weeks ago suggested a Vanguard sponsored Q & A session. I hope to work with Mr. Colby and Dr. Hammond to facilitate something along those lines. We can think about how to structure it.

I am pleased with the transparency and accountability of this district, but I do believe that the district can do even better. Opening lines of communication are important. The new district website is better, but it could be better still.

In this day and age of instant communications, there is no excuse to have a communications gap with the community. I would look as a district toward finding ways to enact better communication tools. The Davis Enterprise is only read by less than one-third of the households in the city. The Vanguard is one alternative means to communicate more directly to the public, but not the only way.

The district has come a long way in the last four years in terms of public trust and accountability, but there is much that still needs to be done.

---David M. Greenwald

Rumors About Emerson Continue, Irrational as They May Be

No, it is not just on this blog. I hear and get asked about whether Emerson is going to close wherever I go. There is a persistent rumor that the closure of Emerson is fait accompli regardless of the outcome of Measure W.

As I have argued this is completely illogical. I will break down that illogic shortly. I would submit to the readers of this, that if you want Emerson to close, then you should vote against Measure W, because voting against Measure W will almost surely lead to the closure of the school. If you want to strongly increase the likelihood of Emerson remaining open, and these are the words of Superintendent James Hammond whom I will quote fully below, then you should vote for the Parcel Tax.

I will get to those words of the Superintendent in a moment. First we need to logic through this argument.

Why Emerson Closes if Measure W Fails

The school district last spring estimated that the closure of Measure W would save the district roughly $600,000 in site specific operating expenses. That is largely without the lay off of teachers.

That is the biggest single chunk of money that can be saved with terminating or eliminating teacher positions. In fact, that represents around a quarter of the money that they would need to cut if Measure W fails.

If given the choice between teachers and a facility, they are going to pick the facility every time. (I will get to why they eliminated Emerson for this list last spring below).

The problem that you face when you have a number like $2.4 million is that you really cannot nickel and dime your way to budget cuts. They have already trimmed two major positions from the district's administration including an Assistant Superintendent whose contract was not renewed and whose position was not replaced.

The good news for the district is that 82% of the district's discretionary general fund budget goes directly to the classroom, but the bad news is the same. It means to get meaningful cuts, you have to cut from the classroom. Of the remaining 18% of the budget that does not directly go to the classroom, 9% of the budget goes to ground operations such as custodians and only 7% of the budget goes to administration.

That means you are either cutting teachers or you cutting facilities. Again, that means if you have to cut $2.4 million and can get a quarter of that without laying off a single teacher, guess what they do?

So by all means, if you want to have Emerson close, vote no on W. The illogic of people who say because they won't guarantee Emerson stays open if W passes, they will therefore vote against W and ensure that Emerson closes, is mindboggling.

Why Emerson Stays Open if Measure W Passes

There are issues of the facility that will prevent the guarantee of Emerson staying open. But, most available rationale indicates that it most likely has to stay open if the general fund is not in deficit.

People try to link Emerson and Valley Oak. But Emerson has advantages (many of them) that Valley Oak never had.

As Superintendent James Hammond said on the Vanguard Radio show in mid-October:

"It's not like the closure of an elementary school where you have eight or nine sites, you have three junior high sites spread across town, so you have logistical concerns to evaluate."

This is not a defense of closing Valley Oak, but when they had to close Valley Oak, you have at least three schools within close proximity to Valley Oak. North Davis Elementary and Birch Lane are both within nine-tenths of a mile and Korematsu is just one and a half miles. That means that you are generally redirecting students within a relative close proximity. Now as we know from the Valley Oak issue that arose last year, you are still putting a burden on parents and making it more difficult for young children to walk and bike to school. Nevertheless, it is not a logistical nightmare for the district.

On the other hand, the Junior High scenario is much more tricky. You have Holmes Junior High a full 3.3 miles from Emerson. That is a logistical nightmare in a school district that does not have district busing transportation. That reason alone is why the district held off on closing Emerson as a possibility last spring and why it will likely not close it in the future if there are funds.

And remember they cannot simply move all of the Emerson students to Holmes, they would have to move a good portion of Holmes students to Harper, another two miles away.

So unlike having a simple situation where a few relatively close elementary schools can absorb additional students, you have a tough scenario where you are moving a large amount of students a good distance away.

These logistical problems relegate Emerson to a worst-case scenario closure rather than a likely closure if the general fund is in relatively good condition.

