Thoughts & Updates
School Board Elections: Latest as of November 16, 2024
Here are the latest results as of the date indicated above. As of this point there were still an estimated 67,753 votes left to count in Orange County, of which Laguna Beach is an unknown portion. Votes cast for Laguna Beach Unified School District Governing Board Member at this point is 24,191.
Sheri Morgan = 5,622
Howard Hills = 5,531
Jan Vickers = 5,349
Lauren Boeck = 5,004
Margaret Mary Warder = 2,685
School Board Elections: School board member Jim Kelly apparently trying to sway votes on Election Day!
It has been reported to us that sitting school board member Jim Kelly at a PTA meeting on Election Day is misrepresenting residents’ and candidates’ positions regarding the high school pool modernization project.
He is inaccurately making FALSE public statements that local neighbors want to keep what he calls a 24 meter pool (guess he hasn’t been paying attention once again in class!) as is. He further claims apparently that the election will determine if the pool stays as is, or the current estimated $19 million plan expanding the pool to 45 meters and demolishing the bathhouse goes forward. What a bunch of hooey.
Sensible Laguna has worked hard to get agreement of the broader community - including neighbors - that a reasonable expansion of the current 25 meter pool was necessary to support aquatics programs. Nearly all neighbors agree a a huge swath of our 2,000 supporters also agree.
Sensible Laguna has ALWAYS supported an expansion of the current pool and we continue that stance.
It is truly sad that a sitting school board member feels compelled over and over again (read below) to tell outright falsehoods to try and gain some political advantage. Jim is buddies with Jan Vickers so perhaps this is another clear reason why change is needed to reset the public discussion.
Truly a pathetic display from an elected official on Election Day.
School Board Elections: SL responds to yet another hit piece by school board member Jim Kelly
Sitting school board member Jim Kelly continues his campaigning on behalf of the current board and its 34 year leader Jan Vickers in his latest Stu News lengthy LTE. His submission is as a “private citizen” but clearly he IS a board member supported by the district and defending the board. Recall Jim’s last letter that opened with the statement that he’s “not a fan of negativity” ….apparently that’s “directional” because he sure dishes it out!
1. He says “LBUSD is a high performing district…”, but there’s no reason to spin the data and not be transparent about areas that need improvement. With the top echelon of taxpayer funding available in the entire state it can, and should, be better. Why is he happy when our high school kids score an “OK” B+ (87.5%) in English language arts, a D (66.7%) in math and a very weak D (62.1%) in science in the latest state testing?
2. He says “Unified Board…”, yet a fundamental issue with the current board is their complete unwillingness to even consider opposing views. An elected group like this needs to encourage ALL opinions and not stack the dais with blind allegiance to the very school administration they are supposed to be overseeing.
3. He says “Transparent Governance…” yet, Jim’s defense of existing transparency is to site “bylaws created by elected community members”. These bylaws have been altered over the years to do just the opposite of increasing transparency and to transfer more and more power to the superintendent. It’s as if he’s saying the bylaws don’t allow transparency. If that is so then change them!
4. He says “Strong Leadership….”, yet LBUSD has the highest paid superintendent in the state by most metrics with three assistant superintendents. The board holds closed session reviews and continues to see increasing legal defense costs. Leadership without transparency to the taxpayers that fund everything is ridiculous on its face.
5. He says “Sensible Laguna’s single focus….”, yet Jim’s changed our “single focus” several times now and keeps moving the goal posts. This time he lands on the bathhouse rather than the pool as he tries to spin things again to get the last word. Jim still doesn’t understand it’s about spending and maximizing benefits for as many kids as possible. The pool project is the symptom not the the disease, there are several other “how does this help our students” teed up in the Facilities Master Plan (FMP) but since they pulled the pool completely out of that mix to expedite spending $19 million and separately funded it to avoid public scrutiny associated with a bond issuance, it required a focus.
6. He says “Character Matters….”, yet his claim he is “not a fan of negativity” is completely ignored by him and he goes straight into the gutter with disgusting lies. His disparagement of Howard while he was serving the country is sickening. Howard just returned home from serving in sensitive senior positions in the Executive Branch and Congress stands in contrast to the suggestion that he is not qualified to serve on the school board where he once even served as elected representative of LBHS students. The current board’s “character” is exactly what is in question when this very group showed who they really are after preparing to ship off special needs students until 150 residents banded together to force them to do the right thing. Some years ago they even defended the superintendent’s refusal to follow a courts decision (at taxpayer expense) until threatened with contempt. Apparently Jim defines “character” as “agreeing with me”.
