Just a reminder that we will hold two public forums this week. The first is Tuesday, Feb. 23rd at MES in the gym (not the cafeteria as stated in the flier that was sent home with students); the second is Wednesday, Feb. 24th in the auditorium in San Manuel. Both forums will begin at 6:00 p.m.
The main purpose of the forums is to explain how we will implement the plan of MES having a wing designated as a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) School and First Ave designated as a more traditional school with a STEM emphasis.
Advertisement
February 23, 2010 at 12:42 pm |
Will members of the board and staff be attending also? Or is it just for parents and community members?
February 23, 2010 at 4:39 pm |
The forums are open to all.
February 24, 2010 at 6:17 am |
Dr. Rickel:
What chaos at the Mammoth forum. What else can one expect? Seems that Mammoth residents always get the short end of the stick. As one gentlemen stated at the forum, ‘…for decades Mammoth residents have been sending their children to San Manuel.’ The board should’ve considered the breakup of a city with the closure of Mammoth Elementary? San Manuel has the junior high and high school. To be fair, Mammoth should have been considered and be left with something to have pride in, in this case it being the elementary. Look at the resources available at the Mammoth school? The forum was held at the school. Obviously, there’s one downfall to First Avenue already…tonight’s meeting can’t be held there! No room! You know as well as I do that great students come out of Mammoth Elementary. After the meeting, a parent said they heard you say, under your breathe, that Mammoth students are most of the problems at the junior high. I, however, did not hear this comment nor do I know if it was actually said. If it was, maybe you and the board should take time to get to know Mammoth students because I do not believe this statement to be true. I work with the seventh graders and it’s not fair to say the problem kids come from Mammoth OR San Manuel schools. Problems come from both schools. Who’s keeping record of this anyway and why? What would be the reasoning behind such a record? Dr. Rickel, you need to understand the residents being upset. This closure was thrown at them without their input. Couldn’t this have been something the people voted for or against? Include all involved. . .San Manuel and Mammoth residents. Maybe the vote would have been to close First Avenue, who knows?
February 24, 2010 at 7:24 am |
I adamantly deny that I said anything about Mammoth students being most of the problems at the Jr. High – or anything negative about any of our students. I have never seen records that break out discipline statistics based on residency.
Yes, I expected parents to be passionate about decisions that affect their students, and I understand that. I disagree that this is a case where Mammoth “gets the short end of the stick.” STEM was announced from it’s inception as a way to showcase Mammoth. I have little doubt that had STEM all of a sudden been put in San Manuel that the Mammoth residents would have been complaining that once again San Manuel gets everything.
As I said repeatedly in the forum last night, I believe both schools have the capacity to hold our K-6 population. While people continue to disagree, I have no purpose to propose a plan that will not work when students show up next year for school. So, given that both schools have the capacity and we can not keep both schools running as they are, the thought process was: 1) Mammoth would get to have the STEM program as promised; and 2) we would be busing half as many students from Mammoth to San Manuel than if we bused from San Manuel to Mammoth.
As for considering the breakup of a city “with the closure of Mammoth” – Mammoth is not being closed. A school closes when the gates to the school get locked up, the windows get boarded up, the doors get sealed shut, and students and staff no longer use the facility. As I said last night, I believe the time is coming that either First Ave or MES will have to be closed, and when that process begins we will gather as much input from the community as possible.
I stated in an earlier post that communication is always an issue and I clearly didn’t do a good enough job. However, to say that there has been no public input is inaccurate. I went to every school in the fall of 2006 warning this was coming. I presented our financial challenges at the August 14, 2007 Governing Board meeting. I assembled a Financial Advisory Group which began meeting on September 27, 2007 and ended with their recommendations to the Governing Board on December 11, 2007 after the group agreed there were no more options to look at. I held a community forum in San Manuel on September 11, 2008; and one in Mammoth on September 25, 2008 to discuss this issue and solicit ideas. I presented an update of our budget challenges at a Governing Board meeting on February 10, 2009. I started this blog on February 24, 2009 in an effort to communicate. At the March 24, 2009 Governing Board meeting I again warned of the financial challenges and recommended a public hearing on closing a school. On April 28, 2009 the public hearing was held to share information and gather input. At the Governing Board meeting held on June 9, 2009 the financial challenges were again discussed and the Board voted to close Ave B. In addition, I have made community presentations to Rotary, to SaddleBrooke, and to the San Manuel Historical Society.