I pressed Superintendent Hammond on this issue during the October 15 radio show. Here's what he told me.

"The status on Emerson, to be quite honest, right now there is no decision. I mean we are status quo. There has been no formal discussion about Emerson between the staff and the board since last spring... Emerson has challenges but it doesn't mean there's an imminent closure waiting for it. There's facility concerns. It's not like the closure of an elementary school where you have eight or nine sites, you have three junior high sites spread across town, so you have logistical concerns to evaluate, facility concerns to evaluate. But by no means is there any type of hidden agenda to close the school. I think that that is one of the things even after passing the budget that we still deal with today."

Thus he completely denies that there is any kind of hidden agenda. On the other hand he cannot make promises.

"I can't make any promises as a superintendent particularly when it comes to the instability of the state budget and the inadequacy of how schools are funded."

He lays it out pretty clearly here, he believes that if we get the funding, the "likelihood" of Emerson staying open increases. And if we do not get the funding, the "likelihood" of closure increases.

"I would like to think, and what I say with my own words without representing anyone else, that with additional revenue in this case from Measure W, probably increases, and I use this word intentionally, the likelihood, the likelihood of things staying status quo, the lack of funds that we get if we're not successful with the parcel tax or we have to re-run a parcel in '09 at a lesser amount and we get a very bad January revise like we're expecting, the likelihood of being back where we were last spring increases. And as you know David, everything is back on the table and being evaluated and discussed. And that is my fear, that being in a place early in our school year where our fiscal indicates that we have to make some cuts and that's where I don't want to be."

Again, Measure W's passage will not guarantee that Emerson stays open. It will not. What Measure W does is take all of the position that Measure W funds, all of the teaching positions and it guarantees them for the next three years. Those positions by law cannot be eliminated. That frees up other money to go to keep Emerson open.

If the district does not have that money from Measure W then they have a choice, they can either terminate the positions that W would have funded or they can try to save money by closing schools. My guess is that they are going to close at least one school if they do not get Measure W or if they have to pass a smaller parcel tax in the spring.

Again, if you want to insure that Emerson closes, vote against the parcel tax. Because if the parcel tax fails and they have to come with a smaller amount in the spring, Emerson is likely gone. If you want Emerson to have a possibility to remain open, you have to vote for Measure W.

With $2.4 million, you are not going to nickel and dime your way to a balanced budget. If it were $0.24 million you might have a chance to. But with it at $2.4 million you have to cut from that 82% of the budget, and that is classroom money.

Again, the illogic of the position, they won't guarantee Emerson so I'll vote against Measure W is breathtaking. The reverse is most likely true.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

District Chief Business Officer Makes Case For Parcel Tax

The Davis Enterprise on Sunday carried an op-ed by Bruce Colby, the chief business officer of the Davis Joint Unified School District and Jim Belenis, a financial planner and a member of the school district's Business Advisory Committee. In it they lay out the situation facing this district--we either need to pass Measure W or face pretty steep budget cuts.

As they put it:

This year's state budget battle - which is still ongoing - put us on notice that we face a new reality. For at least the near future, funding from the state of California will not be adequate to maintain the quality education programs we currently offer to Davis children and teens.

It is a pretty basic but accurate point--the state is cutting its budget, if the Davis public wants to maintain the current education programs, then we have to pony up and replace state funding. If we do not, then we will see cuts.

Last year we were able to bridge the gap with a combination of fundraising from the Davis Schools Foundation and "rainy day" funds.

"The gap between the education our students need and the money we have was bridged this year by two sources of one-time money: $1.5 million from the fundraising drive led by the Davis Schools Foundation and $1.2 million from 'rainy day' funds. This allowed us to rescind more than 100 layoff notices that were given to our teachers and save our programs."

They then lay out exactly what would be cut:

"On the chopping block would be drastic cuts to our elementary school science program; class periods for core science, math, English and social sciences; librarians; our music program; class size reduction in ninth- and 10th-grade English and ninth-grade math; foreign language; and other classes that prepare our children for college or to transition to the workplace."

There are two options then: increase revenue or cut spending.

"Measure W, on the ballot Nov. 4, will let voters decide whether to pursue the first option, increasing revenue.

Measure W assesses homeowners $120 per year, with a voluntary exemption for residents who are 65 or older. Apartments are assessed at a lower rate. The tax will last for three years and expenditures require review by a citizens oversight committee. The parcel tax requires a two-thirds Davis voters majority for approval.

