Read it in full..
Mr. Sid Bailey's Resignation Letter from Cave Creek Unified Schools
Our only commentary is one of disappointment. He was a strong advocate for the high school, yet he apparently did not have the strength to put up with the media and the governing board, both of which have been in place before Mr. Bailey arrived.
This also appears to be a loss for Dr. Ashby as she removed the prior Cactus Shadows principal and had a great deal of input in the hiring of Dr. Bailey. You may also remember that many felt the other candidate for the position (Dr. Diana Lindsay from Connecticut) was more qualified.
Either way, it is another let down for the district.
Actually, some of the governing board were there when Mr. Bailey was hired. The past election and the addition of the Christopher Verde board members changed the face of the board since he was hired as principal. The past election also completely changed the board interaction and not for the better.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the large single high school WAS a proposition of the LRP. They had looked at all facilities in the district and realized that with the demographers numbers (and we can argue until we are blue in the face as to whether those numbers are right or not, but they are at least well-researched), we were going to need an additional elemenatary school (keeping the school size numbers we are committed to in the district and these have NO RELATION to SFB numbers) and middle school. The numbers showed that they could build a single new high school and repurpose Cactus Shadows and CSHS East to fill the additional two school needs. The overall savings on the bond to building 3 new schools was $30 million.
The bond was so large because there have been years of just barely getting enough in bonds to do what is needed--again, no upgrade, renovation monies for existing schools included--that there was a strong voice on the LRP that we needed to finally address existing schools. Existing schools have gotten so bad, largely in part to a lack of maintenance $$ and to the lack of bond support for maintenance. Those repairs and upgrades were the largest part of the bond--the power lines -- don't even let me go there -- were included as well because the committee was informed that all the parents down south were really concerned about the power lines (they were not informed of this by board or administration, but by other parents on the committee) and that if the power lines were NOT included in the bond, then the parents from the southern schools wouldn't vote. But if the power lines were included, they'd come out in droves. Since the parents outnumber the residents of Carefree and Cave Creek combined (if they vote), then having the power lines would help ensure the bond passing. Well, the power lines were on the bond and it FAILED and the parents in the south did not vote at all.
As for the beautiful new fields. I was informed it is because the district had money available in a certain account that could only be used for "grounds" and not for maintenance, but for upgrade and renewal. I'm sure BMES has much greater needs than a new soccer or baseball field, but they were informed the funds could not go to electric/HVAC/roof/building renovation, etc...It had to be "grounds". Since the BMES PTO does a great job of maintaining the grounds (just look at how CSHS East looks now that the PTO isn't taking care of it), there was some disappointment, from what I hear, that the funds were so restricted in use.
Thank you for printing the entire letter.
ReplyDeletehoneymom
We were not on the LRPC but clearly their work was not directed initially on a large single high school. See the governing board meeting miutes from 12/12/06...
ReplyDelete" if the Board prefers a single,
large high school as identified by Option #2, then consider master planning the south campus for a large, single high
school, and phase out the north campus to elementary, middle school and administration functions only. Plus/deltas not
developed."
Seems obvious to us that the SSHS option was forced upon them.
The failure of the bond to pass was not due to the inclusion of the power line provision any more or less than with the inclusion of tot turf or the high school monies. It was due to low voter turnout. Why the low voter turnout? The encouragement utilize mail-in ballots and the lack of a strong enough "single-item" issue in which to raise a rallying cry throughout the voter base.
ReplyDeleteSometimes it is better to emphasize what you will lose rather than what you will get. As many noticed, participation in meetings and forums increased when parents and students faced losing programs and teachers faced losing jobs. Those that felt strongly for the movement of power lines or tot turf most likely did vote--they are the same community members who participate in all CCUSD matters. These numbers will never be enough. A way must be found to influence those who are at the margin of participation or do not participate at all.
Negative. Negative. Negative. It's easy to sit behind a computer monitor and criticize. ANYONE who has the audacity to criticize Sid Bailey should be hugging a cholla with their face.
