Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Reject Measure N: Saying NO to Mediocrity in Davis Schools

53f4c4e4-420f-4c08-be22-76663ad72ee0I asked ChatGPT to write a letter against Measure N, based on the Yes on N letter in the Enterprise by Liz Stelow.  I then asked it to generate a headline for a newspaper submission.  Then I asked an AI image generator to make a piece of accompanying art, using their "zombie apocalypse" filter.  The result follows, a first generation with no revisions or edits.

Reject Measure N: Saying NO to Mediocrity in Davis Schools

Measure N claims to be beneficial for Davis schools, Davis kids, and Davis property values. But letā€™s face it, itā€™s not great for anyone.


Sure, people love living in Davis for various reasons, but the idea that this measure will improve the situation is laughable. The list of supposed enrichments provided by Measure N reads more like a wish list than a realistic promise:

  • Music and other arts? More like budget cuts and outdated instruments.
  • Elementary science teachers? Good luck finding qualified ones with the proposed budget constraints.
  • Reading specialists and librarians? More like dusty shelves and outdated resources.
  • Athletic programs in junior highs and high schools? Donā€™t expect any state-of-the-art facilities or equipment.
  • Career Technical Education? More like a crash course in disappointment.
  • Co-curricular activities like robotics and journalism? Expect more cardboard and duct tape than cutting-edge technology.
  • Counselors and nurses? Youā€™ll be lucky if theyā€™re even around when you need them.

These programs might have been funded significantly through an existing parcel tax, but renewing this support with Measure N only continues the cycle of mediocrity in Davis public schools. Without Measure N, the so-called annual deficit of $12 million might actually force the district to reevaluate its spending and prioritize essential programs over frivolous expenditures. Imagine that!

Davis residents might have a consistent 40-year history of supporting local education through parcel tax measures, but maybe itā€™s time to break the cycle of blindly throwing money at the problem. Those with children in local public schools might see some token gestures of improvement, but letā€™s not pretend itā€™s anything substantial. As for alumni recognizing the value of their foundation provided by Davis schools, well, they might just be remembering through rose-tinted glasses. And those without school children seeing their support returned in their home values? Letā€™s not even get started on the real estate market in Davis.

Investing in great schools may create great people, but Measure N isnā€™t the way to achieve that. Itā€™s time to say NO to perpetuating the illusion of excellence and demand real change for our communityā€”both in Davis and beyond.

Vote NO on Measure N to break the cycle of mediocrity in our schools!

Sincerely,

Your Skeptical Neighbor

Posted by

Alan C. Miller

on

in

Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

14 responses to “Reject Measure N: Saying NO to Mediocrity in Davis Schools”

  1. Tuvia ben Media-ocracy

    This is just average lazy. If you want to be deep lazy you have to get Chat GPT to invert the references as well. Not sure how that works exactly, but certainly students at Davis schools would benefit from deconstructing this newest media plague. It would probably also be good to start teaching transportation planning earlier, while people are still formally car free, in other words that they don’t have driver’s licenses.
    I also generated this comment using Chat GPT. I added various inputs which would result from a Davis high school student learning to build a time machine and then traveling back in time and giving Hitler a high wheeler bike, thus changing his life.

    Reply
  2. Colin Walsh

    The home values argument ChatGPT came up with is interesting. I am not a real estate expert, but based on what I see fewer people with kids are moving to Davis, and fewer people in Davis are having kids. The population of kids who go to Davis schools that live in Davis has dropped considerably over the last 20 years. Add to that the easy interdistrict transfer option for any kid whos’ parent work inside the DJUSD school district boundary (think UCD, one of the largest employers in the state of California) allowing large numbers of families to go to Davis schools without living in Davis. I just don’t think the quality of Davis schools is driving home prices the way it once did.

    Reply
  3. Donna Lemongello

    A lesson in the absurd. (Not AI generated)

    Reply
  4. Ron O

    Meanwhile, in Michigan:
    “A new legislative effort in Michigan could eliminate property taxes for homeowners and businesses in the state should the issue manage to get into the November 2024 ballot.”
    “The proposal, dubbed AxMiTax, comes from Michigan real estate agent and small business owner Karla Wagner, who told Newsweek that she wants to eliminate property taxes “because people can’t afford them anymore.”
    “With the high cost of living and everything else that has gone up, we are losing way too many homes, farms and businesses in Michigan,” she said. “People are leaving Michigan because of the high cost of living here.”
    “According to Wagner, a Kent County resident and former volunteer sheriff’s deputy, “if there was no property tax, rent would be more affordable because the landlord wouldn’t be paying property taxes” anymore, and would pass those savings on to their tenants.”
    “The same thing with home ownership,” she added. “If there’s no property taxes, people would be able to actually buy a home here in Michigan, and we would retain the people in Michigan that we need for the state to survive. And more importantly, people would come back to Michigan and businesses would come flocking into Michigan because there’s no property tax.”
    “We’re taxed to death here in Michigan. We can’t afford it anymore,” she said. “We have the high cost of gas, groceries, utilities, prescription drugs and ever increasing property taxes.”
    “I’m all about community welfare and this and that, but not at the expense of someone losing their home because they’re paying for a library service for someone else,” she told Newsweek.
    “Government never wants to lose a revenue source. They say they need the money but it’s time all these entities (government and schools) become fiscally responsible,” AxMiTax writes on its official website. “By eliminating property taxes we not only regain true property ownership but give each citizen the ability to reevaluate how their money is being spent.”
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/property-tax-could-be-scrapped-for-millions-under-new-proposal/ar-BB1izPqf?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=668ffbd3f7e148eab010ce90d6c03ec2&ei=69
    (Appreciate the sentiment, but someone should tell this real estate agent that the fees her organization charges to buy and sell houses are an enormous part of the problem. Can’t help but wonder what she’d think of Davis property owners paying for 1,200 out-of-district students, though.)