Funds raised by Measure W will go only to preserve these classroom instruction programs and librarians that are threatened by state cutbacks; no new programs will be funded."

If increasing revenue does not happen, then we have to cut roughly $2.4 million from the districts funding next year.

"If Measure W does not pass, we must find ways to slash $2.4 million from the district's general fund early next year. Last spring, district staff, board members, parents and community members struggled mightily to make cuts in the budget that would have minimal impact on students. In order to preserve program and reduce our spending deficit, the district has already reduced its ongoing budget by $1.1 million annually through belt-tightening in administration, operations and staffing."

As we demonstrated before, a huge amount of district money goes directly to the classrooms. That means any cuts have to come from the classrooms.

"The financial reality is that 82 percent of the district's budget goes straight into direct student support in classrooms, counseling offices, school offices and libraries. With maintenance and utilities included, the district spends more than 91 percent of its budget on teaching students and operating schools."

Mr. Colby and Mr. Belenis argue that the district is among the best in the state at putting money directly in the classroom and that the district has done well at containing costs over the past five years.

"This record of delivering funds directly to classroom learning and minimizing administrative overhead is one of the best in the state. If forced to make deep reductions, we have few remaining options that avoid negative impacts to our students.

The district also has worked to keep spending under control, relying on extraordinary staff and community support to maintain excellent schools. Over a five-year period, from 2003-04 to the approved budget for 2008-09, total spending rose only minimally, keeping pace with inflation."

For those who think we can reach these goals by trimming fat, that has been tried and no one has been able to find enough fat to cut.

"Participants in a community budget workshop found little fat to cut. More than 100 community members gathered at the Veterans' Memorial Center on April 7 to answer difficult questions about budget priorities. What was more important: science or math, music or English? Reduced class sizes for 10th-grade English or librarians?"

Bottom line:

"Today we are at a crossroads. Either we find and support additional local funds for our schools, or vital educational programs will be cut. That is the choice we now face in Measure W: Protect what we have today, or begin slicing away at educational programs in our schools."

Commentary on Emerson School Closure

For regular readers of the Vanguard, neither these arguments nor the figures are new. The case for Measure W is very basic. The public is going to have to make a choice as to what their priorities are here. And the choice is a simple one. For $120 per year additional taxes, they can keep the same level of educational funding that we have had the last few years. That means teachers remain in the classroom and schools remain open.

Last week there was a rumor floating around that Emerson would be closed regardless of what happens with Measure W and that the school board had already made that decision.

As near as I can tell, that rumor is completely false. First of all, that would be a Brown Act violation since the board members are unable to discuss policy matters outside of the formal meeting structure. Of course, the Brown Act gets violated from time-to-time. But I have seen no evidence to suggest this has occurred in this case.

Second, I do not see three votes right now to close Emerson let alone some kind of consensus. I do not really want to guess with names, but in the last round it seemed there were three members of the board who were just not going to close that school under almost any circumstance and that was during the budget crisis. I certainly do not see the will to do it if Measure W passes and the district is on sound fiscal standing.

But third, if your top fear is closing Emerson, and I can understand that if you are a resident of West Davis and have a child who is Junior High age, then the most likely way to protect Emerson is to pass the parcel tax. Will that guarantee it remaining open? No. There are no guarantees in life and certainly none in the case of Emerson Junior High. There are issues that could arise that have nothing to do with the fiscal situation that may necessitate its closure. That would have to do with costs to repair and the necessity of making those repairs.

However, if Measure W does not pass, then the district again faces $2.4 million in budget cuts. Last time they figured out they could save roughly a quarter of that by closing Emerson and playing the shuffle game with students across the other two junior high schools. Faced with the prospect of laying off additional teachers or closing a school, the district under those conditions would be far more likely to close a school. Even then, it is unclear that they would. Of course part of the rationale for delaying a decision on closing the school was the speed with which they would have to do it and the impact on the children and parents.

Bottom line, the safest course of action if you are concerned with closing a school is to keep the district at full funding. A budget crunch makes it far more likely to close a school even if full funding does not guarantee it remains open.

The last thing the board wants to do is have more people marching against it after they get the parcel tax passed. It was very difficult for them last year. In private, board members have told me that they did not sign up to be board members to close schools and that anyone who has been through the process would never want to go through it again.