You are correct in pointing out that my recommendation to find a way to keep both schools open – and not close one – was made without community input. That is my responsibility as Superintendent of this district to make recommendations to the Governing Board. But to state or even imply that my recommendation was made without attempting to gather staff and community input is unfair. For four years I have worked to gather as much input from the community as possible. As I’ve said many times, no matter what decision is made it is going to make someone unhappy; and knowing that, all I can do is use the information I have collected for the past four years and make the recommendation I believe is best for the entire district.
February 24, 2010 at 9:51 am |
Maybe we could consider combining our school district with Oracle? Then we could greatly reduce our administration costs in both districts and be looking ahead to meet further anticipated cuts. Two superintendents salaries could become one, as well as support staff. This could happen with minimal, or even zero, disruption to our classrooms or our teachers. The greatest cuts in both communities would be within the administration and we could make sure that each community has proper representation on the board. Two district offices could become one and we could have the TRI-communities consolidate resources and make our district even stronger! The turf-wars could end and we could have more choices available to ALL of our students. We could implement the STEM schools in all of them and come together with our children’s needs put first in all of our schools. The TRI-COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT could save all three of our communities schools by combining our administration resources and giving our children the greatest educational opportunities possible!
I also would like to know why the empty schools in San Manuel are not up for sale??? Could we not generate some revenue from the sale of vacant buildings when we foresee such declining enrollment??? I am told that San Manuel is looking to position itself as a retirement community. I have often seen closed schools that have been remodeled and made into apartments. Seems like there may be an opportunity there for some-one to create some retirement living apartments. And the school to generate some much needed revenue from the sale of those buildings.
We realize that drastic cuts are coming…but I do not believe that every alternative has been exhausted.
February 24, 2010 at 5:21 pm |
The idea of consolidating districts with Oracle was attempted just prior to my becoming Superintendent. Under current law, the only way that can happen is if the voters approve that. The last time it was attempted it was overwhelmingly defeated. If the economy continues to decline I agree with you that this option should be considered again, but getting voters to approve it will be a challenge.
As for selling (or leasing) a building, the district is open to that. I have been informally approached by the Copper Corridor Economic Development Committee on a couple of occasions regarding them attempting to attract businesses, and have also been approached about leasing Ave B. Should someone become serious about utilizing a building, the voters must approve the sale of a building and a lease of more than 5 years. The problem is that the economy is difficult on everyone, and business expansion is limited right now – especially in San Manuel.
One important thing to note: if a building is leased or sold, that revenue can not be used to help the district budget. It can only be spent 1) to reduce school district taxes, or 2) to reduce bonded indebtedness. Since our bond is paid in full this year, the only way the money could be spent would be to reduce our school district taxes. The purpose of sharing this information is not minimize the importance of reducing taxes, but rather to dispel the rumor that leasing or selling our buildings will offset our cuts.
February 25, 2010 at 10:14 am |
I would really like to know if you are willing to give the parents of the Mammoth children a chance to come up with another solution to the budget problem. There are over 400 parents insisting that the board take another look at a solution.
February 26, 2010 at 5:47 am |
Yes, provided the plan absorbs approximately $350,000 and is as good or better than the one presented. That means that it must fit the framework that is guiding these decisions. Specifically, it must protect student academics, it must protect student programs, it must disrupt the same or fewer number of students as the one presented, and it must impact as few employees as possible.
