Parents and teachers urge pause on Cave Creek school-closure plan, cite special‑education and staffing concerns

A string of parents, teachers and students at the Cave Creek Unified School District governing board meeting on Jan. 28 urged the board to delay decisions on a proposed set of school closures and reassignments, saying the district has not provided enough detail on classroom maps, special‑education placements or staffing consequences.

The comments came during the public‑comment portion of the business meeting at the Fine Arts Center, where speakers asked the board to explain recent revisions to a facilities proposal and to publish fuller financial and operational data before finalizing closures.

“PALS would be moving to Horseshoe Trails. I was thrilled about this decision,” parent Jessica Fitzwater said, describing how her son attends Lone Mountain and is enrolled in the district’s PALS program. “But then I was informed they're moving to Black Mountain now. I'm not happy about that move… having two special‑needs programs in one place, I don't think is ideal.”

Nicole Fiermonte, who identified herself as a teacher and mother of three students in the district, urged the board to publish a map that shows how the district plans to place classrooms, resource rooms and special‑education spaces if campuses are combined. “Some may only have eight per classroom,” she said, noting PALS and PATH programs have different space and staffing needs.

Community members repeatedly pressed the superintendent and cabinet to explain why Desert Willow was being retained in the revised proposal while other schools, including Lone Mountain, were flagged for closure. “The desert Willow is already in the bottom two for enrollment,” Fiermonte said, adding that proposed new boundaries appear to limit Desert Willow’s ability to grow. Several speakers said the cabinet revised the plan without clear explanation and that the two‑week delay in board action left families unsure ahead of kindergarten roundup.

Other speakers raised concerns about teacher retention and hiring. Carrie McCullough, a community member, said relocating grade levels and closing campuses would force many teachers to “pack up, move and re‑interview for jobs,” and that treating experienced staff as “expendable” would push teachers to neighboring districts. Catherine Mueller, who said she lives in Paradise Valley but chose Lone Mountain for its programs and small‑school feel, said closing Lone Mountain would undercut the district’s ability to attract new families moving into nearby housing developments.

Parents and students also argued that Lone Mountain’s programs — including a STEM offering noted by speakers — and its larger campus make it a better long‑term fit than some older schools earmarked for closure. Fourth grader McKenna Geary told the board the school’s test results and proximity to a developing park make Lone Mountain a community asset.

A number of speakers pressed for a phased approach. “Close one school and then another. Take this opportunity to build trust and stability both financially and culturally,” Katie Moraitis said. James Cai, a community member who said he has consulted with legislators and district stakeholders, urged the board to weigh the financial risks of a rapid change against the risk that families and teachers will leave: “There’s risk on both sides,” he said. “You have momentum right now because there’s a need. As soon as the decision’s made, everyone goes away.”

Speakers also raised technical and financial questions that they said were unanswered in district materials: differences between projected and recent historical facilities expenditures, the district’s projected capital needs, how School Facilities Board (SFB) reimbursements would be affected if a campus is closed, and whether rapid moves would actually save money after relocation costs. Parent Zach McQueen, who presented figures from board materials during public comment, asked why Lone Mountain appeared to have a larger projected 10‑year expenditure than Desert Willow despite lower recent capital claims.

Board members did not take action on closures at the meeting. The public‑comment period concluded before the board moved into other agenda items and later approved several consent and personnel items. No final decision to close or repurpose any campus was voted on during the Jan. 28 business meeting.

The public repeatedly asked for clearer, line‑by‑line financials, a complete facilities map showing classroom layouts for combined campuses, and a phased timetable that would minimize disruption for teachers and families. Parents asked that the board publish that information before any vote and said they were willing to help with planning and outreach.

Looking ahead, multiple speakers urged the board to consider alternatives — including closing a single campus first, exploring bond or override options, and clearly explaining the district’s enrollment and expense assumptions — so the community can provide substantive feedback before irrevocable changes are made.

Ending: The board’s agenda and meeting materials remain the formal record of the district’s proposals; no closure votes occurred on Jan. 28. The board did move later in the meeting to approve administrative and budget items, and public‑comment speakers asked that the district publish requested maps and financial details before taking further action on facilities.