Again from my perspective the best way to keep schools open is to ensure full funding. Last year the Davis Schools Foundation was able to save us from a horrific situation. I do not really get the sense that some of the people who post regularly on this blog realize how bad the situation was or would have been had the cuts actually gone through.

I sat through a lot of those board meetings until the wee hours of the morning. I sat with anxious parents who feared their children's programs would be cut and teachers would be laid off. I sat next to high school students who came out in support of their teachers and their schools.

There is something tragic about a student having to come to a board meeting and staying until late on a school night in hopes that they keep their school open and their teacher employed. I think if more people had been through this and saw the looks on their faces and feel the anguish and anxiety that they experienced, they would see this situation through very different eyes.

Frankly it is something I never want to experience again as an interested observer. There have been good times covering community events and there have been bad times. What happened last spring was by far the most difficult times.

The students, the teachers, and the parents deserve not to have to go through this again next spring.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Vanguard Commentary: Schools and the 8th Assembly Race

SCHOOLS

Two separate items of interest in the news this week. We'll start with schools because it is amazingly what is on everyone's mind. I say amazingly because flashing back to last October that was about the last thing anyone wanted to talk about on this blog. Now it is virtually all people are interested in, even with a looming City Council election which is usually the creme de la creme of Davis politics.

The school board decision is a very interesting decision because it is the outcome that I preferred--I did not want Emerson to close and yet in many ways I think the decision is problematic at best.

It is my hope that the wrath does not shift to Boardmembers Tim Taylor and Gina Daleiden on this. They both voted against the motion primarily not because they opposed keeping Emerson open, but rather because all of the options--school closings, reconfigurations, program and teacher cuts--needed to be on the table at the same time. And moreover, if they were not going to close the schools and reconfigure the secondary program, there needed to be concurrent cuts proposed so that they knew where the money was coming from that they needed to balance the budget.

Tim Taylor called this motion financially irresponsible.

Now I think there are good educational reasons to keep Emerson open, but then again I felt there were good educational reasons to keep Valley Oak open--and two of the members who voted to close Valley Oak, the two strongest proponents of that closing, led the way to keep Emerson open.

With this decision, the April 17 board meeting is looming large because it is at that meeting that the board will need to once again identify more than $4 million in cuts. With already more than 100 teachers and librarians receiving pink slips, we can only look on in horror wondering what next.

We wanted the school to remain open, I just hope we don't end up regretting that decision down the line. The district and board face some very tough choices in the coming weeks, we will have to see just how bad this decision ends up looking. In the meantime, parents of all junior high students and even a lot of high school students probably rested a bit easier last night knowing where their kids are kids to school.

8th Assembly District Race

Well if it means anything, Supervisor Matt Rexroad is now calling the race for West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon. It seems like the Assemblywoman Lois Wolk endorsement of Cabaldon's campaign has been known in inside circles for sometime, and even before it was official, it seemed like she was leaning that direction.

However this week, Mayor Cabaldon gained the Democratic Party's endorsement and the endorsement of the sitting Assemblywoman.

As Matt Rexroad states:

"I knew that it was coming last week. Now that it is official that Assemblywoman Wolk has endorsed Cabaldon for Assembly I think it is over.

For weeks I have been telling people that Cabaldon is favored but they should not underestimate what Yamada can do on the ballot. This district wants to elect a woman. That ended yesterday.

With a huge endorsement advantage including support of the incumbent, a fund raising advantage that is going to approach a ratio of infinity:1, and the party endorsement, Cabaldon is the next Assemblyman for Woodland."

It was a nice ceremony on Thursday with Former Assemblymembers Tom Hannigan and Helen Thomson joining the sitting Assemblywoman and the candidate. And yet, where was the news coverage? There was not another member of the press at this event.

The public is really getting shortchanged on the local election coverage. No one else covered the candidates forum this week and that was with Davis Enterprise assistant publisher/ editor Debbie Davis as moderator of the forum and reporter Claire St. John in the audience seemingly taking notes. From the standpoint of the public making informed decisions, the information is scant from the mainstream press.

Back to the 8th Assembly race for a moment. One could argue that it might not have mattered anyway--Christopher Cabaldon has run a tremendous race, he has earned endorsements throughout the district from elected officials, he has captured the activist youth, and he has raised a huge amount of money.