7. He says “A Constructive Campaign….”, yet again the recurring drum beat that an opposing view is somehow disrespectful or attacking is absolutely ridiculous. Candidates are pointing out where they believe improvements are necessary and possible, provide data to support their claims, along with solutions to implement change. That is supposed to be how it works, but here again Jim seems to be angry no one is listening to his rants to just do what he says.
Sensible Laguna supports Howard Hills and Sheri Morgan for their “single issue” agenda. That agenda is to bring back a more transparent board, open to input from all sources, restore district-city relationships, improve scholastic results at all levels, be open to students of all needs, with prudent spending. I guess we’re guilty as charged.
School Board Elections: Steve M Stu News Letter to the Editor - Vickers Out of Touch
School Board President and candidate in denial
The LB School Board President Jan Vickers is not only in denial but may be out of touch with reality. Her latest “misinformation” LTE in Stu News states that the LBUSD Special Education programs were being maligned. I don’t think I’ve seen that at all. Just (stating) the fact that the district shut down part of the program. I have also seen the community rallying around one of their own.
It is well known that the Special Ed group is led by fantastic director Irene White. She and her team have done great work for kids at different levels and needs and have been advocates for parents.
In fact, Ms. White has been such a sympathetic voice standing up for families, I’m surprised she hasn’t been “let go,” like many others that have stood up for what’s right at the district!
Vickers keeps talking about confidentiality. Not sure what that is about, as I don’t think anyone has asked about revealing anything confidential. Again, hiding behind an excuse to not address an issue.
What she is not telling you is that there are dozens of parents that have had to retain attorneys, and many have actually sued the district for not providing adequate accommodations as per those federal and state requirements. We have been contacted by more than 10 families telling us horror stories about what the district administration has and is putting them through. It has cost families tens of thousands of dollars and counting. Not to mention the immense amount of stress it creates for them and their kids.
Vickers carefully crafts her words about the superintendent and board not being involved in IEP decisions. She may not remember that during those “avenues for appeal,” and when the attorneys are called in, Superintendent Viloria is right in there wheeling and dealing.
As far as the term “shipping,” sorry, but that is what parents and students think and feel. But the feelings of parents, students, the community and the city don’t really seem to matter to the district. That is shown in their actions.
In almost every one of Vickers’ letters and often from the dais, she manages to throw in a statement about “how we don’t understand,” or other demeaning statements. What we do know is that her 34 years on the board is enough. It’s time to get people on the board that will treat others with dignity, kindness, respect and understanding.
Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills will bring fairness and openness back to the district. It’s way past time.
School Board Elections: Stu News Letter to the Editor - Special Needs Kids
Morgan and Hills will bring positive change and better communication
When my daughter got to Laguna Beach High School, she entered a fantastic part of their Special Needs program, run by Mindy Hawkins. This “class” was amazing, and it helped lower capable kids train for jobs and everyday tasks. It was fun, educational and gave the kids a sense of normalcy they all wanted so badly. A few years after she left the high school, there was a year or so with no kids coming into that program, and the district quietly shut it down. Arranging for any new kids to be bussed out of town to other programs, including El Toro, was cheaper and less hassle for the district.
The value of having that program in our own town was priceless. Who knows how our daughter would have developed if she had to go out of town instead. It’s a hard enough path for the kids, not to mention the parents; why make it more difficult? That just shows you the disconnection the district has with the parents and community. With all the money this district has, it is shameful that the superintendent would eliminate such a program.
Just before school started this year, 150+ parents and students filled the school board meeting, rallied and raised their voices to keep a special needs student and her friend at the LBHS rather than send her and a classmate to El Toro. The parents stood up to Viloria and the district. Consequently, the girl and her classmate started school at LBHS with other classmates she has attended school with since preschool, including her sister. Those kids are now thriving!
Board President Vickers stated at that board meeting, don’t take it out on the board, because they didn’t know. The board should have known. The fact board members didn’t know that this program was not in operation is indicative of how the administration totally runs the district with no regard to the board, the community, or the kids. It’s time to fix what is broken. I am voting for Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills. They are talking about positive change and opening communication and transparency. That doesn’t sound that bad.
Bill Nugent, PTA – Strike Team Leader from 2008 thru 2017
School Board Elections: SL responds to yet another hit piece by school board member Jim Kelly
No need to fictionalize the differences
Jim Kelly, a current school board member, continues his campaign to misrepresent Sensible Laguna and school board candidates with his recent guest letter.
Frankly, I agree with much of Jim’s introduction of what “should” happen but then he goes off the rails with distorted and inaccurate statements.
