Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Machine-tool instructor contests recommended reduction in force at Mercer County Schools hearing
Loading...
Summary
At an April 13 hearing, machine-tool teacher Mr Lively argued the Technical Education Center’s machine-tool program should be preserved, citing aging equipment, low recruitment and local job demand; administration said cuts are driven by sustained low enrollment and budget constraints.
The Mercer County Board of Education held an employee hearing April 13 after the superintendent recommended a reduction in force affecting the machine‑tool teacher at the Technical Education Center.
Mr Lively, the affected instructor, told the board he currently has “7 working machines right now” and said he is struggling to keep students engaged because equipment is old and scarce. “I haven't had a new piece of equipment since 2020,” he said, adding that he has been forced to double students on single machines and that he receives job calls from local employers but cannot translate that into student enrollment.
Administration and Principal Farmer described the recommendation as driven by enrollment numbers rather than teacher performance. Principal Farmer said the staffing committee determined the district needed to cut three positions at the tech center and noted variable enrollment over recent years; she reported machine‑tool enrollment figures over multiple years and said the projection for next year was only one confirmed applicant. “We needed to cut 3 positions,” Farmer said, summarizing the staffing committee’s conclusion.
Board members asked about recruitment and partnerships; administrators cited tours, partner outreach and short training sessions such as Fusion 360 as steps taken to increase interest. School officials also noted regulatory and employer barriers to placing minors in internships, citing age and OSHA-related limitations that make employer participation more difficult.
The hearing record closed without an immediate final vote on Mr Lively’s employment status. Board members and administrators reiterated that the recommendation is numbers‑driven and not a statement on the instructor’s classroom performance. The full personnel agenda — including the reduction-in-force item — was later considered during the board’s business meeting where personnel votes were recorded.
The board indicated it will notify affected employees promptly following its personnel meeting; administrators said employees would be informed by the end of the day following the meeting.