At the same time, one has to wonder what if. At the beginning of 2007, Mariko Yamada was a fairly popular Supervisor who had strong support among the Davis Progressive community and then for some reason, she decided to back efforts to develop on Davis' borders. This drove her base into the arms of Christopher Cabaldon. You just cannot do that politics. And if that were it, that would have been bad enough, but from the start, she has been outworked on the campaign trail by Cabaldon and his team. And so even when she and her supporters put on a fullcourt press last weekend to avert an CDP endorsement for Cabaldon, she managed just 13 votes and just a 160 signatures. Too little, too late.

Is the race over? That is more difficult to assess since there are no reliable polls for the race or the district. But it is increasingly difficult to see a scenario where she even keeps the race close given both the advantage in terms of support among elected officials but also the monetary advantage. Her financial report from a week ago was frankly appalling. She is not bringing in money. One could theoretically overcome that with grassroots organization, but there is little evidence that she has produced that.

I stop short of declaring the race over, but at this point it does not look good from the Yamada campaign. And in some ways that is too bad because I still remember the Mariko Yamada who was the fighter for social justice. Sadly it appears she has even allowed Cabaldon to steal that mantle.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis School Board Votes to Keep Three Junior Highs

After long discussion over the last several weeks, the Davis School Board voted by a 3-2 vote to keep three juniors and keep the secondary schools in the same current configuration with Davis High School remaining a 10-12 program and DaVinci High School remaining on the Davis High School campus.

Gina Daleiden in her dissenting vote made it clear that the vote was not necessarily on the substance of the issue, but due to the fact that the vote was not tied to corresponding budget cuts. The same is true from Tim Taylor's vote as well.

In addition, the school board voted to keep hire three Principals to fill the vacancy at three elementary schools.

Earlier in the evening Superintendent James Hammond made a radical suggestion of offering to save the district over $100,000 by performing a duel role of Principal at an Elementary School while at the same time continuing to serve as the district's superintendent.

Gina Daleiden would say that "this is one time we need to save James, from James." Arguing that the situation was not feasible from a workload standpoint. She also suggested there would be a potential conflict to have the Superintendent of the District tied to one elementary school site.

The board would vote by a 4-1 margin to take this option off the table with Tim Taylor dissenting.

Commentary

I am pleased that Emerson Junior High is remaining open. It is a vital school in West Davis and while there are upgrades needed to the campus, it is only the fifth oldest campus in the school district. The building itself has a number of desirable features that lead me to want to preserve it as a vital Junior High.

That said there are a number of aspects of this particular vote that I am uncomfortable with, even as I am pleased with the outcome.

First, the fact that it was not tied to additional cuts, means that there remains more work to be done. The district has to meet a threshold in order to meet its budgetary requirements or it risks the county taking over its operations.

Second, I think Gina Daleiden's concern is quickly dismissed with regards to the cut of teachers and programs. Something has to be sacrificed in order to keep Emerson open and that might be more teachers or more programs. I hope we can find creative ways to do this, but if we do not, we need to recognize what this means for teachers and programs in the district.

Third, and this is probably my biggest concern--Richard Harris and Susan Lovenburg were two of the strongest proponents of closing Valley Oak and denying the charter. The stated reason was fiscal cost. Now, they have been the ringleaders to keep Emerson open which presents its own problems with fiscal cost. That does not sit well with me. To use the phrase of some on the board, this has become a sacred cow to these board members.

At least Sheila Allen was consistent on this issue--she voted to keep them all open. I would agree with her on both issues. Gina Daleiden and Tim Taylor were consistent as well, opting for fiscal prudence on both issues. While I disagree with them, I can respect their decisions.

However, I really need to understand the decision that Susan Lovenburg and Richard Harris made--the differentiation that they took. Does that differentiation amount to a rationalization or is there an actual tangible and clear reason that distinguishes the closing of Valley Oak from the maintenance of Emerson.

All of that said, keeping Emerson open is the right thing to do. The other choices were not good educational choices for the students involved. They required creating an overly crowded Davis High Campus, they required moving DaVinci students away from their logical location, and there was not a compelling demographic or attendance issue to necessitate this move. In short, the move was only made for the purposes of saving money. At this time that might be reason enough, but I still think you need to bear in mind educational considerations. I am not opposed to a 9-12 high school--I attended one myself. There are strong reasons to do it which is why the majority of the state has 9-12 high schools. However, there are also reasons not to do it, it keeps 9th graders in a better situation socially.

