As we begin a new month we continue to wait to see what will happen. However, it is important to remember that everything being reported in the media are recommendations and ideas. Nothing about the budget has been approved yet. In case you have not followed these proposals, here is a summary of where we are today.
The Governor’s proposal included the following things that would directly impact us: funding a 0.9% increase in students and provide a 1.3% inflation factor for FY2011; suspend the new utility funding formula again for FY2011; reduce soft capital by $180 million for FY2011 (a 25% increase in the soft capital cut from FY2010); eliminate funding for full-day kindergarten; continue the suspension of funding for the Building Renewal Formula for FY2011; withhold 3 months of payments to us until after July 1; and eliminate state grant programs for AIMS Intervention, Adult Education and GED, Chemical Abuse, Disabled Pupil Scholarships, Compensatory Instruction Fund, Gifted Support, State Early Education Block Grant and teacher training.
The Legislature proposal for this year includes the following things that would directly impact us: not paying us for 3 months until after July 1; sweep any cash balances; and suspend all soft capital funding for this year. For next year, the Legislature proposal includes: a lump sum reduction (no specifics given); provide no base level increase; suspend soft capital funding; eliminate funding for full-day kindergarten; reduce the school year by 5 days; and phase out the teacher experience index funding.
Again, let me emphasize that these are ideas being presented at this time and nothing has been approved. One area that is gaining a lot of attention right now is the Governor’s recommendation to eliminate the state grants. The proposal is to eliminate funding for these programs effective January 1, 2010. This means that if the Legislature approves, we would lose 50% of our funding for these programs for this year (FY2010) and all of the funding for next year (FY2011). You might have read where districts are in the negative if they make these cuts retroactive to January 1st. In our district we manage those grant monies such that we are not in the negative and will make it through the remainder of this year without interruption to services or cuts to people. We do this by spending only the money we actually receive; and remember, by spending our cash last year, we positioned ourselves to take unexpected cuts like these.
In my last post I talked about the possibility of the “Maintenance of Effort” (MOE) not having to be adhered to because the stimulus money was already spent. Just recently a correction was sent out stating that the stimulus money has NOT all been spent – therefore it appears that ignoring the MOE is not an option at this time.
What does this all mean to us? We won’t know until they start approving some of these proposals. But based on what is being discussed, I am still confident that we will be able to get through this year without reducing staff or salaries. As for next year, I am working on presenting some options to the Governing Board at the February 9th meeting. Once I get some guidance from them I will post an update here and also meet with district employees.
February 3, 2010 at 10:19 am |
Just wondered if any thought has been given to the 4 day week, since we have heard of Arizona districts and other states using this method to reduce costs. I heard that Hawaii had gone to a 3 1/2 day week for the whole state, but haven’t had that verified, altho’ that sounds pretty radical.
February 4, 2010 at 2:56 pm |
A four-day school week has always been part of the discussion, and will continue to be part of the discussion. As stated in a previous post in this blog, the guiding principles I have used to make these difficult decisions have been: protect student academics, protect student programs, minimize disruption to students, and impact as few employees as possible.
A four-day week has not been part of my recommendations to this point because I feel there have been other choices that are more closely aligned with the four guiding principles mentioned above. Research is unclear whether a four-day week has a positive, negative, or neutral impact on student achievement; the longer day would be disruptive for some students – especially the really young kids that ride a bus and the older kids that must work to help support their families; and it would severely impact support staff employees. Additionally, while an argument can be made that it is not our responsibility, I maintain that having our children in a safe, positive environment for five days a week (and providing what may be their only meal of the day) ultimately has a positive impact on what is our responsibility: to educate our kids. At some point, as our choices become more and more difficult, a four-day week will likely be given more consideration.
February 12, 2010 at 9:37 am |
Dr. Rickel,
Our principal has informed us that the school board has voted to make Mammoth Elementary a “wing of STEM”. What exactly did the school board vote on and what were the other options that the school board could of voted on? Since the vote has already been made, I am assuming that there is a plan in place as to where Mammoth students are going to attend school next year, right? I just want to add that I ask these questions as a concered parent of a Kindergartener and a first grader that attend Mammoth Elementary and not as an employee of the school district. We just need to hear the facts about what is going to happen next year so that we can prepare our children for such a change.
