Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Student Support topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Proposed $125,000 mentoring contract for struggling ninth-graders draws board scrutiny and dies for lack of motion

Santa Paula Unified School District Board of Trustees · December 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

District staff proposed a $125,000 mentoring and parent-engagement contract aimed at 25 ninth-graders; trustees questioned timing, duplication of in-house services and metrics, and after extended debate no motion was made and the item failed for lack of a motion.

A proposed $125,000 contract to provide intensive mentoring and parent-academy services for 25 ninth-graders prompted extended debate at the Santa Paula Unified board meeting and ultimately failed to advance.

Dr. Ramirez, presenting the item, said the program would identify 25 ninth-graders in need of wraparound support and include a parent-engagement component. "Our goal is to identify 25 students that really need that extra support," she said, describing the program as a targeted pilot.

Trustees expressed concerns about cost-effectiveness, timing and whether the district could deliver similar supports in-house. "A $125,000 just seems like a lot for a one-day session and follow-ups," one trustee said, questioning whether funds could instead support an additional outreach coordinator or reassign existing staff.

Student trustees and board members noted successful outreach and intervention practices at Renaissance High School and argued for building internal capacity before contracting outside. Public commenters and trustees also asked for clearer outcome metrics and evidence showing the program would produce measurable grade improvements.

After robust discussion of alternatives, board members declined to move the item; as the chair noted, "If there is no motion, then the item dies for lack of a motion." The staff presentation and debate left trustees with more information about the district's needs but no contract approval.

Supporters of the contract said it was meant as a stopgap while the district develops longer-term internal capacity; critics said the board should invest in permanent staff or scale existing programs rather than pay for a high-cost external contract without clearer evidence of sustained impact.