February 25, 2010 at 2:08 pm |
Dr. Rickel, I’m a graduate of SMHS and currently have two children attending FAES. My husband and I attended both the Mammoth and San Manuel meetings and neither of us heard you say the things you were accused of saying. None of your statements were derogatory towards anyone. I think it’s easy to have selective hearing when one feels threatened, and that may have been part of what was coming into play. I heard you say “mentality” last night, and I know some folks were immediately provoked because they heard it as ‘mental capacity’, I was thinking ‘way of thinking’, but also had visions of the previous night where it felt like mob-mentality was in effect; I was actually surprised there wasn’t some sort of security in place at the auditorium after the feel of the atmosphere Tuesday night. (and kudos to the one seeing, with hindsight, the need for a microphone for the attendees; I’m sure had the first meeting been in SM and the need for a microphone been noted, there would have been one made available for Mammoth’s meeting.)
I’m sorry you feel you need to keep apologizing for not communicating with the community. I don’t understand where everyone, who seems to be so passionately against how things are turning out, has been for the past couple of years. I remember reading your shout-out to anyone who had any feasible ideas for ways to save the district some money being printed in the Miner almost two years ago. Yes, I admit, I don’t go to school board meetings or forums typically, and this is my first visit to your blog, but I do read the Miner, and I know you’ve been working on this for a few years now. I don’t envy what you’re dealing with at all. I do appreciate that the current plan to keep Mammoth elementary open with the STEM school, and First Avenue with the rest of the children, will disrupt as few students/families as possible. I will also honestly say that if it were the other way around, and 2/3 of the children lived in Mammoth and 1/3 were from San Manuel, I would kiss my kids and put them on a bus to travel the distance to MES to attend class in OUR Mammoth/San Manuel UNIFIED School District’s elementary school.
In looking at the number of teachers needed for the STEM school to run as planned, and FAES to be adequately staffed, with the potential couple of teachers retiring or moving on, it seems that only one, or possibly two, teacher(s) might be seeking other employment after the move. I do have one question for you. Next year when the 80 – 100 lottery-chosen children start at the STEM school, if, after their interventions (if needed), some are still unable to meet the 75% criteria and are sent to FAES, what will become of the teacher in Mammoth? The plan is for 5 teachers with a Lead, but what happens if a couple months into this, 20% of the student population needs to step out of STEM? No, I’m not being a pessimist, just a devil’s advocate here. It is my hope that the proposed STEM school is a GREAT success, and we’re opening other wings at MES in the future to accommodate more students because of the success of the state’s first STEM elementary school. I’m just wondering if the initial students don’t continue to meet the criteria, will they stay the whole year and move to FAES the following year, or will they leave after the interventions are deemed unsuccessful? And if enough do move, what happens to the teachers put in place to teach those students who are gone and can’t be replaced because of the five-week cutoff for enrollment?
February 26, 2010 at 6:12 am |
Thank you for attending the forums and for your understanding.
You pose a good question and one we talked about during planning as well. First, we are very confident that this program, combined with the student and parent commitment, will be successful. Our failure rates are not currently that high and we just don’t foresee them exceeding what we have now.
However, to answer your question, staffing for next year is set this spring based on the number of teachers needed to maintain the targeted class sizes. Traditionally, staffing has not been adjusted down during mid-year should student enrollment decrease below the targeted ratio, and unless there was a severe decrease in enrollment, it won’t be next year either. The reason we have been able to do that is because the budget is set based on the previous year’s enrollment. Because of this lag time, any adjustment necessary can usually be made in the following year.
That being said, two things are happening that may end that practice. First, prior to these past couple of years, the legislature had never taken money away from us mid-year (money they had already given us and we planned on having). If that continues as I suspect it will, we may have to make staffing decisions mid-year. That is why, starting last year, all of our contracts have clauses in them stating that furloughs, reduction in salaries, and termination due to economics are all possible.
The second thing that may change our practice is the legislature is currently looking at changing funding for K-12 from the one-year lag to real time. That means that our funding would be based on the students we currently have in that current year, not on what we had the previous year. I’m not sure this will pass because they haven’t been able to figure out the details of how to make that work, but it continues to be looked at.