Jim's first sentence says he’s not a fan of negativity, but he has written some pretty negative comments online and even in that letter. Anyone familiar with district board meetings (especially joint city-school) knows of Kelly’s obvious disdain for the city council.
No one from Sensible Laguna has EVER stated the high school pool cost $100 million. The original Facilities Master Plan (FMP) proposed by the Jan Vickers chaired committee (of 2 board members, 1 school power member, 1 trustee AND 16 others who DON’T EVEN LIVE IN LAGUNA) included a massive aquatic center as part of an overall $150 million FMP plan. Only after pressure from Sensible Laguna and others within our deep community contacts, did the FMP get reduced to a still whopping $100 million (of course the pool by itself is currently approved at $19 million)
No candidate or Sensible Laguna member requested confidential information regarding the district’s failure of a special education (or any) student. The request was to examine the POLICIES AND PRACTICES to ensure no other students are unnecessarily impacted.
The $10 million being allocated to fund the pool was sourced from prior years surplus operating funds that could (should?) have been used to provide needed educational programming. There are separate accounts specifically to address capital needs and general reserves. Spending and not spending money both contribute to fiscal responsibility.
I don’t speak for any candidate, but I’m certain Hills and Morgan support necessary investments in facilities that maximize benefits for the largest number of students. Comments from both indicate they support an increase in size and modernization of the high school pool. The accusation that they are on some sort of “power grab to undermine the democratic process” is delusional.
I would suggest there are an abundance of facts to separate the candidates…no need to make things up to confuse voters.
Vote for change or more of the same.
School Board Elections: Vote for Better Performance
Should the school district administration really brag about recent California Department of Education statewide testing results?
After all, it shows our kids received a C+ in English language arts (79%), C- in mathematics (70%) and D in science (65%).
No one should be content with barely “passing” because we want, fund, and deserve more for our kids.
Sadly, performance is even worse at high school.
Here, the same testing finds that while high school kids scored an “OK” B+ (87.5%) in English language arts, but struggled with a D (66.7%) in math and a very weak D (62.1%) in science.
That’s why the preeminent U.S. News ranking system scores college readiness for our kids, based on state-required tests and exams on college-level coursework, at an abysmal 48.5 out of 100. Laguna Beach High School college readiness performance ranks #211 statewide and #1,513 nationally.
Yet, our schools have fantastic taxpayer funding, ranking in the top echelon nationwide of per pupil spending at $33,700 and one of the lowest student-to-teacher ratios at only 18-1. Why then does maximum community support and opportunity for our children produce mediocre results?
It’s about weak leadership at the school board and district administration.
To try and look better, the district only compares results to Orange County, and they always use district-level metrics. This way younger grades can prop up weaker scores of high school students.
They certainly don’t compare performance to the best high schools in California or the country, because the issue would then be obvious.
Using a “marketing spin” subset of data is a huge disservice to parents, kids and taxpayers.
All parents want their children to have an educational experience that provides the best opportunity to get into the best colleges. The community also benefits when schools are strong.
Given 80% of residents don’t have kids in the school system, many are just not focused on this. They still remember a time when they and their kids went to our great “private school within a public-school setting.”
The data shows district leadership isn’t doing enough for our kids, yet the deeply embedded regime under President Vickers is fighting hard to keep power at all costs.
As you vote for school board trustees, consider that status quo candidates Vickers and Boeck have said publicly they support the current approach, think scores are fine, and do not see any issue here.
On the other hand, Hills and Morgan will bring change to improve things, lead from the front, and actively embrace community involvement.
Vote change for our kids not more of the same!
School Board Elections: Test Scores at Laguna Beach High
As residents consider who to elect for the two open seats on the Laguna Beach school board this time around, perhaps some data might help. After all, as famous management consultant and writer Peter Drucker said, “If you can't measure it, you can't improve it”.
Today we look specifically at U.S. News college rankings as one litmus test to measure how the current school board and district administration leadership are doing. We do so because U.S. News is considered to be the “gold standard” of college rankings. It is frequently used and cited when it comes to evaluating how schools are performing. Its data is also commonly leveraged by a majority of college admission teams to help them determine who will get admitted during a given year.
We note that we found it quite odd that despite this potentially large impact on our graduating kids, current school board president Vickers (who is running for reelection) made some unusual comments related to this. She stated at a recent candidate forum that since this scoring does not work well for Laguna, the school board ignores it. Check our video section to hear her comments for yourself. Ignoring the scores just because we don’t score at the top is particularly concerning, particularly when you consider how so many college admissions experts leverage this data to determine whether or not kids will be accepted into their colleges.
Since all parents want their kids to have the very best opportunities in life and education, we decided to look closer at the data to see what surfaced.
