By Patric Hedlund

The superintendent of El Tejon Unified School District stood before KBAK television news cameras on Monday, Aug. 20 to say that ETUSD “has had declining enrollment for 10 years” and “has lost over 50% of its students.” The TV news anchor began the story by saying, “El Tejon Unified School District has seen better days.”

An hour later, 55 parents, teachers and concerned community members filled three passionate hours—from 7 to 10 p.m.—telling consultants from Sacramento what they envision for the future of their “beautiful district,” adding that “we do not trust the board of trustees or the superintendent to tell us the truth.”

KBAK’s reporter didn’t check the facts. Records from the California Department of Education show that enrollment at ETUSD schools was 1,433 in 1997 and 1,422 in 2002. It was 1,020 in 2011-12—a 28% decline.

Last week, 929 students registered for the 2012-13 school year. Over 10 years, that is a 34% decline—big, but not “over 50%” as broadcast by the superintedent—the bulk of the loss is within the last three years. In the same time, neighboring Gorman School doubled from 47 to 98 students—all those students transferred from homes previously served by ETUSD. No children live in the Gorman Elementary District. The K-6 facility now serves only as a "school of choice." The choice is as an alternative to ETUSD’s offering.

From 2002 to 2004, ETUSD saw a growth spurt that slowly waned. The steep loss began in 2009-10—coinciding with the economic recession, state budget problems, hiring of an untested superintendent and layoffs of parents whose children were attending the ETUSD schools.

Superintendent Katherine Kleier’s attempt to kill the intermural sports program at Frazier Mountain High School two years ago, when she was very new, was met with outrage in the community and the loss of more students. Since 2009-10, 372 students have been lost.

Parents formed carpools to transport athletes to games, saving the sports program by cutting $80,000 in bus expenses from ETUSD’s budget.

On Monday, parents told the consultants their perceptions of what has contributed to a sharp drop in ETUSD enrollment. They mentioned an erosion of cherished elective courses at the high school, such as drama, music and vocational arts, coupled with increasing class sizes, concern about layoffs of good teachers and staff. They also mentioned what parents such as school board candidate Lark Shillig and parent Joe Flores have characterized as an abrasive administrative style exhibited by some board members and the superintendent.

A school secretary argued Monday night that “people are leaving because of high gas prices and lost employment; they are going to places like Arizona.” Many parents objected, saying students are still living in the Mountain Communities, but parents are choosing to homeschool or place them in Bakersfield, Taft or Santa Clarita school districts.

They discussed their aspirations for their school district, and their distrust of the current administrator and board. At least four candidates for the upcoming school board election were participants in the discussion. Parents and community said they were apprehensive about why the consultants had been hired for $14,500 by the district.

“You’ve been hired to help close down a school,” several parents charged. Consultant John Storey of Public Consulting Group protested, saying they were here to do a “facilities assessment.” His partner in the project, architect Tim Haley, also said they were evaluating school facilities to provide greater information “with objective eyes” to the ETUSD Board of Trustees.

Jerry Rogers of Piñon Pines expressed skepticism about the mission of the two consultants from Sacramento.

“This $14,500 is just a donation of money to your firm from our district and at the end the report will go to the board and they will make the decision they intended to make all along. You will make no difference,” Rogers said. Others said the consultants were a “smokescreen” for the administration “to hide behind.”

Demographics

In a striking show of hands, 50 said they had lived in the district for 10 years or more and all but four said they owned their homes here; 29 currently have children in the district’s schools. Others have grandchildren in local schools. Still others said their children have gone to district schools and that they have a financial interest in maintaining a good school system here, “because everyone’s property values depend on a reputation for good schools here.”

They rated their school facilities as “good” overall, while mentioning a number of deficiencies. Most appeared realistic about the need to temporarily close a campus. They showed pride in their schools. They also showed great confidence in the resilience of the area, and said they are certain that the additional school will be needed again in the not-too-distant future.

The two consultants toured the district’s campuses on Monday and Tuesday. They invited parents and community members to meet with them to walk the various campuses. They also said they hoped to be able to talk candidly with teachers and maintenance personnel during their visits. Parents asked if the consultants would have administrators along with them, who would inhibit the ability of employees to speak freely. They said people fear losing their jobs. The school secretary spoke up again to protest, saying employees did not feel intimidated.

The group expressed concern about where the data from the report will go. They asked if it could be released to the newspaper for publication in full. The Mountain Enterprise agreed to post the full report for the public when it is available, estimated to be about November.

Next week we will give a detailed summary of the public’s comments about school facilities.

Postscript note—This cutline is with the images above. It mentions Supt. Kleier’s note to The Mountain Enterprise saying she would attempt to correct her error, which was broadcast county-wide on Monday, Aug. 20 just before parents came together in the meeting reported above. Five days later, by Saturday, Aug. 25, there was no correction on the KBAK-TV website which continues reporting the story, and the misinformation, as originally misstated by Superintendent Kleier. : 
This graph shows the California Department of Education (CDE) enrollment figures from 1996-97 to 2011-12. We’ve added Superintendent Kleier’s ballpark figure for enrollment August 15 for 2012-13. Unfortunately, Kleier did not check these facts or do the math before going on television to describe her district. To her credit, she says she has now revised her information and will send a note to KBAK TV about her mistake.

This is part of the August 24, 2012 online edition of The Mountain Enterprise.

Have an opinion on this matter? We'd like to hear from you.