However, removing this option from the table now forces the district to look at other areas for cuts.

Everyone applauds the efforts of the Davis Schools Foundation. I am big supporter as well. They have raised $250,000 for the district which is wonderful, but it is less than one-tenth of the way to their goal and I just do not see them at this point getting anywhere near that goal.

I do not say this to bring people down, but we also must face reality. Parcel tax relief will not come until 2009. The Davis Schools Foundation is only going to help offset some of the worst cuts. The state may provide some relief but that will also come after the budget for next year is set in stone. The long and the short of it, is that we have dodged another school closure, but we are going to have to brace for a major hit, there is no way around it.

Finally, the demographic forecast shows that we will stabilize after this year. That means that declining enrollment will not have an ongoing impact of forcing additional steep budget cuts. Those who believe the solution to this is more growth need to look at a lot more closely at faster growth and larger cities--these cities have no escaped the problems of the budget nor are their schools doing better than ours. We need solid land use and growth policies in this city, but those should not be based on school enrollment priorities. The voters in this city have made a choice to support their schools vastly with parcel tax money while choosing to grow their city closely. People who think we can have better with faster growth policies might want to also consider what would happen if those new residents vote to cut off the parcel tax. In short, be careful what you wish for and plan wisely.

In the end, we are all in this together--the amount of civic spirit I have seen from students, teachers, and parents is amazing. We need to learn from this however--the lesson is the cost of complacency. Just four months ago there was so little interest in the school elections and now schools are all that are on people's minds. We need to focus our attention on these issues when we are not facing severe cutbacks. We must remain attentive and aware so that these types of things do not sneak up on us in the future.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Superintendent Hammond Says He Doesn't Want to Close Emerson

After over a hundred people spoke on Monday night at a jam packed Emerson Junior High Multipurpose Room. After the Superintendent and Bruce Colby painstakingly pointed out that that the cuts were real, the crisis was real, changes had to be made. After one by one, the Superintendent and Bruce Colby dispelled notions that they had emergency reserves. After one by one, they discredited any of the possible remedies offered up by the public and school board member alike. After they pointed out that even a new parcel tax would benefit the budget only in 2009.

After all of that school board member Susan Lovenberg asked a very simple but key question of the Superintendent, I've heard what we cannot do, what will your recommendation be?

After all of that, the Superintendent before a dwindling audience got up and said, he did not want to close Emerson. He would recommend against it. The remaining audience roared in delight.

Board Member Tim Taylor then said that he needed to see how they were going to make this work fiscally on Thursday night.

Let us step back a second. Back in January, Superintendent James Hammond worked long and hard with the Valley Oak petitioners in an attempt to get the Valley Oak Charter School approved. But he could not convince his board to take a leap of faith.

I met with him a few days after that meeting and he was as genuine as could be. The only thing he regretted was that he didn't have a few more days to convince the board to take a chance on the Charter School. He believed in it. He was truly remorseful that he was unable to convince the board about it.

I had always liked James Hammond, on that day, I recognized however that Hammond was a man of compassion and principle. So I believe him when he says he does not want to close Emerson Junior High. I guarantee you he believes that and I guarantee you he will find a way to make the numbers work.

The difference between the 4-1 to reject the Valley Oak Charter Petition and a possible vote to keep Emerson over is that it seems that Richard Harris and Susan Lovenburg support keeping Emerson open. Whether they get a third vote is another question. Richard Harris seems to believe it however, he apparently was telling parents not to worry, they would not close Emerson. I am not certain how he could know that for certain given Brown Act restrictions, but at the same time, I may also believe him.

On the other hand, they are going to have to find another $400,000. This is not a situation they can exactly play around with. If they do not get it right, if they do not cut enough, the County will take over the district. This was a point made over and over again last night.

I am all for creative solutions, I am all for keeping Emerson open, and I believe in Superintendent James Hammond, I just want to see the numbers. I am with Tim Taylor, show me how the numbers work and I am all for it. I am all for making it work. Hopefully come Thursday night, we will all believe.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Board Consensus is to Keep Emerson Open

For a group of school board members that were trying to avoid making a decision at midnight, it seems that they did exactly that.

The Davis Joint Unified School Board met last night with a large group of parents and students from both the Emerson Junior High and the Montessori school in attendance. That group considerably thinned out by the time the board reached a consensus.