    Reply
  5. Ron O

    I agree with Colin’s comment, above. Then again, Davis schools were never a consideration regarding my connection to Davis or to the area.
    Per Colin’s comment, it also appears to be less of a factor for many newer residents.
    The “K-12” system describes (within the name itself) the maximum number of years that any individual student attends a school system. And it isn’t long, in the scheme of things. (Though it seemed much longer, when I was in that system.) Unfortunately, those who work for the system realize that they need a continuous supply of “fresh meat” to keep their jobs, so to speak.
    But unless every family moves out of the community within a maximum of 13 years of entering the system, households will continue to “age out” of it. (This is not unique to Davis.) This is also the reason that most of those associated with DJUSD support the ongoing Ponzi scheme of endless continued growth (and/or poaching of students from surrounding communities).
    But perhaps most-importantly, “size” does not equate with “quality”, from a community’s perspective. I believe that most people would willingly pay for quality, as long as size was addressed – regardless of whether or not they have kids in the system. But apparently, that’s not “good enough” for many of those associated with the district. Ultimately, no one likes to lose their job – even if that’s what’s best for the community at large.
    Of course, the parcel tax would actually go farther on a “per student” basis, if there were fewer students in the first place.
    As David Greenwald likes to say, don’t be “afraid of change”.

    Reply
  6. Alan C. Miller

    As David Greenwald likes to say, don’t be “afraid of change”.
    Actually, all the assholes like to say that šŸ˜

    Reply
  7. Ron O

    We’re continuously told that housing is “too expensive” for families, rather than the more-accurate reality that it doesn’t turn-over quickly-enough to meet the desires of a school district that is “highly resistant to change”.
    And yet, even the school district acknowledges that the supply of new students commuting in from less-expensive communities is not going to be sufficient in the future – for the same reasons that enrollment is declining within Davis.
    It’s really disappointing to see some on the council and school district in “lock-step” promoting what is essentially a lie – which is behind much of the push for continued growth in the size of the city. I don’t know why anyone would support or believe it, other than those whose jobs may be at stake.
    The problem is with the size of the school district, not the size of the city. And yet, this is the opposite of the claims promoted by city and school district representatives.
    Of course, the other reality that the city and school district fail to acknowledge is that the entire model is based upon new families (with young children) “replacing” those who have aged-out of the system in a manner that’s quick-enough to provide an endless supply of new students. But since there’s also fewer people having children, there’s no guarantee that those moving in (to existing or new housing) will even have school-age children.
    The Cannery, for example, did not provide the hoped-for amount of “fresh meat” for DJUSD. But even if it (or any development) actually did, it’s only a TEMPORARY supply until they too age-out of the system (and then “fail” to be displaced from their homes).

    Reply
  8. Colin Walsh

    The CA Department of Finance is projecting more than a 10% decrease in school enrolment in Yolo County before 2033. I think the important thing to understand is statewide decline in birth rates and immigration are driving this decline. One way to put it is the babies needed to maintain enrolment have already not been born.
    With such a steep decline in Yolo County (and the larger region) there is no way Davis can keep hiding the local davis student enrolment drop by bringing in students from other cities. If Davis does keep importing high levels of students it just means Davis is forcing schools to shut down in other cities instead of Davis which is frankly a pretty awful thing to do.
    https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/public-k-12-graded-enrollment/

    Reply
  9. Ron O

    Dave Hart: “The forces of ā€œMe Firstā€ have always been active in our community. Iā€™ve long feared the day when general economic conditions would tip toward favoring their simplistic, small-minded, fearful and selfish political outlook. Letā€™s hope weā€™re still some distance from that here. But if they are able to motivate their tribe we shouldnā€™t give any of these individuals credit. Political leadership needs to get out there and campaign much further in advance of elections than one or two months.”
    https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/02/sunday-commentary-independent-expenditure-by-harrington-targets-measure-n-parcel-tax/#comment-478528
    Glad to see he’s finally realizing the harm done by some of those associated with the school district. (“That’s a joke, son.”)

