Nevada County Grand Jury
• 2006-2007
Nevada Union High School Telecommunications Partnership Academy Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury received a
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 13 findings
F1
The Academy was properly established in 1996 based on extant perceptions of the local labor market and local sponsors in the telecommunications industry.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Nevada Joint Union High School District (NJUHSD) does not have a district policy that governs and defines Partnership Academies within the district.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Nevada Joint Union High School District should promulgate a district policy directive on Partnership Academies to include, but not necessarily be limited to: a. A clear, concise mission statement b. Procedures to identify all eligible “at risk” (Ed Code §§54690 and 54691) students c. Procedures to select individual students d. A protocol to achieve academy balance between “at risk and general student populations” e. Expectations of student performance and participation f. Protocols for waivers and exceptions g. Standards for appropriate mentor interactions h. A process for on-site cooperation among Academy staff, counselors, department heads, and ninth grade teachers
F3
The Academy submits an annual report to the CDE, which has been reviewed and approved by the site principal and the district coordinator. Funding from the CDE for the previous year is based on acceptance of the annual report.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The Academy has passed multiple on-site inspections and written reviews by the CDE.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The Academy has maintained a close and responsive relationship with the CDE program coordinator.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The Ed Code states: “The staff of each academy shall select students …” Ed Code §54695 (c).
No recommendations for this finding
F7
The Ed Code states: “The ninth grade teachers and counselors … shall identify students eligible to participate in an academy.” Ed Code §54695 (a).
No recommendations for this finding
F8
It has been difficult to obtain appropriate mentors, with appropriate safeguards for student safety. The Academy has responded with a format that could best be described as “career day” presentations. Academy staff is actively seeking more mentors, but local telecommunications industry resources have significantly declined since the original charter.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Academy staff factually reported actual mentor hours (45) provided during the 2005- 2006 school year. When interviewed, complainants admitted they had not read the annual report.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The 2005-2006 annual report disclosed three students received telecommunications internships, and 34 were employed in paid jobs or other work experience, an authorized variance under Ed Code §54692(b) (5).
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Ed Code §54692 (b)(5)(f) states: “Whenever practical, the (common) planning period should be in addition to the normal planning period for full-time teachers, and be supported as a part of the district’s matching funds.” Provision of an extra planning period is an itemized milestone for compliance in the annual report.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Stipends for Academy teachers were determined by a logical derivation from standard comparable stipends; were approved by the site principal, district Personnel and Business Divisions; and finally ratified by NJUHSD Board of Trustees in open session on September 20, 2006. In addition, the stipends were awarded in lieu of statutory and authorized planning periods in order to save grant funds.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
Complainants’ issues have been raised before, and answered by, successive site principals, district personnel, NJUHSD Board of Trustees, and CDE. CONCLUSIONS
No recommendations for this finding
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R1Nevada Union High School should consider adding additional Partnership Academies to focus on alternate career fields.
Conclusions 8
-
CL1 Page 3Alleged violation (Ninth grade teachers and counselors were not allowed to select Academy students, as allegedly required by Ed Code) is unfounded. The Ed Code specifies that the academy staff selects academy students.
-
CL2 Page 3Alleged violation (Academy students did not receive mentors) is partially correct. Traditional one-on-one mentorship has been lacking; however, with the approbation of CDE, the Academy has substituted “career-day-like” presentations.
-
CL3 Page 3Alleged violation (Academy teachers fraudulently reported mentorship hours in the Annual Report) is unfounded. Academy staff reported actual mentor hours.
-
CL4 Page 3Alleged violation (Academy students did not receive internships) is partially correct. Three students received paid telecommunications internships. Thirty-four others were employed in paid jobs or other work experience, as authorized by the Ed Code.
-
CL5 Page 3Alleged violation (Academy teachers had improper allocation of extra planning periods) is unfounded. The Ed Code strongly recommends an extra (common) planning period for Academy teachers.
-
CL6 Page 3Alleged violation (Academy teachers had improper allocation of stipends) is unfounded. Proper procedures were followed in deriving and allocating stipends to Academy teachers in lieu of the extra planning period to save grant funds.
-
CL7 Page 4Complainants knew, or should have known, that they incorrectly cited the Ed Code; made unsubstantiated and inaccurate charges of fraud and financial misconduct; and misstated the purpose and procedures of the Partnership Academy.
-
CL8 Page 4The Grand Jury concludes that the complainants’ relentless pursuit of the alleged infractions of the Partnership Academy is based upon misinformation and driven by personal agendas.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Nevada County County Superintendent of Schools
Elected County Office
Nevada Joint Union High School District
School District