Thank You
February 14, 2010 at 3:01 pm |
The Governing Board voted 5 – 0 to implement the plan I presented, which was to keep a wing open at MES and designate it as a STEM school. The options presented to them were 1) try to find another solution (other than my plan); 2) start the process of closing either First Ave or Mammoth Elementary; or 3) accept my plan so that we could then finalize the STEM details.
We do not have a final plan as to where Mammoth students will attend next year because I was waiting on Board approval to proceed. It is my hope that within the next two to three weeks we will hold two public forums (one in Mammoth and one in San Manuel) to discuss details of how this will be implemented next year.
It is important to remind everyone that we, just like the rest of Arizona and the entire United States, are facing severe financial challenges in the next couple of years. In this school year alone, we had $567,000 less of a budget than the previous year. Based on our actual student count through January 15th, 2010 (the time period used to determine our next year’s budget), we know we will lose another $227,322 next year just because of our decreased enrollment. We also know that we will lose another $200,000 in stimulus money at the end of the school year next year. In addition to what we know we will lose, we can anticipate further cuts by the Legislature to K-12 education. While the Governor and Legislature have not agreed on a budget for next year, both have proposed cutting funding for full day kindergarten, which would be a $181,479 loss to us. They also have proposed another cut to soft capital which we estimate to be $131,000.
These are very, very severe cuts in addition to cuts that have been made over the past two years, especially given that our budget is approximately $6 million. As our choices of how to deal with these cuts become more and more difficult, it is important to remember that our focus is to provide the very best education possible for our students. Every option that has been discussed over the past few years has been closely evaluated. I firmly believe the one the Board approved is a fiscally responsible plan consistent with the framework established to make these tough decisions; and that it keeps the focus where it should be: on our students.
February 16, 2010 at 12:50 am |
Seriously??? You have made a board decision regarding our children without knowing where they will attend school next year?? You can anticipate further cuts, yet you do not know where you are going to send 250 young children to school. The fiscally responsible plan was obviously lacking a plan. How can you call this fiscally responsible without knowing where and how 250 students will be attending school next year? Not to mention the teachers. Where is the focus? The vote seems entirely premature or the board lacks any confidence to create their own plan. This reeks of a school closure. I do not envy your position in these economically tough times, yet this behind-closed-doors methodology is less than ideal from a parents point of view. I want to know where my children are going to school next year and by whom they will be taught.
Mother of a 4 year old and 6 year old…I want the truth and all the reasons for it!
February 16, 2010 at 6:38 am |
I appreciate your frustrations and as stated earlier, we will have details as soon as possible. Being fiscally responsible and implementing the plan are two different things. The amount of cuts that I posted in this blog are real, and while many people read those numbers, most do just that: read the numbers and don’t associate them with our reality. The Board understands those numbers are very real, and have very real consequences for us. The plan is fiscally responsible because it allows us to absorb the cuts we are facing. That was the Board’s role – to make sure we are fiscally responsible. It is my role to implement that plan. There are currently 343 students at First Ave and 209 at Mammoth Elementary. Obviously with only one wing open at MES designated as a STEM School some will remain there and some will attend First Ave. The reason one wing was set as the maximum is because that is the most we can accept, absorb the cuts, and still keep both schools open. The details of how which students and staff will be selected to attend the STEM School are what we are working on right now and will have public forums to discuss within the next few weeks. The only behind-closed-doors methodology has been me working on preparing a plan based on the information I have. This process, as painful as it is, has been completely open and honest starting in the fall of 2006 when I first presented a PowerPoint to each building warning that these difficult times were ahead and that we needed a plan. Between then and now, a financial advisory group was formed to make recommendations, numerous PowerPoint presentations have been given, discussions at Board meetings have taken place, public forums and hearings have been held, and this blog was created. I’m not sure that it is possible to accurately communicate to everyone’s satisfaction, but I will continue to try.
February 16, 2010 at 8:52 am |
I do not see in the minutes of the board meeting for February 9th any mention of the 5-0 vote to implement the plan designatng MES as a STEM school with one wing open. This is confusing.
February 16, 2010 at 8:32 pm |
We inadvertently sent the draft of the minutes, not the minutes that had been proofed, to the company that hosts our website. The correct minutes have been sent and should be posted tomorrow.