    Reply
  10. Hiram Jackson

    If I’m understanding ChatGPT, if the school parcel tax were rejected, then the schools will no longer be mediocre, but excellent instead? Then the schools will be even more excellent if we cut their funding to zero?
    ChatGPT needs more work to make more coherent arguments.

    Reply
  11. Alan C. Miller

    I asked ChatGPT to respond to Hiram’s comment and defend “it’s” stance. This is the first output with no edits:
    Dear Hiram Jackson,
    Thank you for taking the time to engage with my letter and share your thoughts. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position.
    To address your concerns, my argument is not that rejecting the school parcel tax will magically transform schools from mediocre to excellent overnight. Rather, it’s about challenging the notion that simply throwing more money at the problem without addressing underlying issues will lead to meaningful improvement.
    By rejecting Measure N, we’re advocating for a reevaluation of priorities within the school system. This doesn’t necessarily mean cutting funding to zero or depriving schools of essential resources. Instead, it’s about demanding accountability, efficiency, and a focus on initiatives that truly benefit students and foster excellence.
    Improving education requires more than just financial investment; it requires strategic planning, innovative approaches, and a commitment to addressing systemic challenges. Rejecting Measure N is a call to action for the community to push for these fundamental changes.
    While my arguments may not have been as clear as intended, I hope this response provides a better understanding of my perspective. Constructive dialogue like this is essential for progress, and I welcome further discussion on how we can collectively work towards improving our schools.
    Sincerely,
    ChatGPT

    Reply
  12. Alan C. Miller

    Here is a refined response by ChatGPT, after I fed it the text of the ballot measure as well as the arguments and rebuttals for and against:
    Dear Hiram Jackson,
    Thank you for engaging with my perspective on Measure N. I understand your concerns and appreciate the opportunity to respond, especially with the additional context provided by the full ballot text.
    Firstly, I’d like to clarify that my argument isn’t about rejecting the parcel tax to magically transform schools overnight. It’s about ensuring accountability and efficiency in how funds are allocated to truly benefit students.
    While Measure N promises to maintain quality programs and services in Davis schools, it’s crucial to scrutinize whether these promises align with the needs of all students. The measure outlines specific areas of focus, but it’s essential to consider whether it adequately addresses the diverse needs of our student population.
    For instance, while it mentions maintaining programs in science, technology, engineering, math, reading, and writing, it’s concerning that vocational education isn’t explicitly included. Similarly, the measure doesn’t address the needs of students with special needs due to poverty, disabilities, or immigration status, which raises questions about equity and inclusivity.
    Furthermore, the perpetual nature of Measure N raises concerns about accountability and adaptability. Unlike previous measures that required periodic evaluation and voter approval for renewal, Measure N locks in a plan without room for adjustment based on changing needs.
    Additionally, the argument that rejecting Measure N would lead to immediate excellence in schools is oversimplified. It’s about demanding a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach to education funding that prioritizes the well-being and success of all students.
    In conclusion, my aim is not to dismiss the importance of funding for education but to advocate for a more nuanced and inclusive approach that ensures every student has access to quality education. I hope this response clarifies my position and encourages further discussion on how we can best support our schools and students.
    Sincerely,
    ChatGPT

    Reply
  13. South of Davis

    When Colin writes: “If Davis does keep importing high levels of students it just means Davis is forcing schools to shut down in other cities instead of Davis which is frankly a pretty awful thing to do.” I can tell that he is not a Davis teacher not worried about losing his job. As the trend of people having less kids in CA continues I expect that the DJUSD teachers will need put even more parcel taxes on the ballot so they can actually pay to bus kids into Davis to avoid closing a Davis school and cutting jobs. We are not going back to the 50’s where many families had 4 kids or even the 80’s then most couples in their 30’s had at least 2 kids so it would be smart to plan for a smaller district (but in the past 20 years I have seen zero interest in even talking about anything that will result in a smaller district with less people on the payroll).

    Reply
  14. Ron O

    ChatGPT is apparently much-more polite than what you find on some blogs and Facebook pages.
    But it doesn’t seem to know that DJUSD poaches students from other districts, rather than downsize. I see that this is also not mentioned in the ballot arguments, though it has been pointed out by others (not just me).
    I predict that Measure N will pass, regardless. The “its’ for the kids argument” is powerful in Davis, and those who aren’t subject to paying for it will overwhelmingly vote for it.
    As a result DJUSD will continue to maintain its size, and will seek even more money (e.g., as the available supply of non-resident students won’t keep up with DJUSD’s demand – which they’ve already acknowledged).
    And these same people will continue to advocate for sprawl (in a hopeless, self-interested attempt to maintain enrollment size), with the council’s full support.
    But my guess is that their “proxy war” with Beth Bourne will subside, after Measure N passes. A rather cynical view is that they’re using that issue to help win support for Measure N.
    “Davis is for everyone” – except for those who question the school district.

    Reply

Leave a comment