At a baseline level, Laguna Beach High scores a College Readiness Index for 2024 of only 48.5 / 100. To calculate this, U.S. News ranks schools based on their performance on state-required tests and internationally available exams on college-level coursework (AP® exams), graduation and how well schools prepare students for college. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be a particularly good score for our kids, so we decided to go deeper into the data.
Keep in mind that we spend $33,700 per pupil and have a very low 18 student to teacher ratio, so our kids have a huge advantage compared to other public schools.
The average for California spending per pupil is $18,020 and a student to teacher ratio of 22 to 1.
This means our kids get the combined advantages of community taxpayer funding support that is almost DOUBLE the average public school in the state and the added benefit of 18% better student to teacher ratios (much more time with teachers 1x1 than other schools).
This should give our children a big edge and we all certainly want that. However, despite such large key advantages, the data shows our high school ranks #211 in the state and #1,513 nationally.
For comparative purposes and to gain additional insight, we wondered what those schools that scored higher might be doing that ours was not.
Here we looked at the top performing high school just up the road in Riverside (Riverside STEM Academy). Interestingly, they spend a meager $12,907 per student (161% less than we do) and have a higher student to teacher ratio of 27 to 1 (33% worse than ours, so their teachers have much less time with each student). Despite this, their kids graduating from high school have a College Readiness Index of 94.2 / 100, which is nearly TWICE as good as our score.
We then broadened the comparison and took a look at how we performed compared to an average of the Top 10, based on multiple metrics that feed into the overall score.
Here we found 97% of this group on average took at least 1 AP exam (compared to only 57% for us); 90% passed at least 1 AP exam (46% for us); 91% were proficient in math (51% for us); 84% were proficient in science (52% for us) and 97% were proficient in reading (71% for us).
No matter how we score, it is important that the school board and district administration compare our performance to the very best in the state and nationally, as it aspires to raise the bar. It is time to stop seeking metrics and using peer group subsets that look to “spin” the data more favorably. The simple fact is that we have one of the very highest levels of spending per pupil and one of the best student to teacher ratios in the state (and even nationwide), so results should reflect that.
Leadership comes from the top and it is time for serious change at the deeply entrenched and outdated school board that has taken its eye off the ball and delegated its responsibilities and oversight to district administration.
President Vickers has been on the board and at the top for a whopping 34 years and this data certainly shows it is time to turn the page. Our kids deserve a chance to get the best education and opportunity possible. Perhaps fresh blood can help us at least move into the top 100 and then into the top 25 in the state and then we can begin to focus on how we are performing nationwide. We owe it to our kids!
Go here if you want to look more closely at school performance: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/california/districts/laguna-beach-unified-school-district/laguna-beach-high-school-2424
School Board Elections: SL responds to yet another hit piece by previous school board members
School board experience needed (October 11, 2024) - The recent letter to the editor from prior school board members is interesting, to say the least. While they are entitled to support whomever they prefer, it’s inappropriate and inaccurate to name-call other candidates “grievance candidates.” What’s becoming clear in this campaign is that most sitting and past board members consider any disagreement or opposing opinion disrespectful and unacceptable. The concept of civil discourse has been replaced with authoritarianism.
Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills are campaigning for “change,” fundamental change that is far from anything grievance-based. I’d have to agree that a vote for anyone else will simply result in more of the same. More fiscal irresponsibility as Jan Vickers chaired the original $150 million facility master plan. More top state-tier salaries for administration leadership. More turning a blind eye to the special needs of unique students. More average “or a little bit better” test results.
More “doing what we want” and ignoring parents and community members. More rubber-stamping administration requests and policy changes. More unchecked deferral of critical decisions to administration leadership.
Sheri and Howard’s only “grievance” is the quality and breadth of education for our children measured against the near-top per-student spending in the state. With our community’s amazing resources, LBUSD should be a top-performing district, as it once was. Morgan and Hills are the only candidates with the necessary experience, skills and Laguna Beach history to take the district from good back to great. They are both fully committed to returning the district to the standard of excellence our community deserves.
Letter to School Board on Swimming Pool Vote: Gary submits public comment letter
Public comment for Agenda Item 10 in the October 10, 2024 meeting (October 9, 2024) - LBUSD Board Members,
I’m not able to attend the 10/10/2024 board meeting that includes Action Item 10 - Approval of the Laguna Beach High School Pool Modernization Conceptual Plan. I support increasing the size of the current pool and modernizing the facilities. I would urge the board to reconsider approval of the current proposal until presented with a cost/capability comparison that reduces the expense associated with the actual building(s). Additionally, to move forward with the conceptual design absent an agreement (at least directionally) with the city for community participation could likely result in overspending that impacts other programs.