February 16, 2010 at 11:23 am |
I was not at the board meeting and last I looked there was no summary of what was presented so I’m just off and running on what I’ve heard through the grapevine and what was posted above.
I’m wondering why make MES the STEM school? It would be (in my mind) better to make MES the elementary school and FAE the STEM school. Here is my logic for thinking this.
MES has the same number of classrooms as FAE but FAE has one room used as a cafeteria, one room used as the library and another room used as the computer lab. MES has a separate cafeteria which is capable of serving many more students then the cafeteria at FAE. Currently, the cafeteria at FAE struggles to keep pace with demand. MES’ computer lab is in a separate building as well so no classrooms are being waisted there. The library at MES could easily be moved into the MPR freeing up another classroom at MES. Thus, MES has a 3 classroom advantage over FAE with no additional cost and the larger cafeteria.
Bonus MES also has a full gym that can be used for assemblies as well as PE.
Speech Therapy at MES has its own small room that is too small for a classroom but just right for speech. However, Speech at FAE has to double up with TAG/Intervention so again there is another room that is available for a classroom or at least less crowding. My office at MES is also separate little office in the main office where as at FAE i’m sharing a space in a SpEd room. Again MES has the opportunity for less crowding.
The workroom at MES could become the Teacher’s lounge (makes sense since it is connected to the cafeteria) and the existing lounge, with a little work, could become a small classroom for TAG/Intervention or rented to Head Start. Which would free up another two classrooms. Head Start uses two classrooms. The lounge and Joyce McClungs room could easily accommodate Head Start if converted properly. This would cost some money but would free up two classrooms. Of course something would need to be done about the sewer stench that has been a problem with that room for years– but I digress. Again reduced crowding at MES over FAE.
I’ve heard that the STEM school would have 80 students. It would seem to me that MES could accommodate the 470 remaining students easier then FAE could. The only advantage I can see of having FAE the elementary and MES the STEM school is fewer students transported on the bus and a more centralized administration. But given we make money on milage the transportation may not be a plus for FAE.
I just do not see how FAE can accommodate 470 students unless the current 5th grade (next years 6th grade) goes to the Jr/Sr High. Which is a large group of students. But then again there is a problem of highly qualified teachers for the Jr/Sr High to teach 6th grade.
Well Just my two cents.
February 16, 2010 at 8:36 pm |
All of the issues you raised were reviewed and considered. I understand that no matter what plan is presented some will agree and some will disagree. Thanks for your comments.
February 16, 2010 at 6:13 pm |
As a parent of a child at Mammoth Elementary School, I am extremely upset by the possibility of shutting down a wing of the school. I am not only worried about the kids being disrupted, but also the teachers and other staff members. What will happen to their jobs? What will happen to their families? Have they had a say in what decisions are being made?
Also, Mammoth Elementary School is a wonderful facility, with fantastic resources, such as a nice gym, computer lab, and library. How does it make sense to underutilize those resources which are already available? In a time where funding is scarce, shouldn’t existing resources be taken full advantage of?
I hope, but do not yet trust, that decisions are being made with integral input from members of the community and with their best interests at heart. I had heard about the possibility of changes, but I never thought that it would go this far. How can I get more involved in the decisions that are being handed down?
Sincerely,
Jamie Wolgast
February 16, 2010 at 9:24 pm |
At the local level the most important thing you can do is stay informed. There are many ways to do that, including attending Governing Board meetings, attending public forums that we hold, reading articles written in the San Manuel Miner, and reading this blog. It is also important to pay attention to what our Legislature and Governor are doing to K-12 education funding, and let them know if you disagree.
None of these decisions are taken lightly, and because of the severe financial challenges our district, our state, and our nation face, we have exhausted the easy options. While we are always open to new ideas, we have been planning for this since the fall of 2006. For the past four years I have solicited ideas through public forums, through a “financial advisory group” made up of district employees representing each school and employee group, through this blog, and through building and staff meetings. In the very first PowerPoint I presented in the fall of 2006 I predicted this situation was coming and stated that we needed to prepare a framework to guide us through these difficult times. That framework was established before we got to this point so that we would make the best decisions possible based on the framework, not on emotions. That framework is that we try to stretch the resources we have as long as possible; and use the principles of protecting student academics first, student programs second, minimize disruption third, and finally impact as few employees as possible. As the financial challenges continue to get worse (see post from earlier today), each of these principles become more and more difficult to protect. Unfortunately we are at a point that no matter what decision is made, someone will agree with it and someone won’t. The message was very clear in the last public forums I held: Mammoth residents were supportive of any cuts that impacted San Manuel and San Manuel residents were supportive of any cuts that impacted Mammoth. That is human nature – I would expect any staff member and parent to advocate for their position. But the reality is it is no longer possible to continue to do things exactly as we have done them. And that includes keeping both Mammoth Elementary and First Avenue entirely open when Mammoth is operating at 30% capacity. The only viable alternative that would allow us to absorb the cuts of the magnitude we face next year is to entirely close a school like we did Ave B last year.