ReplyDeleteThis "Blog" was probably created by the Sonoran News. Virtually NOBODY reads this stuff. If you simply take the time to read all of the comments from the beginning of the year, you will see that this site is only frequented by a few anonymous people, the same person sitting and typing over and over and over, and the CCUSD Watch person (whom I think works at the Sonoran News, a true piece of pulp fiction disguising itself as a valued news source.)
If the 5 or 6 of you who regularly visit this site have so much time on your hands, so much knowledge, and so many answers, WHY DON'T YOU RUN FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD????? Then you could make all of the right decisions all of the time, turn the school district into educational Nirvana, and dine regularly with Don Sorchych, who also seems to be omniscient.
Change requires effort. Instead of propagating this nonsense, why don't you actually do something constructive and helpful?
- Steve Becht (not anonymous)
Having worked with Sid Bailey, I can tell you that his departure is not a loss. Sid Bailey did nothing to contribute to CCUSD or CSHS. He was a hypocrite and a pompous fool.
ReplyDeleteHi Mr. Becht,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post.
We have no connection to the Sonoran News other than they have printed some of our letters to the editor. If you look at many of the positions we have taken, you may have noticed that some are quite contrary to positions of the Sonoran News.
As far as our 5 or 6 readers, according to our webmaster we get 80 to 100 unique visitors and 200 to 300 page views per day.
Feel free to stick around and help us correct our nonsense and propaganda.
Dear Steve Becht,
ReplyDeleteBefore CCUSD Watch basks too much in the glory of their web hits, please note that there are many involved parents who have determined not to let their negativity go unanswered. Hence, we have become more involved. Also, every once in a while, CCUSD Watch says something that makes sense. It is too bad that they have determined that it is more productive to undermine our schools through sensationalistic journalism instead of working within the process (or to change the process) to effect change.
honeymom
Dear Watch,
ReplyDeleteYou are right that you cannot run if you are a district employee or spouse. Here is a list of school board responsibilities according to the Arizona School Board Association. I am printing them to try to stimulate a more productive conversation with you.
Specific Duties
Specific duties of school boards may relate to employment, purchasing, budget preparation, students and policies. They may include:
Hiring and evaluating the district superintendent.
Providing guidance in the development of the budget to ensure funding needed to meet board established goals.
Approving the budget.
Monitoring the budget.
Setting salaries for employees.
Approving purchases.
Establishing and approving policies.
Approving curriculum materials.
Adopting the school calendar.
Reviewing regulations for compliance with policy.
Approving personnel actions based on the superintendent's recommendation.
Closing or constructing schools
Assessing board effectiveness.
Monitoring progress toward goals.
Mandatory duties of school boards are defined in A.R.S. §15-341. Discretionary powers are defined in A.R.S. §15-342.)
What School Board Members and Boards DON'T Do
School board members DON'T:
Implement policy; school boards make policy and superintendents carry it out.
Manage the day-to-day operations of the school district; school boards see to it that the district is managed by professionals.
Evaluate staff, other than the superintendent, nor do they become involved in employment interviews, other than those for superintendent.
Which duties do you think that our school board is not fulfilling on this list? Where do you see more latitude for the district boe?
I'm sorry that I do not have a sense of humor over this stuff, but belittling our school district is not productive. Also, what you see is horrible, is not horrible in many of our eyes. There is always room for growth/change in any school district and I think that our district needs to grow and change.
So I will try to corral you back to more productive matters. I have learned over the years that there is a place for policy and following policy. So let's start by addressing procedural matters with the boe. I have seen complaints on this site (I think some from you, but may have been from other posters) that the school boe is not discussing enough important (i.e. curriculum matters).
Other than the fact (and I still thank you for pointing this out) that there is too much infighting, too much needless policy discussion when policy is clear), I think that some of the areas that you want to see addressed are out of the boe jurisdiction. What is your take given the guidance that I have posted?
honeymom