No costs were presented with this conceptual design and questions regarding costs from the prior study sessions are yet to be posted. Based on previous information and comparable projects the total cost of $20 million can be estimated split $5-6M for the actual pool (deck, equipment, lighting, etc.) and $10-12M for the buildings ($3-5 other). If a slightly smaller pool avoids relocating the bath house and saves millions, this proposed design gains 5-8 meters of water at a tremendous cost. Don’t get lost in “the land of large numbers”, $20 million is a great deal of money that could provide considerable student benefits.
A 35-40M pool meets the original objectives set out from the board. It addresses the ideal configuration for CIF water polo, supports multiple team practices, and expands the number of swim lanes. It is a very common size for high schools, is frequently being constructed, and is operationally efficient.
Importantly, I urge you to delay action until city direction is more determined. I know you dismiss it, but I’ll remind you of the city’s unanimous vote to pursue, with priority, a community pool. The city has started their FMP process and it kicks off in earnest in two weeks. Several aspects of the proposed building and the pool size itself remain predicated on city program participation. I (and many others) will continue to campaign with the city for a dedicated community pool.
The main point here is one of timing. The city process is clearly behind the district in planning for a pool. I would offer that the district has some culpability in that delay for not involving the city sooner in their FMP related pool plans. The city was, and is, the larger user of the current facility and was not part of the original planning committee. You can’t turn the clock back but you can add a few weeks or months to let them catch up. It would resonate extremely positively across all residents who want to see an improved relationship between the two elected entities.
Thank you for your consideration.
School Board Elections: SL responds to yet another hit piece by school board member Jim Kelly
Jim spins a yarn (October 4, 2024) - Wow, James Kelly Ph.D and school board member really knows how to spin a yarn. His 10/4/24 letter in StuNews is some of his best work to date. He puts forth just enough “facts” to mask reality. Jim and I don’t agree on a lot….and I’m OK with that. I believe we agree that our school district should be the best it possibly can for our students, our residents, and the community. It seems we disagree on how.
Jim likes to speak for the city, the PTA, the school district, the community, and now he wants to speak for Sensible Laguna as well. I thought we did enough on our own 😊but if he wants to join in so be it.
What I would suggest for those truly interested is don’t believe me and certainly don't believe Kelly. Instead, listen to the recordings, read the published materials, fact check the claims, attend the meetings, then decide. We publish A LOT of material on SensibleLaguna.org (SL) that clearly states and supports our positions. It has links to actual meetings, studies, and public information. I frequently publish my scripts for public comment and am always happy to do so. We are happy to chat with anyone about anything in a constructive dialogue.
If you want to read on let’s pull apart his most recent letter riddled with hypocrisy and likely constructed by the full time taxpayer funded public relations employee at LBUSD. I assume a “highly performing” school district needs a dedicated public relations specialist more than educational resources.
“LBUSD is the highest-achieving district in Orange County” - I suspect there is some data point that allows that statement. Check this website for actual data and comparisons done by state and outside agencies. It’s hard with any overall measurement to defend that statement. LBUSD is good but could be great.
“growing number of students transferring (in) from private schools” - What are the actual data points, was it one went up to two? How many transferred out? How many special education students had to leave to find acceptable programs? High school versus lower grades? Tell the whole story.
“…group’s so called “2,000 strong members were conspicuously absent” - he is of course referring to a study session meeting with the presentation materials previously published. The board does not allow discussion or even interactive q&a, so how many were simply watching online? It’s unfortunate that the only way to get Jim’s attention is for over a hundred angry parents to storm a meeting demanding a proper education for a special needs child. In this meeting (of course we attended to keep tabs), about a dozen folks spoke in favor of the pool and three spoke that alternatives should be publicly considered as fiscally responsible. Multiple polls, surveys, city council meetings, and school board meetings have made the public position clear; the board just chooses to ignore it.
“Steve McIntosh’s public comments focused on community’s use of the pool… - Essentially accurate quotes follow. The context, Jim leaves that out, of Steve’s comments were in response to the district (again Jim speaking for the city) saying there was minimal program impact by eliminating the kiddie wading pool. Most of the time the wading pool is not used for “programs” but for one on one unstructured play by infants and parents. Sensible Laguna has ALWAYS taken the position that shallow water and a wading pool are important to the community and respects the fact that the school district has no such need in their programs. That’s why we pressured the city to meet that community need.