We are working hard to put together details of the plan approved by the Board and will be holding public forums to explain those details. I am hopeful that those forums will take place as soon as next week. As soon as dates are selected we will announce them through this blog, in the Miner (time permitting), on our district web site (MSMUSD.ORG), and with notices sent home with students. I encourage you and everyone to attend.
February 17, 2010 at 7:43 am |
Although I do not live in Mammoth, my son has attended Mammoth Elementary School since 2007. Only once have I been notified of a public forum by the district. I would have been involved long ago, had I been better informed. I am positive that I am not the only one.
Jamie Wolgast
February 17, 2010 at 9:20 am |
Dr. Rickel,
After reading Dr. Wiseley’s posting it seems that since we HAVE to make the conversion it would be more logical to make First Avenue the stem school since Mammoth Elementary can accommodate a higher number of students. Could you share with us the reasons why the board voted to make Mammoth the stem school and not First Avenue?
Thank you,
Luisana Castillo
February 17, 2010 at 7:51 pm |
I agree with the previous post. I have also tried to remain informed and i cannot find any information regarding this. Maybe you could point out where this particular alternative had been made available for public information.
I have read the entire blog history, the full minutes of the board meetings, and attended all of the public forums and hearings that I was aware of and/or available. My understanding was the Financial Advisory Group was formed and met from September 27, 2007 until March 13, 2008 and since then, has ceased to meet. The recommendations that were put forth previously I was aware of (school closings). I did not see any mention of closing all but one wing of MES and designating it a STEM school. It seems like a rather monumental decision that may have been more widely accepted had it been openly discussed or communicated to the parents, community and faculty. The “details” which you refer to in the previous posts are our children.
The reality is on all of our minds as parents. Homeschooling and sending our children to other schools is something that many are discussing if not doing so already. Both of my children have already attended pre-K in Oracle as a result of the lack of resources available to us here in Mammoth. Taking away the little resources we do have only widens the gap and hurts our community as a whole.
As for the implemention of a STEM based school I would only welcome more progress towards it. Yet I would suspect that the availibility of it to only select students might create even more problems. I also would like to add that I am pleased that this is not a full closure of our school.
Our family relocated here and chose this location partially due to it’s proximity to the school here in Mammoth. Of course we could not forsee this budget crisis at the time, but it surely is worrisome to now be faced with busing our young children to another community when they have just adjusted to this one.
I think we all understand the budget is causing drastic measures to be taken. I think what seems clear is people are upset by the nature in which this has taken place. None of us were aware that at Tuesdays board meeting you would be changing the community and the fate of our children. If fact, nowhere do the board meetings minutes even mention it, which you stated earlier was and oversight. I also agree with others that the MES facility is better suited to handle more children and will be under-utilized with only one wing open.
I would also like to know what is happening with Pre-K in this scenario. Are they included in this move?
February 24, 2010 at 9:17 am |
I attended the very heated public forum last night in Mammoth. I can’t believe that the decision to make Mammoth the STEM school and San Manuel the main elementary school, is based solely on numbers of students disrupted and having to be bussed. While Mammoth Elementary may have fewer students, this decision does not just affect them, it affects the entire town and community as a whole. When did you lose sight of the big picture?
San Manuel already has a Jr High/High school that is a resource for its community. If you take the school away from Mammoth, what will the community have? I know that Mammoth Elementary will still exist as a STEM school, but that will only serve 35 students from Mammoth, plus a hand-full of home-schooled kids.
Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of a STEM school, but as a program that would augment a traditional school, not replace one. This whole STEM idea is just a smoke screen to divert attention from what you are really doing, which is intentionally and eventually getting rid of Mammoth Elementary all together.