No final decision was made last night and there was an announced special meeting after spring break at Emerson Junior High itself where parents and students will be able to weigh in.

Last night, a joint team of staff presented the school board with seven different options. The bleakness of the situation was fully laid out by CBO Bruce Colby in terms of the need to cut money, when additional money might become available, and the prospects for future budgets.

Janet Berry and Alan Anderson of the Davis Schools Foundation gave us the good news that they have now raised over $100,000. For those who caught the Vanguard radio show this week, Alan Anderson was one of our guests. You may listen to that radio show by scrolling down the right sidebar and clicking on Wednesday's date.

During the first portion of public comments, students and parents urged the board to save the Montessori program. During the second , portion of public comments, students and parents urged the board to keep Emerson open.

By the end of the evening, it seemed that keeping Emerson open was indeed a distinct possibility. The board consensus favored plan G, precisely because it keep Emerson Junior High open. However, it does create pretty much a crazy configuration, in that one cannot quite figure out exactly how it saves money.

Basically, it takes 9th graders and moves them to high schools. There were expressed concerns about that move and there are a number of advantages to having only a 10th through 12th grade high school. But it is probably better than some of the alternatives given the budget situation.

It then moves Da Vinci high to the Emerson campus--and the Da Vinci program becomes a 9th grade through 12th grade high school. With this selection, all three junior high schools become 7th through 8th grade schools.

The enrollment breakdown is 2,342 for Davis High, 430 for Da Vinci, 500 for Harper, 449 for Holmes, and 346 for Emerson. In otherwords, three very small junior highs.

What I do not understand, is how this exactly saves money. They argue that it saves $120,000 in a site administrator, however, there are moving costs and the costs of a science portable for Da Vinci.

Savings may occur with the economy of scale at the high school program. Having 9th through 12th grade may increase the number of fully loaded course options, it may improve the availability of electives, and it may allow some of the low-enrolled classes to remain sustainable.

The biggest savings may be that according to staff, 9th through 12th grade students are required to have roughly 83 additional instructional minutes per day than 7th through 8th grade students. Because the Junior Highs are 7th through 9th, 7th and 8th grade students receive the same instruction as 9th graders are required to receive. That is of course an academic advantage to have an additional course offering, but eliminating this by having 9th through 12th grade students together presents a way to save money.

There are also big disadvantages. Da Vinci is required now to quickly recruit 9th graders, they no longer can enroll in DHS classes concurrently, they need to lease an additional 100 computers, and they have to maintain current levels of enrollment despite location and staffing changes.

Emerson now effectively becomes a 7th through 12th grade school which may invite problems.

The junior high schools are dangerously small. They are well under capacity and any advantage of economy of scale for the high schools is negated by the small nature of the junior highs.

Also, there remains facility upgrade needs. They are talking about $10 million in facilities upgrades at Emerson, however, most of it is not safety or structurally related. CBO Bruce Colby told the board that Emerson did not qualify for state emergency aid. Currently they only have a few million in the facilities funds.

Finally, as we suspected, the board would be required to find an additional budget reduction of nearly $450K under this option.

One of the more interesting parts of the discussion was the state's process for converted surplus property into general fund money. Basically the school district would have declared that they had no facilities needs, that they have completed all facilities projects. They could then sell Grande or Nugget fields and use the money for the general fund. However, the penalty is steep, as they would not be able to get state money for facilities for the next 10 years. Frankly, I do not understand why the state has such requirements. It seems much easier to raise money for facilities than for the general fund. For instance, they cannot take out a COP to fund general fund programs, but they could take out such a debt instrument to fund facilities.

A final point is that they are going to finally upgrade their facilities master plan which I think has not been upgraded since about 2000. That process will take roughly four months.

In the final analysis here, it seems that the board was not willing to close Emerson. For residents in West Davis, that would be a welcome change of course, but overall it does not make the picture look much less bleak.

In the end, despite the heroic efforts of the Davis Schools Foundation, despite the mobilization of parents and students across the city, we need a hard and reliable source of money and that will require another parcel tax.

While these cuts are painful, we should bear in mind how fortunate we are. Many communities lack the resources to be able to raise money privately to alleviate the pain of these budget cuts. Many communities lack the resources to be able to pass another parcel tax. Many communities lack the political will to do so. It remains to be seen if this community will be able to. My guess is that when push comes to shove it will and as a result, the students will be alright.