“Gary Kasik commented, you’re building a pool for the school….” - another essentially accurate quote…conveniently leaving off the first words both Steve and I spoke, “I support a new, modern, expanded pool for our kids”. My point was simply that the school could fit essentially the same amount of competitive deep water into the current pool space, not demolish the bath house and save millions of taxpayer dollars or redirect those funds to educational programs.
“…hard to understand their real concern” - The concern is the same as it’s always been….a fiscally responsible and community compatible solution to meet district and city aquatic needs. The inability of the two groups to work in concert on a solution is resulting in overspending and unnecessary downtime for everyone. Jim has made his disdain for the city clear on multiple occasions and here it’s costing every resident tax money.
“Kasik’s claim that the city has voted to build another pool is misleading.” - Links to the city council meeting and exact quotes from the unanimous vote are on this website. The reason the city is trailing the school district is because the district intentionally excluded the city (a 90% user and paying 70% of operating costs) in the development of the current pool modernization project…now the city is forced to play catch up.
“While it is easy to criticize and perhaps easier still to propose solutions”. Basically, he is saying Sensible Laguna strives to avoid criticism without proposing options. Here again, residents need only take a walk through the website to see the level of effort to construct viable alternatives. The solutions put forth by SL actually provide more water, more scheduling flexibility, and no downtime for students and residents.
“Jan Vickers and Lauren Boeck - leaders who understand the complexities of our district” - After 34 years Jan has been given ample opportunity to turn that purported “understanding” into solutions but has chosen to relinquish board responsibilities to the superintendent. Lauren’s experience and understanding of this district’s nuances simply pales in comparison to other candidates.
“We should not waste time on petty arguments that consume staff time” - Translation; do not disagree with the board, we don’t have time to consider your input. This is only $20 million of taxpayer money.
School Board Elections: Steve M responds to District inhibiting free speech
District overstepping their bounds again (October 2, 2024) - At the start of the student-led Model United Nations City Council Candidate forum, a statement was read that said “At the request of the school board”, no questions will be asked about anything related to the School Board. We sat there stunned!
Once again, the District, led by Superintendent Viloria and 34 year Board President / Candidate Jan Vickers, showed their true controlling selves and flexed their muscles.
First, this is an attack on the first amendment. What kind of signal is being shown to all the students there? That it is ok to kill off any open discussion or statement, when it might show you in a bad light? They basically showed they can manipulate the City, by influencing the City Council forum!
This folks, is what goes on behind the scenes at the District and the Board. This one just happened to pop up in a public forum! Take note people!
When hypocritical old former board members get together to rally behind questionable and underhanded 34 year board member / candidate Jan Vickers and newcomer 3 year resident from Texas / candidate Lauren Boeck, who are in lock-step on District matters, they are all asking for more of this same type of behavior.
If you want open communication, transparency, discussion and to have an actual voice in the School Boardroom, then Vote for Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills. These two long-time residents are committed to bringing this district back to its full capability.
Through financial oversight, boosting special education programs, help fix the dismal High School math, science and college readiness scores by actually preparing our young adults for college, not just saying it. They will bring back all the arts programs and all the mid-level classes that allow kids to ramp up to AP classes that have been cut by Viloria. They want to give teachers and parents an actual voice in the process.
With $80 million of your property tax dollars going to this district every year, every young adult should be leaving this district with all the tools they need to tackle the world. With the current board, that is just not happening for all!
Vote for Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills for School Board. Do it for your kids!
School Board Elections: Gary responds to previous school board member hit piece
School Board Experience Needed (October 4, 2024) - The recent Letter to the Editor in Stu News Laguna from prior school board members is interesting to say the least. While they are certainly entitled to support whomever they prefer it’s not only inappropriate but inaccurate to name call other candidates “grievance candidates”. What’s becoming clear in this campaign is that the majority of the sitting and past board members consider ANY disagreement or opposing opinion as disrespectful and unacceptable. The very concept of civil discourse has been replaced with authoritarianism.
Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills are campaigning on “change”, fundamental change, far from anything grievance based. I’d actually have to agree that a vote for anyone else will simply result in more of the same:
More fiscal irresponsibility as Jan Vickers chaired the original $150 million facility master plan.
More top state tier salaries for administration leadership.
More turning a blind eye to the special needs of unique students.
More average “or a little bit better” test results.
More “doing what we want” and ignoring parents and community members.
More rubber stamping administration requests and policy changes.
More unchecked deferral of critical decisions to administration leadership.
Sheri and Howard’s only “grievance” is the quality and breadth of education for our children measured against the near top per student spending in the state. With the amazing resources available in our community LBUSD should be a top performing district…and it once was.
Ms. Morgan and Mr. Hills are the only candidates with the necessary experience, skills, and Laguna Beach history to take the district from good back to great. They are both fully committed to returning the district to the standard of excellence our community deserves.
Letter: Parents and community, wake up!
Laguna Beach Independent (September 27, 2024) - The mention of having meaningful dialogue with the district and school board is what the community has been after for years. Exactly what I think is not allowed. Go to SensibleLaguna.org for proof and details.
Only when there was a near riot at one of the district’s “check the box-after-the-fact workshops” and, most recently when 120 community members stood up for one of their own did we get the district’s attention.
When the public meets with district staff, information is delivered to LBUSD Superintendent Viloria, where I believe it is filtered, changed or tossed. Hardly an exchange of ideas or discussion. The same thing happens when a community member meets with a board member. Bylaws say constituents are to be sent to Viloria instead. Why have a board at all?
The community is only allowed three minutes of “prepared statements” at board meetings. It seems that meaningful conversations, openness, and transparency do not exist in the current regime that controls every aspect of district or board business.
The restrictive bylaws created or adopted by board president Jan Vickers and the interpretation of them have crushed the community’s voice. Exactly what kind of democracy is being demonstrated for our kids?
When the LBUSD administration uses the entire district in comparison to the rest of the state or Orange County, the 99 percentile is very deceptive. Comparing against the rest of the low-performing states is not what they should be doing. Compare to the best and strive to be better than them. This is just another cover-up of poor performance at the high school. In the current 2024 US News report, the 210 high schools that rank ahead of LBHS in California were all compared in the same timeframe. Including #16, Saratoga High School, with a slightly larger enrollment of 1160 with a 79/100 College Readiness score. LBHS’s college readiness rating is 48.5/100. They spend approx. $21,000 per student, compared to LBHS’ $33,000. Their current State CAASPP math test pass rate is 88.9%, while ours is 49.7 percent. Does anyone see a problem here?
Viloria’s pay is at $460,000, and it ranked number six in the county, with four schools. Others have 10 plus.
This and much more are why we need to vote for positive change with Howard Hills and Sheri Morgan for the school board.
Rebuttal: Gary responds to another hit piece by school board member Jim Kelly
I try not to directly dispute people’s positions as everyone is entitled to their opinions. That said, Jim Kelly’s opinion piece in the 9/12 Indy is going to be my “exception”.
In the first paragraph Kelly touts the importance of communication, dialogue, and constructive conversations. I’ve been literally begging for that from the board for 18 months. I get three minutes of public comment with no response and most emails are ignored or a delegated to staff.
No one asked for a disclosure of confidential information but over a hundred parents and students were petitioning the board for intervention, understanding, and compassion. What they got was a statement from the board president that said essentially “don’t blame the board”. To Kelly’s defense he does allow that “there are likely opportunities for improvement”. Yeah, I would think so!
Defying logic, public comment on agenda items are only allowed BEFORE staff reports. Understandably the staff presentation adds detail, color, context, and often corrections or clarification. So public comments literally have to guess on what will be presented. No matter really as comments are usually ignored anyway.
Kelly accuses people who disagree with him of “cherry picking data” then goes on to do just that. It’s just that unbalanced reporting that dictates groups like Sensible Laguna to represent the missing pieces.
Kelly correctly calls out the release of the FMP but fails mention the $150 million price tag or that community members were explicitly EXCLUDED from the original committee nearly a year before plans were released.
Kelly says “name calling obstructs opportunities for growth” then goes on to call me and Sensible Laguna unqualified, masked, NIMBY’s. We’ve made no effort to mask anything and our profiles are publicly available. Given we SUPPORT a bigger pool in the current location, Kelly may be confused on his NIMBY accusation. We do think being tax paying residents of Laguna Beach is the only necessary “qualification” to be heard by elected representatives.
Finally I’m embarrassed by Kelly disparaging Howard Hills’ call to service for his country. Disagree with Hills’ positions, fine. Even oppose the treaties he was tasked to construct, OK. But a call to service certainly does not void community commitment. If anyone wants proof of Howard’s positive comments to the board just listen to recent board meeting recordings; Kelly’s assertion is simply false. Hills even went so far as to say he would welcome the opportunity to work with existing board members.
I repeat that Mr Kelly is entitled to his perspective. He separates his comments as “personal” and not representing his position on the board, but how is that even possible? I’d suggest it’s this “how dare you disagree with the board” mentality that is at the root of the problem with the current board.
Kelly ends his piece with, “This article was written from his perspective as a private citizen and has nothing to do with his role as a board member.” Really? My comments are my own and have EVERYTHING to do with my role as a founding member of Sensible Laguna.
Sorry for being long winded…. I couldn’t help it.
Rebuttal: A response from Gary to Jim Kelly’s hit piece on high school pool study session
Don’t just believe the claims from the board members, check out claims for yourself.
James Kelly, Ph.D., makes some absurd claims, takes quotes out of context and mischaracterizes the September 26 LBUSD study session on the high school pool modernization. It seems he does this ostensibly to discredit Sensible Laguna.
One would hope that an elected official, sitting on the dais of a board that spends 26% of our property taxes, would have an obligation to report objectively rather than promote his agenda. Rather, Kelly puts on a stellar marketing spin that reads outside of his style…still it’s his signature.
If you’d like a full examination of his letter, see my detailed response above. But, please, don’t just believe me and for sure don’t believe Jim. View the recording, research scholastic results, examine rankings, read the studies, track the changes in district “needs,” review alternate solutions and form your own conclusion.
As for the meeting:
–There were about 20 non-district staff or consultants at the meeting. Not exactly an outpouring of support or opposition.
–Even with the small number of attendees, questions had to be submitted online, there was no dialogue and comments/questions were limited to three minutes without a response…standard board practice.
–Ten days later submitted questions have not been answered.
–There was not a single mention, not in the presentation or in response to questions, of the $20 million cost or how it’s being funded.
–Sensible Laguna repeated its support of increasing the size of and modernizing the pool.
What’s clear is that this board simply does not tolerate any difference of opinion, preferring instead to stifle or ignore resident voices. My three minutes, and multiple previous attempts, are simply asking the board to CONSIDER options that could save millions of taxpayer dollars, effectively meet student needs and to work in concert with the city.
Per Trustee Kelly, “We should not waste taxpayer dollars on petty arguments that consume staff time and divert focus from what truly matters – providing the best possible education for all.”
Spending $20 million on a pool for high school use is apparently petty and will help provide the best education for all. No need to consider options, no need to coordinate with the city. Sorry to offend the board, but I respectfully disagree.
Letter: Time for action
Laguna Beach Independent (September 13, 2024) - It’s likely the LBUSD board will soon approve moving forward with their $19 million pool upgrade. This will result in residents losing 75% of the current shallow water, parking, and, most importantly, the elimination of the beloved “wading or baby” pool. When the district starts demolition there will be no pool for anyone, students or residents, for nearly a year.
Had the city and LBUSD worked together, a coordinated plan could have addressed resident and student needs with no interruption for anyone…and saved taxpayers millions of dollars. While it’s clear the district didn’t involve the city in their initial pool upgrade plans, the public and the city were first aware in early 2023. Click here for more
Column: Details Matter
Laguna Beach Independent (September 6, 2024) - When I wrote about the Laguna Beach School District’s latest issue two weeks ago, it apparently struck a nerve because the district released its “attack dog,” board member Jim Kelly. It seemed like the district’s PR person wrote the statements and data cited in his letter to the editor and barely mentioned my article’s topic, special education.
It’s not the first time Kelly has been called on to go after community members and school board candidates. Emails from March 4 to 6, 2019, between board members Vickers, Normandin and Superintendent Viloria, obtained by the Public Records Act, reveal the plan to use Jim Kelly to defend the board, issue propaganda, and attack critics. Vickers writes, “Jim is in a good position to write the letter being new, whereas most of us know we will get a backlash….” Normandin wrote, “like the letter Jim wrote to the editor…” Viloria to Vickers, “Carol had some ideas that she shared…I meet with Jim at 3 p.m.…” Click here for more
Letter: What’s more important?
Laguna Beach Independent (August 23, 2024) - Congratulations to the LBUSD superintendent and his rubber-stamping school board members on moving forward with your “pool and classroom” improvements. Nothing is more important than pool improvements in a declining school district of 2,315 students with an $80 million plus budget and declining test scores.
Maybe we should add another Wellness Center to educate parents on how to parent their children or possibly a fourth assistant superintendent to institute more DEI programs… Click here for more
Council agrees to pursue city-owned pool, rejects LBUSD joint-use option
Stu News Laguna (March 15, 2024) - City Council this week reviewed community pool alternatives and unanimously agreed to pursue a city-owned pool and not follow a joint-use option with the Laguna Beach Unified School District.
Councilmembers voted 5-0 on Tuesday (March 12) to direct staff to explore options to build a new 25-meter pool at an alternate location that would be constructed, operated and maintained by the city. The alternative was to follow-up on potential joint use of a 50-meter pool planned by LBUSD or the council could also decide to pursue both options…. Click here for more