District Adrift: Leadership Issues at San José Unified School District

R1

contains a mistaken premise but has already been implemented because SJUSD has long “ensure[d that] Board meeting agendas reflect topics important to the community” and tracked progress regarding those topics. SJUSD’s Approach SJUSD is proud to “have developed a strong reputation among…peer superintendents as having highly functional superintendent-school board relations,” as described by the CCDR. The district relies on deliberate onboarding procedures, a clear vision, shared norms, and regular communication to ensure that Trustees become acquainted with and fulfill their responsibilities while serving on the Board. Trustees spend significant amounts of time visiting schools, speaking with constituents, learning about district operations, and attending governance workshops and trainings through the California School Boards Association. The Superintendent and Board President collaboratively plan Board agenda topics in alignment with Board Bylaw 9322 to ensure they are aligned with SJUSD’s vision of preparing today’s students to be the thinkers, leaders, and creators of tomorrow, responsive to the needs and interests of the diverse SJUSD community, and informed by both experience and research. The table below shows agenda items the Board spent significant time discussing, beyond standard district business items such as budgetary updates, during the Board’s open session meetings over the past two years. Board Meeting Date Topic(s) August Professional Development 2022-2023 August 11, 2022 Introduction of New Principals Administrator Onboarding Update August 25, 2022 Process for Complaints Concerning the Schools Social Emotional Supports and Chronic Absenteeism September 29, 2022 Enrollment Update Elementary Mathematics and Student Academic Supports October 20, 2022 Student Support Teams November 03, 2022 English Learner Master Plan November 17, 2022 Transitional Kindergarten Expansion January 19, 2023 2022 California State Dashboard and System of Supports Update Update on High School Preference Process February 02, 2023 Update on SJUSD Uniform Grading and Reporting Policies February 16, 2023 Summer Program Update March 09, 2023 Mental Health Support Update March 23, 2023 Graduation Rates and College and Career Readiness April 06, 2023 Update on Ethnic Studies April 27, 2023 Update on School Staffing May 11, 2023 Special Education Update Summer Learning Program Update May 25, 2023 Math Placement June 15, 2023 School Safety Update Administrator Onboarding Update August 10, 2023 School Behavior Supports Update August 24, 2023 Human Resources Update October 19, 2023 Creating and Supporting a Culture of Teaching and Learning October 24, 2023 Special Session: District Vision and Resource Allocation Board Meeting Date Topic(s) November 2, 2023 Certificated Employee Evaluation Process Cultivating Excellence – The Power of Instructional Coaching for November 16, 2023 Teacher Professional Growth January 18, 2024 SJUSD Wellness Center Update Report by California Collaborative on District Reform, Keeping February 15, 2024 the Main Thing the Main Thing April 25, 2024 Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP) Update Throughout the year, Trustees are regularly informed about the Board’s policy direction and the progress on these items through formal Board meetings, weekly updates, and individual check- ins with the Superintendent. In closed session, the Trustees also discuss confidential information regarding litigation, labor negotiations, and the Superintendent’s evaluation, among other allowable topics. Discussion of CGJ Analysis The CGJ’s assessment of Trustees’ performance seems to be based entirely on the CGJ’s view that there is a “disconnect between the Trustees’ stated priorities and the realities of [the] issues” the CGJ discusses. The realities of the issues the CGJ discusses, however, are often not well understood by the CGJ, as described in responses to other findings below. It is not particularly surprising that the CGJ lacks insight into these areas for two reasons. First, as alluded to above, Trustees discuss issues at confidential closed-session meetings related to some of the areas the CGJ covers. The CGJ is not privy to these meetings and Trustees are prohibited from disclosing confidential information, per Board Bylaw 9011. Second, the CGJ’s methodology is narrow. Petitions, observations of public comments at Board meetings, and 80 interviews can provide only a limited window into SJUSD operations and community opinions, especially when the interviews are of an unrepresentative population (it is unclear exactly how many of SJUSD’s approximately 2,700 employees and 25,000 families the CGJ interviewed, but even if the number is closer to 80 than the wording in the CGJ’s Methodology section suggests, the CGJ does not appear to have spoken with any of SJUSD’s approximately 1,200 classified staff nor conducted any interviews in a language other than English, and the examples discussed in the CGJ’s report are heavily concentrated at just two schools). Trustees are responsible for considering a much broader view of SJUSD operations and community opinions; in fact, Board Bylaw 9005 requires that “the diverse range of views in the community…inform Board deliberations.” That said, given the importance of many of the areas the CGJ discusses, there is actually a fair amount of overlap between those areas and SJUSD Board meeting agenda topics. RESPONSE TO FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION 2 CGJ Finding 2: “The unusually high levels of leadership turnover since 2021 has been exacerbated by poor leadership practices and low morale.” SJUSD disagrees with Finding 2 both because the CGJ’s assessment of leadership turnover levels is superficial and because the available data contradicts the CGJ’s explanation for leadership turnover. CGJ Recommendation 2: “SJUSD should authorize an independent third-party assessment, with participant anonymity, to investigate the causes of high turnover over the past three years. The assessment should provide SJUSD with recommendations to reduce turnover, a means to track ongoing turnover as compared to neighboring school districts, and a means to objectively assess the leadership culture. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.”

R2

will not be implemented because SJUSD is already monitoring leadership turnover trends and invested in maintaining a positive leadership culture; an independent third-party assessment of employee turnover, even a more accurate one than the CGJ’s, is unwarranted. SJUSD’s Approach SJUSD values institutional knowledge and experience in leadership positions in addition to leadership skills and takes pride in the leadership pipeline it has built. Certificated staff, classified staff, assistant principals, principals, and district administrators are often promoted or hired laterally into other leadership positions in the district. Retirees also often come back to serve as substitute administrators. Administrator training, support, and culture are priorities in SJUSD. Beginning with “Strategic Plan Days” before school starts and continuing throughout the year in the form of monthly “Leadership Network” meetings and assistant principal meetings, SJUSD regularly convenes administrators across the district to celebrate successes, share best practices, collaborate, plan, and develop professionally. Information is also shared through a weekly bulletin and virtual meeting that offers the opportunity for participants to ask questions and provide feedback. Supervisors and departments work hard to provide 1-on-1 support and guidance whenever it is needed. SJUSD management salaries trail management salaries in several neighboring districts due to the way schools are funded, but many administrators choose to stay with SJUSD anyway because of the district’s culture. Discussion of CGJ Analysis The CGJ says it defines turnover as “the rate at which employees leave a workforce (such as a school or school district) and are replaced.” However, some of the data points the CGJ cites seem to use an expanded definition of turnover that considers the number of employees in new positions – regardless of how long those employees have worked in the organization. Turnover is not inherently negative. For example, turnover due to retirement is an occasion to celebrate a career dedicated to public service. Turnover due to promotion can be similarly positive for both the promoted individual and the organization, and turnover related to performance issues can result in improved culture. That said, SJUSD agrees that turnover can also reduce institutional knowledge and the availability of mentors, and increase the amount of time administrators must spend learning relative to executing. SJUSD recognizes that turnover was high between the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years. However, the CGJ’s attempted comparison of turnover in SJUSD to turnover in other districts is suspect; the CGJ’s SJUSD figure appears to both include administrators who did not leave SJUSD and use a calculation that does not match the text in the chart, and it’s impossible to assess from the information the CGJ disclosed whether the CGJ is making an apples-to-apples comparison to other districts. Moreover, while the CGJ paints the level of principal turnover between the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 school years as high, a closer look at the data tells a more nuanced story. Principals Who Left Their Position Before 2022-2023 School Year Promotion or Lateral Hire Voluntary Reassignment Resignation Within SJUSD Within SJUSD 4 0 12 New Principals in 2022-2023 School Year Promotion or Lateral Hire Return of Former Employee External Hire Within SJUSD to SJUSD 12 0 4 Principals Who Left Their Position Before 2023-2024 School Year Promotion or Lateral Hire Voluntary Reassignment Resignation Within SJUSD Within SJUSD 4 2 4 New Principals in 2023-2024 School Year Promotion or Lateral Hire Return of Former Employee External Hire Within SJUSD to SJUSD 6 1 3 It is certainly true that the number of principal departures before the 2022-2023 school year resulted in a loss of institutional knowledge and potential mentorship opportunities. However, the degree to which institutional knowledge and potential mentorship opportunities declined, particularly between the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 school years, is significantly overstated by the CGJ. New principals with experience in other SJUSD roles – the majority of new principal hires in each of the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 school years – bring institutional knowledge with them into their principalships. In addition, the majority of the ten principals who left their positions before the 2023-2024 school year remained available for advice and support within SJUSD, and each of the three external hires for the 2023-2024 school year had prior principal experience elsewhere. Heading into the 2024-2025 school year, principal turnover is even lower. Principals Who Left Their Position Before 2024-2025 School Year Promotion or Lateral Move Voluntary Reassignment Resignation Within SJUSD Within SJUSD 1 1 0 New Principals in 2024-2025 School Year Promotion or Lateral Return of Former External Hire Not Yet Hired Move Within SJUSD Employee to SJUSD 1 0 0 1 Especially since, as the CGJ acknowledges, “[s]taff turnover at all levels in the field of education, both nationally and locally, was exacerbated by the stresses of the COVID-19 pandemic,” high turnover the year after students returned to full-time in-person instruction that has now decreased to its lowest level in six years should not set off alarm bells. Beyond the CGJ’s flawed depiction of turnover figures, the CGJ’s description of the “main drivers” of employee departures does not match departing employees’ employment separation forms. As the chart below shows, more principals and assistant principals who resigned between June 2021 and December 2023 (the time period the CGJ used in its attempt to compare turnover across districts) cited reasons related to higher pay or a job opportunity for leaving – explanations the CGJ dismisses – than cited a reason listed or alluded to by the CGJ. Summarized Reasons for Resignations, June 2021 – December 2023 Principals Assistant Principals lack of support, lack of positive culture, or 4 1 conflict with colleague compensation increase or job opportunity 5 6 retirement, family/housing, or moved out of 5 7 area other (including personal reasons) or no data 5 10 2023 School Climate Survey data also contradicts the CGJ’s narrative. The CGJ alleges administrators experience a “lack of support and respect” when 11 of the 76 administrators who responded to the 2023 School Climate Survey – or approximately 8% of all administrators – disagreed with the statement that “leadership knows what is happening at my work location and provides support when needed.” The CGJ cites low morale, but 7 out of the 76 administrators who responded to the 2023 School Climate Survey – or approximately 5% of all administrators – somewhat or strongly disagreed with the statement, “I have fun at work.” None of that is to say that the experiences of SJUSD administrators who have experienced low morale or felt uncomfortable speaking up are not important, or that there is not room for SJUSD leadership to improve. SJUSD leadership has invested significant resources in trying to “improve trust, promote team building, and instill a positive culture among leaders,” as the CGJ notes, and remains committed to continuous improvement. There just is not any evidence that SJUSD is a negative outlier in terms of organizational culture; if anything, the data suggest that negative experiences among administrators in SJUSD are the exception, not the norm. However, especially because there is no way of knowing what the roughly 45% of administrators who did not respond to the survey would have said if they had answered these questions, SJUSD leadership is much more cautious about drawing positive conclusions from the data than the CGJ is about drawing negative conclusions from anecdotal evidence. SJUSD will continue to work closely with the elected leaders of SJAA, who represent SJUSD management employees, to study trends and collaboratively improve. The district will also continue to review separation of employment forms and solicit feedback from employees on how to create the best leadership culture possible. RESPONSE TO FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION 3 CGJ Finding 3: “On numerous occasions, SJUSD has failed to ensure its management hiring processes meet its own guidelines for integrity and impartiality leading to mistrust in the process.” SJUSD disagrees with Finding 3 because the “fair and objective multi-stage [hiring] process” that the CGJ acknowledges SJUSD has for the positions of manager, director, and above is implemented in almost all cases and alternate processes are implemented with integrity in rare situations. The CGJ’s analysis is vague and unsupported by evidence. CGJ Recommendation 3: “SJUSD should authorize an independent third-party assessment of the management hiring process over the past three years with a particular focus on: impartiality in determining which candidates are selected as finalists; ensuring results from job skills tests are factored into the determination of finalists; consistency in determining when management job openings are filled by direct placement versus a full open interview process. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.”

R3

will not be implemented because SJUSD’s hiring process for the positions of manager, director, and above, like its hiring processes for other management positions, is strong and continually evaluated for potential areas of improvement. An independent third-party assessment of management hiring processes is unwarranted. SJUSD’s Approach SJUSD’s management hiring process, which has been continually improved over the years, is a comprehensive and multi-stage journey modeled after the Executive Search Services process used by School Services of California Inc., a widely respected business, financial, management, and advocacy company for educational agencies in California. Each step of the process, from developing job descriptions based on specific skill needs to disseminating vacancy announcements widely, is meticulously planned to attract a diverse pool of applicants. Interviews at the manager, director level, or above include directors, department staff, principals, and employee group presidents. All interview panels have a facilitator to assist with the process. Interviewees may need to complete a performance task in addition to answering specific questions. After candidates have interviewed, panel members rank candidates individually. Panel members then use their initial rankings to engage in a discussion of candidates’ strengths and weaknesses as a group before deciding which candidates to advance to a final interview round with the Superintendent’s Council and signing a confidentiality agreement. If panels cannot agree, they may decline to send any candidates forward and recommend instead that the position be reposted. Panels decide who to advance and the Superintendent’s Council decides who to hire based on numerous factors, including the needs of the district and candidates’ interview performance, experience, references, and performance in other settings. These elements comprehensively reflect candidates’ leadership skills, job-related skills, and potential to excel in new positions. Including a diverse set of partners in the interview process minimizes the potential impact of individual people’s biases and promotes a balanced evaluation of candidates. Over the past five years, SJUSD has condensed the interview process on limited occasions due to time constraints and/or the number of qualified candidates. SJUSD has appointed people at the manager, director level, or above without an interview two times. Both appointments were at the director level and due to an organizational restructuring that included adding additional duties to an existing manager’s role (along with an elimination of other management positions in one case), as explained to all management employees at the time of each appointment. Discussion of CGJ Analysis The CGJ provides no evidence to support its allegation that “interviews at the level of manager, director, and above, have, at times, been unfairly altered to promote or demote specific candidates for management openings.” There have been disagreements among interviewers about the right candidate for the job at times, of course, but individual people’s dissatisfaction with a candidate who is selected by a group of interviewers during a multi-stage hiring process does not suggest that the process failed to “meet its own guidelines for integrity and impartiality” or that there is a “list of favored and disfavored employees.” It is curious, given the CGJ’s acknowledgment that “[m]anagement hiring often involves subjective factors,” that the CGJ implies that poor interview performance is both an objective assessment that all interviewers will agree about and a disqualifying criterion in and of itself. Similarly, the CGJ incorrectly implies that the SJUSD management hiring process includes “skills tests” that, if failed, indicate that a candidate should not move forward in the process. The reality is that both a candidate’s performance in interviews and a candidate’s performance on certain tasks required as part of the hiring process – such as when a candidate is asked to conduct data analysis in Microsoft Excel, write a communication to an educational partner, or deliver a presentation about a fictitious scenario – are “factored into the determination of finalists” but are just two criteria among many that may indicate a candidate’s readiness for the job. Still, while the CGJ’s claims are unsubstantiated, SJUSD takes any concerns about its hiring processes seriously and remains dedicated to the integrity of the hiring process. To ensure that everyone involved in management interviews understands the process and their responsibilities, SJUSD will spend more time grounding interview panels in the desired qualities and characteristics for each position, emphasizing that the panel has the option of sending candidates forward that they support or recommending that the position be reposted, explaining what will happen during the final interview round with the Superintendent’s Council, and reenforcing the confidentiality agreement. SJUSD will continue to solicit feedback from candidates and interviewers on other improvements that can be made to the process moving forward. RESPONSE TO FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION 4 CGJ Finding 4: “SJUSD has failed to conduct appropriate or complete internal investigations in multiple instances over the past three years. These failures call into question SJUSD’s understanding of its investigatory responsibilities and have undermined trust among leadership, employees, and the community.” SJUSD disagrees with Finding 4 because its assessment is based on inaccurate and/or incomplete information about confidential processes. CGJ Recommendation 4: “SJUSD should authorize an independent third-party review of the completeness and correctness of past investigation processes, to identify missteps, and recommend process or policy improvements. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.”

R4

will not be implemented because SJUSD already takes its investigatory responsibilities seriously. SJUSD collaborates closely on investigations with legal counsel (and, when applicable, law enforcement) and is working with its employee groups to ensure its investigation processes appropriately balance the due process rights of their members and accountability. An independent third-party review of past investigation processes is unwarranted. SJUSD’s Approach SJUSD always aims to uphold confidentiality, protect due process rights, ensure accountability, adhere to the law, and maintain a safe and ethical environment for students and staff throughout the investigation process. Investigations at school districts can take many forms and often involve numerous witnesses, multiple sources of information, and incomplete or contradictory information. To ensure that SJUSD central office staff who lead and/or support with investigations are equipped with the knowledge necessary to complete investigations, they are trained in the matter by Dannis Woliver Kelley (DWK), a prestigious law firm, and consult with DWK every step of the way during major investigations. SJUSD continually reviews what can be learned from investigations and whether there are ways to improve SJUSD practices. Discussion of CGJ Analysis The CGJ wrongly asserts that SJUSD “refus[ed] to conduct its own investigation” in the “Home and School Club alleged theft case” (HSC case) and incorrectly implies that “an actual investigation was [not] opened by SJUSD” in the “High school football coach case.” SJUSD investigated both of these cases. Due to the confidential nature of personnel matters, SJUSD is unfortunately not at liberty to correct many of the CGJ’s erroneous and/or incomplete statements of fact regarding the details of the investigations, but the district can provide some general insight into factors that SJUSD considers when conducting investigations. The appropriate course of action in any given investigation is highly sensitive to the individual situation’s details. SJUSD does not have subpoena power and must often cooperate with external agencies. Immediate employee suspensions without pay should only occur when there is an “immediate threat” to student or staff health or safety, as stated in SJUSD’s collective bargaining agreements, and employee suspensions without loss of pay must be used with caution given their potential impact on the work environment, affected employee, labor relationships, and external investigations. Even though the CGJ asserts that it “takes no position on the merits of the allegations or culpability of the parties involved” in the cases it discusses, the CGJ’s analysis misses crucial considerations and details and appears to reflect a belief that specific outcomes were warranted. SJUSD acknowledges that there are sometimes gray areas when weighing complex questions during investigations and that reasonable people may occasionally disagree about appropriate interventions and outcomes. SJUSD also recognizes that there is always room for improvement. During the HSC case investigation, SJUSD updated relevant documents, training, and processes regarding school-connected organizations; in addition, SJUSD has been engaged in ongoing conversations with its employee groups about how to best ensure that investigations across a wide range of issues are thorough, fair, and appropriate. SJUSD will continue reviewing and improving its investigation procedures because improvements are always possible, even in the best of systems. RESPONSE TO FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION 5 CGJ Finding 5: “Based upon multiple data points, SJUSD employees have a low level of trust in SJUSD leadership.” SJUSD disagrees with Finding 5 because it is based on only two data points, one of which the CGJ inaccurately describes and the second of which is misleading. While SJUSD acknowledges that some employees may have a low level of trust in SJUSD leadership, there is no evidence to support the CGJ’s implication that low trust levels are endemic to SJUSD. CGJ Recommendation 5: “SJUSD should assess the causes of low levels of trust in the SJUSD leadership and develop a plan and timeline for improvements. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.”

R5

contains a mistaken premise but has already been implemented to the degree it can be because SJUSD is already engaged in trust-building efforts. SJUSD’s Approach SJUSD is a relationship-driven organization that has built trust informally for decades. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, SJUSD leadership has begun to formalize trust-building structures to improve the resiliency of relationships and maintain trust when there are organizational stressors and/or transitions in key roles. SJUSD leadership recently collaborated with the leaders of all four of SJUSD’s employee organizations – SJTA, CSEA, AFSCME, and SJAA – to develop Guiding Principles for District-Employee Group Relations that apply to relationships at all sites and all levels of the organization (e.g., between site administrators and teachers, a director and office specialists, or the Superintendent and a principal). SJUSD is engaged in ongoing work with its employee groups to determine how to best support the implementation of these guiding principles throughout the organization and ensure that everyone is held accountable to them. Part of that work includes identifying next steps in the ongoing process of trust-building. Discussion of CGJ Analysis In 2023, just like in prior years, the majority of employees who took the 2023 School Climate Survey either somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement, “The SJUSD culture is characterized by a high degree of trust.” By conflating employee survey respondents with all employees – as in other districts, many employees do not fill out climate surveys each year and employee survey respondents cannot be assumed to be representative of the employee population as a whole – the CGJ significantly overstates the percentage of SJUSD employees who somewhat or strongly disagreed with this statement. The percentage of all employees who disagreed is actually under 20% and consistent with historical norms (the approximate percentage of teachers who somewhat or strongly disagreed was 30% and the approximate percentage of secondary teachers who somewhat or strongly disagreed was 36%). The percentage of employees who “have a low level of trust in SJUSD leadership” may be even lower. Disagreement with the statement that “the SJUSD culture is characterized by a high degree of trust” might, for example, reflect a belief that the SJUSD culture is characterized by a normal degree of trust or that factors other than trust levels are more relevant to characterizing the SJUSD culture, and it might have nothing to do with trust in SJUSD leadership (a category which the CGJ defines broadly to include assistant principals, principals, assistant managers, and managers as well as senior SJUSD leaders) at all. Even more egregiously, the CGJ’s other data point – that “33% of high school administrators with six-plus years of service” disagreed when asked if they could “share ideas and concerns with leadership without fear of retribution” – reflects the survey responses of 3 people. SJUSD has roughly 140 administrators districtwide and 83% of the 76 who took the 2023 School Climate Survey somewhat or strongly agreed that they can “share ideas and concerns without fear of retribution.” There are also large majorities of employee survey respondents who somewhat or strongly agreed with statements such as “SJUSD makes student learning its top priority,” “I see a clear link between my work and the district’s goals,” “I have adequate resources to get my job done effectively,” and “I have fun at work.” Especially since it is impossible to know the opinions of employees who did not respond to the 2023 School Climate Survey, 2023 School Climate Survey responses cannot be taken as proof of high levels of trust, morale, and alignment. They do show, however, that the CGJ’s conclusions about employee attitudes are unsubstantiated. All of that said, SJUSD believes in the importance of continually building trust (as described in the section above) and takes the potential concerns of any employee seriously. SJUSD will continue to work with employee groups to engage in cycles of improvement. RESPONSE TO FINDING 6 AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6A, 6B, AND 6C CGJ Finding 6: “SJUSD’s current plans to open wellness centers are inadequate and inconsistent with its publicly stated priority for expanded student mental health services. Current plans do not meet the objective of putting a wellness center in all secondary schools. There is inadequate funding for the wellness centers and the planning has largely been left to individual school administrators as opposed to an SJUSD-led plan. Trustees are unaware of SJUSD’s lack of progress relative to other school districts.” SJUSD disagrees with Finding 6 because SJUSD’s research-based model for and rollout of wellness centers, as discussed by the Board of Education at several meetings, is consistent with SJUSD’s long history of prioritizing student mental health and wellness. CGJ Recommendation 6a: “SJUSD should conduct a comprehensive review of the current state of wellness centers at secondary schools and prepare a detailed public report on the status of the implementation of those centers with specific timelines for implementation. This recommendation should be implemented by September 30, 2024.”

R6a

contains a mistaken premise but has already been implemented because SJUSD already provides regular public updates about the state of wellness centers at secondary schools. CGJ Recommendation 6b: “If SJUSD is to fulfill its stated priority to fund mental health services for students, SJUSD should provide a long-term sustainable funding plan for fully staffed full- time wellness centers at all secondary school sites. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.”

R6b

contains a mistaken premise but has already been implemented to the degree it can be because sustainable funding is already embedded and will continue to be emphasized as an important element of SJUSD’s wellness center model and plan. CGJ Recommendation 6c: “SJUSD should provide an accelerated implementation plan with a clear timeline to achieve the objective of fully staffed full-time wellness centers at all secondary school sites. SJSUD staff should lead the plan in coordination with principals. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.”

R6c

will not be implemented because trying to accelerate full wellness center implementation before all the necessary components are in place would be unlikely to benefit students. SJUSD already has a research-based model for wellness centers and a plan that involves coordination with principals. SJUSD’s Approach SJUSD has long recognized the integral role students’ mental health and wellness play in students’ capacity to learn and achieve academic success. SJUSD’s investments reflect this recognition. SJUSD has approximately 75 full-time-equivalent, credentialed counselors on staff, including school site counselors, child welfare and attendance counselors, and district-level counselors (including those who work on SJUSD’s crisis support team). The district also employs approximately 30 school psychologists, more than two dozen registered nurses (RNs), and the health office staff at each school. Almost all school-based health office staff are now licensed health technicians (LHTs). In recent years, SJUSD has responded to increased mental health and wellness needs arising from the COVID-19 pandemic by: - partnering with SJTA to reduce student-to-counselor ratios and increase the amount of social and emotional support that counselors provide, - partnering with SJTA to reduce student-to-nurse ratios, - partnering with CSEA to update the LHT job description, - expanding a social emotional learning curriculum into secondary schools, - adding new Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs), - streamlining data collection and reporting on counseling, - revamping its Student Services department to provide improved practical support to schools, and - substantially increasing partnerships with external counseling providers. SJUSD has also been implementing its wellness center model, which it began researching and planning prior to COVID-19, and aims to enhance existing services through a deliberate, coordinated, and sustainable approach. The SJUSD wellness center model is based on what SJUSD learned from both other school districts’ successful approaches and Santa Clara County Office of Education resources. The model relies on the co-location of services, including the services of counselors, nurses, and health office staff, to reduce the potential stigma of requesting mental health services. It designates a wellness center staff member who supports and triages students. It also ties to a positive school climate by ensuring that students self-refer to the wellness center and, while staff members may refer students to counseling, staff do not refer students to the wellness center as a result of behavioral issues. To ensure sustainability, it is staffed primarily with SJUSD employees and may also include contract positions that come with a reliable funding stream. Secondary schools with SJUSD-funded counseling and health services: All Secondary schools with the SJUSD wellness center model in place during the 2023-2024 school year: Broadway High, Herbert Hoover Middle, Muwekma Ohlone Middle Secondary schools scheduled to have the SJUSD wellness center model in place during the 2024-2025 school year: Abraham Lincoln High, John Muir Middle, Pioneer High, San José High SJUSD will continue to analyze best practices and partner with both employee groups and school communities to refine its model and deliver the best possible mental health and wellness supports for students. Discussion of CGJ Analysis SJUSD appreciates the CGJ’s acknowledgment of some of the steps SJUSD has taken to support student mental health and wellness in recent years (even though the CGJ links to an inaccurate job description for the BCBA positions to which SJUSD believes the CGJ is referring). However, the CGJ’s assertion that these steps “pale in comparison to what other nearby districts have done” is confusing and seems to be based on a superficial tally of how many wellness centers districts say they have rather than a careful review of what student mental health and wellness supports look like. All secondary schools in SJUSD have a location for students to access counseling and mental health services and many schools have added calming spaces. Because most schools have not co- located services yet, SJUSD does not define them as fully functioning wellness centers even though other organizations do. For example, Valley Health Foundation (VHF) recently denied SJUSD a grant to support wellness centers at Gunderson High, Herbert Hoover Middle, and Pioneer High because, in VHF’s view, “wellness centers are in existence at each of the three school sites.” Similarly, unlike the CGJ, SJUSD does not believe the wellness center model is being fully implemented when it is opened “in less-than-ideal locations” or without a plan for “continuing to fully fund wellness centers when federal COVID-19 relief funds end in September of 2024.” The CGJ’s assertion that “[t]he Ohlone Middle School wellness center is entirely funded, staffed, and operated, not by SJUSD employees, but by SCCOE employees using a state grant” is inaccurate. The Muwekma Ohlone Middle wellness center is, in reality, staffed with SJUSD- employed counselors and health office staff. The grant pays for the wellness center liaison and one additional mental health specialist provided by SCCOE, which allows for enhanced services. However, if the grant funding were to end, Muwekma Ohlone Middle would continue to be able to operate the SJUSD wellness center model. Overall, the CGJ’s complaint that SJUSD leaders have “not [met] their publicly stated goals for opening wellness centers” mischaracterizes those publicly stated goals. Trustees understand that labeling something a wellness center is not an end in of itself and that wellness centers are instead a means to the end of providing excellent mental health and wellness supports for students. SJUSD leaders and Trustees will continue to analyze and discuss the status of mental health and wellness supports – including wellness centers – at Board meetings to ensure progress and accountability in this vitally important area. RESPONSE TO FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION 7 CGJ Finding 7: “SJUSD does not have a well-qualified, local, district-wide leader who is accountable for all safety planning, preparedness, and emergency response efforts.” SJUSD partially agrees with Finding 7 because it is accurate to state that SJUSD does not have one employee who is accountable for all safety planning, preparedness, and emergency response efforts. SJUSD has several qualified leaders who manage an integrated system and are accountable for safety planning, preparedness, and emergency response efforts. CGJ Recommendation 7: “SJUSD should create a dedicated staff position to lead and coordinate all safety planning and emergency response activities across SJUSD. This role can be modeled after similar positions in other Santa Clara County districts. Responsibilities should include, but not be limited to: act as the on-site leader for emergency response teams, including emergency communications; update safety protocols based on accepted best practices; train staff on safety drills; ensure implementation of the most current best practices for school safety plans; assist school site teams to improve their plans; manage community engagement to increase involvement in safety plans. This recommendation should be implemented by September 30, 2024.”

R7

contains a mistaken premise but requires further analysis.

R8

will be implemented in part.

R9

requires further analysis. RESPONSE TO FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION 1 CGJ Finding 1: “Trustees are not meeting their basic responsibilities for ensuring accountability and providing community leadership in a number of critical areas detailed in this report. These include SJUSD leadership turnover, trust in leadership, student mental health services, safety plans, stocking Narcan, employee investigations, and hiring processes. Trustees too often accept SJUSD leadership explanations and justifications, which may be inaccurate or incomplete; do not sufficiently question SJUSD results; do not require detailed follow-up to ensure progress; and too rarely ask for SJUSD performance relative to external benchmarks or relative to other school districts within Santa Clara County.” SJUSD disagrees with Finding 1 because Trustees are fulfilling their basic responsibilities as members of the Board of Education. CGJ Recommendation 1: “SJUSD should ensure Board meeting agendas reflect topics important to the community, including those detailed in this report. These topics should be regularly reviewed at public Board meetings, with detailed plans for follow-up to track progress. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.”