The bigger picture is one we also need to look at. We need to fund our education in California in a more reliable way that is not nearly as reliant on demographic shifts or vulnerable to economic downturns. That will be the challenge not for our school board, but for our legislature in the coming weeks, months, and unfortunately, but most probably, in the coming years.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Hundreds of Students, Parents and Community Members March to Save Emerson Junior High

At Central Park yesterday, hundreds of students, parents, and community members marched throughout the park urging the Davis Joint Unified School District not to close Emerson Junior High School.

Carrying a wide variety of signs and bullhorns, the group first rallied at the park, then marched around the park twice, and finally marched from the park across the street to in front of the district offices.

At that point, most impressively, new Superintendent James Hammond addressed the crowd. He told them this was a most difficult decision that they would have to make and that they will consider it very carefully. While, it was not exactly what the large crowd wanted to hear, there was an appreciation that the Superintendent was not hiding in his offices.

Some of the concerns raised by community members were also captured in a letter from the school PTA to the school district.

There were expressed concerns about the risk of commuting by students to other portions of town. The increased crowding of junior highs back to what it was before Harper (although I believe part of the plan is to move 9th graders to high school, so the problem of overcrowding might occur on the high school campus). There are fears that once the school closes, it might now re-open again even if budgeting would allow it.

One of the big concerns is that there has been no taskforce or planning for the closure of the school.

Proponents of Emerson site Education Code 17387:

“It is the intent of the Legislature to have the community involved before decisions are made about school closure or the use of surplus space, thus avoiding community conflict and assuring building use that is compatible with the community’s needs and desires.”

Just as the education code requires a 7/11 commission to sell off surplus property, so would it seem to require some sort of task force before closing a school.

A number of DaVinci High students both joined in the protest and had their own brief demonstration asking for their teachers and programs to be saved.

COMMENTARY

A few points of commentary that I want to raise at this point.

I listened throughout to people talking about the fact that the seeds for this district's fiscal mismanagement were laid in the past and the public did not pay sufficient attention. I agree with that. However, I do not think the public really understands the depths of those problems that should be laid firmly at the feet of past school boards, past administrations, and past policies. At the same time, I also do not think the public truly understands the work that the most recent past school board did to fix many of these problems.

Unfortunately, despite those efforts as outlined on this blog in the series on the former CBO, the school district has not been able to escape this problem.

Discussions I have had with people close to state government emphasize that the expectation that we will have the economic problem alleviated by the Democratic Legislature may be less than expected. It is unlikely that the legislature would impose 10% cuts, but everyone believes that painful cuts will occur.

That puts the onus on local school district. The Davis Schools Foundation was working hard to get additional pledges for donations. The raising of these one-time monies could be vital to helping to lessen the pain of such cuts.

The school board as we suggested last weekend, should consider an emergency ballot measure for temporary funding relief. I discussed this possibility one of the board members on Saturday and it is something that they are considering. The problem is that the public seems so angry right now that they may not be amenable to yet another tax increase.

I spoke to Freddie Oakley and she told me that such a ballot measure if it were mail-in only, would only cost around $50,000.

Some have floated the idea of recall, but frankly that is the last thing this district needs. First, it would be punishing the students in the form of more payments by the school district. It would also distract the district from other means in which to deal with the revenue problem. Finally, for the most part it would punish those not responsible for the bulk of the budget problem. We can all point to decisions by the board we disagree with, but on the whole, the current board has done a decent job given the magnitude of the problem.

Those who wish to punish the kids for the mistakes that some adults have made, might want to reconsider that. If we all join together, we can probably save the schools and programs that we all like.

The final point I would like to make is that while this may be frustrating for all involved--and I remain a strong supporter of keeping Emerson open as well as the Valley Charter School--I was impressed with Superintendent James Hammond. I remember how former Superintendent David Murphy reacted to criticism and protests. There is little doubt in my mind that he would have hid in his offices, as so many government officials would have done, waiting for the protests to end.

But James Hammond had the courage to address the hostile but generally polite crowd and while he could not assuage their concerns, I think he gained their respect in the process. It would have been nice if Board Member Richard Harris had done likewise but at least he and Board President Sheila Allen attended the rally and can report back to their colleagues tomorrow night the community's concerns.

We all have a stake in the future of Davis schools and we all have to pull together to prevent things like cutbacks in teachers, school programs, and closures of schools.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting