Superintendent lays out four staffing and funding options to keep PACE program running

Superintendent Lavender told the Casa Grande Union High School District board that administrators had developed four staffing-and-budget options to keep the PACE alternative program operating after concerns raised at a recent town hall.

Lavender said the district is treating the program's staffing and fiscal sustainability as urgent and presented four scenarios built around different mixes of full‑time teachers, part‑time teachers who split time with other campuses, paraprofessionals and security support.

"Option number A is to have one full‑time teacher who is instructionally strong and comfortable with teaching by PBL (project‑based learning) and two paraprofessionals, and then three highly qualified teachers to travel from other campuses to teach math, language arts and science," Lavender said, listing an estimated revenue figure of about $616,000 for 70 students and an estimated cost he described as roughly $625,000 under that model. He acknowledged he had misspoken earlier when reading numbers and clarified the district's break‑even enrollment would be about 69 students for that scenario.

He described Option B as the current model adjusted so the three existing teachers each teach half a day at PACE and half a day at another campus, with traveling content specialists brought in to cover gaps. Option C would add two full‑time content teachers (math and ELA), one paraprofessional and one security staffer; Lavender gave a rough cost estimate of $644,000 and said the break‑even point for that plan would be about 72 students. Option D would staff PACE with three full‑time content specialists and additional support; Lavender said the district prefers Option D as "the most educationally sound" but acknowledged it is the most expensive and would require greater enrollment to be sustainable.

Board members pressed administrators on practical concerns. One trustee asked whether teachers who would travel between campuses would have the bandwidth to split time without harming students at the home campus; Lavender said some staff already do split schedules and the district would plan travel and planning time carefully to avoid overburdening teachers. Another trustee raised liability and travel concerns and said that eliminated some of the shared‑teacher options for them.

Lavender also clarified logistics: the district does not yet have a full‑time teaching‑administrator position budgeted for the PACE site; if the board favors Option D staff would draft a job description and return in April for approval, and the district could post and begin hiring sooner if the board supports an interim vote. He proposed posting the four options and conducting a phone‑vote on a recommendation as soon as the board could assemble three votes in favor of one option rather than delay the decision until the next regular meeting.

No formal policy or budget adoption took place at the meeting. The board indicated it would consider a special or phone vote (Lavender suggested Friday, March 6) to select a pathway forward so administrators could begin hiring and planning, and staff will return with any job descriptions and required approvals if the board directs implementation.

Why it matters: PACE serves roughly 70 students at present and the district says its calculations show different teacher mixes materially change the break‑even enrollment and costs. Trustees emphasized balancing program quality, teacher workload and liability concerns while meeting the town‑hall feedback from students, families and staff.

What comes next: Administration will post the four options, answer follow‑up questions from trustees and the board may convene a special phone vote to select an option and authorize creation of positions if a majority supports one path.