SMCISD Election Interview & Finance Report: Juan Miguel Arredondo

Printable PDF Campaign Finance Report

 

 

Juan: Obviously our school board is divided. I think for the past several years there has been this four three split, and I think finding common ground is a way to unify our school board. How do we find that common ground? I think looking at our test scores and at our levels of student achievement there is no denying if all 8th graders are proficient in math I mean there is no denying that. That is something we can all get behind and support, so I think looking at our test scores and our statistics as a school district and coming together and acknowledging these realities is a way for us to unify ourselves as a board. I think the possible election of three new trustees in May; three new perspectives, three new voices without any baggage or history with any current board members is a good thing.  I think it kind of reinvigorates our board. The top four most tenure board trustees represent over 50 years of continuous service, and I think there is a fine line between seasoned leadership and then stagnation on that school board. We are forgetting the priority which is student achievement and fiscal responsibility, but I think finding common ground is the first thing we have to do to unify our school board. I think we find common ground and get rid of that baggage by electing three new trustees this upcoming May. 

 

 

Juan: I think a board is responsible for setting a vision, setting goals, drafting a plan, setting benchmarks and objects. As a superintendent they are the professional who has the education, has the certification, and has the research and tools to make that vision possible. I think in regards to leadership they should be our school board that is providing the direction for our school district, and it is our superintendent who should take that direction and do what is necessary whither it is initiating curriculum or initiatives within the schools to actually make that possible. I think there has been an inverted relationship in regards to superintendent and school board in our school district. I think our superintendent had led board meetings. I think it has been the administration’s vision for a number of years, and there is a reason why we elect school board trustees. It’s because we hold them accountable. So it should be our school board that sets these goals and sets this vision and it should be our superintendent that implements that vision and achieves those goals.

 

 

Juan: The format of board meetings concerns me. I’ve been to a number of board meetings, and I’ve seen that our superintendent for the most part leads the board meetings and our president kind of offers some axillary roles to facilitating discussion and dialogue. I would be very interested in supporting a new seating chart or arrangement of our school board where all administrators of the school districts sit together very much like our city council does, and having the board and the board president sitting at the head of the dais. Our school board is held accountable by the voters and that is who should be leading the meetings. Yes it is a team of eight, but only seven of those team members are elected by the public and those are the ones whom should be having this dialogue at our school board meeting. It should be the administration that is taking direction from that school board.

 

 

Juan: The money has already been spent so there is no selling the score board back unfortunately. I don’t agree that the money should have been used from the fund balance. I think that if the score board was a priority for our school district and for our administration it should have been put to the voters just like Propositions One and Two were on the last bond election. If an almost million dollar score board was supported by the community then they would have voted for it. I would have liked the voters to weigh in because it was their tax dollars. I think using fund balance which is tax dollars that have been saved over the years is kind of circumventing the will of the voters by not allowing them to weigh in. I would and do not support that they used fund balance to buy that score board. The score board is there, and we as potentially elected trustees to be are going to support the decisions of the prior board, but personally would have not voted to use $850,000 dollars from the fund balance for the score board especially when we refuse to hire teachers to alleviate student to teacher ratios for the past several years. Class sizes have gone over the state mandated 22 to 1 ratio. I find it hard to swallow that we can spend $850,000 dollars on a score board but we cannot hire new teachers to keep class sizes smaller.

 

 

Juan: I think we need to have a conversation whenever spending from fund balance is called into question of whether it is a want or a need. I think fund balance should be used for necessities and not for luxury items. I think that is a decision that the board has to make, but long term it should be for things that impact the classroom and student achievement. I think a new weight facility or a new score board is not something that will have tangible and measurable effects on student achievement.

 

 

Juan: I think single member districts allow for more accountability. It allows for people to represent from their geographic regions and neighborhoods. Unfortunately, right now as a voter in San Marcos I can only elect three school board trustees. I cannot elect four, so as a community member I cannot effectively transform that school board and elect a majority to move our district into a new direction. I think that is a problem. It is a long conversation about how we elect our school board trustees in San Marcos, and there is a very controversial lawsuit that happened several years ago that set up the way our current school board is elected. Personally, I would prefer if we had three at-large trustees and then four single member district trustees because voters in San Marcos could elect a majority to that school board.

 

 

Juan: Ironically enough I was one of those candidates who ran in 2012 and advocated for the televising of school board meetings. At the time the offer on the table was that we could use city hall for free, and here we are three years later and several thousand dollars spent and we are just barely now live streaming school board meetings. I think transparence is a good thing. I think community engagement is a great thing, and we should do more as a school district to be transparent and to get our community engaged. Personally, I hope that within the first 60 days of my term we will be televising school board meetings. I think action needs to be taken quickly. It should not take three years for things to change in our schools. We have to keep in mind that every day that progress isn’t being made our kids are attending these schools, and we need to do better today not several years down the road.

 

 

Juan: First, I don’t think this is acceptable at all. When I graduated from San Marcos High School in 2010 only 50% of San Marcos was college ready in math and English language arts. Now several years later we see our scores have down and that is a very big problem. I think acknowledging that it is a problem is a very big step. A majority of our school board trustees and even district administration advocate that our test scores are improving and our school district is moving forward. I would like to see the statistics that support that argument. I think just having the conversation is a big step in the right direction. A five year strategic plan is something our school board needs to endeavor to initiate and approve. We don’t have benchmarks measuring us from where we have been to where we are going. I think establishing a definitive plan with actual initiatives, curriculum, and financial support that moves that plan forward and achieves these benchmarks is something that we are going to have to do.