Point Arena Schools

When three students were alleged to have cheated on an exit exam; the Superintendent invalidated the math portion of the exam for all students. This punished all ofthe students by requiring them to retake the exam as well as placing the High School in the School Improvement Program. Response: Disagree 6 The finding implies that there was very limited cheating, if any, and that "all students" were thereafter improperly punished. To the contrary, the District found that cheating was widespread on the March 2012 CAHSEE test; it involved many students, not just three students. For example, the data the District obtained show that on the first test ofCAHSEE Math, 44 students were tested, and 43 passed (98%). On the retest, 26 of43 students scored lower on the retest, and 8 students who passed the first time did not pass on the retake (net: 81 % pass rate). This significant discrepancy was indicative of cheating. Statistically, due to testing effect, students should have scored better, not worse, on the retake (e.g., the vast majority ofstudents who take the SAT a second time improve their score). The historical data for CAHSEE test results for Point Arena High School show a consistent range of exit exam results for the high school over several years, with the average for the 5 years prior to the 2012 test being 68.6%. The 98% pass rate in 2012 was a significant anomaly to this trend and was indicative ofwidespread cheating. The District received other reports that "everyone cheated, and everyone knows everyone cheated." The Superintendent worked with the California State Department of Education's CAHSEE Testing office and the Educational Testing Service (ETS) regarding the procedure for an alleged breach oftesting protocol. The CAHSEE office was clear that a school district must, by law, self-report any known irregularities. It was not an option to ignore the cheating, as implied by the Grand Jury report.

The negative work environment at the High School caused over 40 percent of the certificated staffto terminate their employment at the end of the 2013-14 school year. (Note: From -"Interviewees indicated the new administration had created a negative work environment and there was a lack of an identifiable chain ofcommand.") Response: Disagree During the 2013-14 school year, there were 14 teachers at the high school; between March 1, 2015 and August 11, 2015, six (6) teachers notified the district that they were leaving. Ofthe 6 teachers who left, two (2) teachers retired; their retirement had been plannedfor some time. One (1) ofthe teachers who resigned secured a position as a Principal/Superintendent in August 2014. That teacher left for professional advancement. One (1) teacher let the district superintendent know in Janllary 2014 that he/she may be leavingfor personal/family reasons unrelated to district business. Two (2) others also left for personal/family reasons unrelated to district business. Two (2) ofthe six (6) teachers indicated they were/are interested in returning to the District. The PAHS site principalfor 2013-14 left at the end ofthe school year, after serving for one year. 7 .- ­ Recruiting and retaining teachers and administrators at this District is, historically, an ongoing challenge. The District loses teachers every year for a variety ofreasons: their spouse cannot get a job, housing (the cost ofliving here is very expensive), some do not like the weather or how remote it is, they are lonely, they obtain a higher paid position elsewhere, etc.

The previous principal worked with the teachers in allocating lottery funds; this is no longer the procedure. The current Principal/Superintendent was unaware of either the amount of lottery funds or their distribution. Response: Disagree The District is and has always been in full compliance with regulations regarding how lottery funds are allocated and spent. Lottery funding is complex and has changed over time. During the economic downturn, the State stopped giving districts a specific textbook fund. Given thatfact,for 2011-12 and 2012-13, lottery funds were used to pay for textbooks and instructional supplies for teachers, and site principals were aware of that. For the past 2 years, the site principals have worked with the Business Manager to distribute the lottery funds directly to teachers, giving them each a portion of the funds to use as a classroom budget as they see fit. Teachers have wide discretion as to how to spend these funds. Teachers are told how much their classroom budget is, but they may not necessarily have been told what the funding source wasfor thefunds. In 2013-14, the District budget had over 50 different funding sources, only one of which was related to the lottery. The Grand Jury report was in error in stating that the high school received $24,600 in lottery funds in 2013-14. In actuality, the District received $65,935 in lottery funds; Point Arena High School received $25,302, andArena Union Elementary received $40,633. It is true that during an unannounced "interview" the District Superintendent did not know exactly how much was received in lottery funds for a given year, but she could have obtained that data from the files had she been asked. Instead, it appeared the questioners were not interested in the answer; only whether the Superintendent knew the answer without looking it up in the financial records. With over 50 funding sources for the two districts, even the Business Manager would not be able to accurately answer such questions without looking up the information.

The Grand Jury determined the confidentiality of personnel matters was breached when the District Superintendent handed out reduction in force notifications publicly causing both embarrassment and low morale. Response: Disagree Four (4) years ago (2011), during the District Superintendent's first year, a lay-off notice was handed to an employee in a sealed envelope on campus. One week prior 8 .. to the notice being delivered, the Board agenda and packet containing lay-off specifics had been posted by position. The position-specific lay-offs were publically voted on in open session the evening before lay-offnotices were delivered, and the affected employees knew the notices must be delivered by March 15th as required by Education Code. Based on the above, there was no breach ofconfidentiality.

District School Board meeting audio recordings are difficult to understand due to inadequate equipment and the lack of identification of those speaking. Response: Disagree The audio recordings are used to assist in the preparation ofminutes. Stafffind that the recordings are adequate for this purpose. There is no legal requirement to audio tape Board meetings. The suggestion ofupgrading the audio equipment can be considered by the board in connection with its development ofthe budget.

Attendance by the working public, and their opportunity to have input, is curtailed by the current District School Board meetings being held at an inconvenient time. Response: Disagree The board has solicited opinions from staffand community members and determined that the 4:30 meeting start time is preferred by most. The Board has noted that since the time changedfrom 6:00 PM to 4:30 PM, attendance at board meetings has increased.

A District School Board member using profanity during a public District School Board meeting is never acceptable. Response: Agree

The Grand Jury heard the same Board member ridicule a visiting presenter' s report on nutrition, causing embarrassment to both the presenter and those in attendance. Response: Disagree This appears to relate to a comment during a presentation on nutrition, when a Board member remarked that he would rather have a hamburger andfries. The report states that this remark subjected the presenter to "ridicule" and "embarrassment;" this is an opinion ofthe Grand Jury observers not shared by other in attendance. While profanity at a meeting is not acceptable (F8), the Board recognizes that elected officials have a First Amendment right to speak on issues--we do not think that an attempt at humor by a Board member, ifeven not particularly funny in retrospect, warrants Grand Jury findings. FlO. It is critically important to continue maintaining separate balance sheets for each school since they have a combined budget. Response: Disagree The phrase "critically important" is subjective. Given that the budget comments within this report refer to revenue and expenditure activity, the District believes that the words 'balance sheet' stated in FI0 and R11 should be replaced with the words 'income statement'. It is the income statement that contains Revenues and Expenditures. Furthermore, it is true that Point Arena Schools assigns Site budget coding to revenue and expenditure activity line items within the budget (in line with the Grand Jury recommendation), and will continue to do so. The District has always tracked revenue and expenditures by site similar to the way a unified school district would; however, the 2004 Resolution No. 03-102, which consolidated the two school districts into a single district pursuant to Education Code 35110, states that the two districts "shall be deemed a single school districtfor all purposes including but not limited to budget andpersonnel matters." The district budget is board-approved as a single budget and reported to the State as a single budget under a single State budget accounting number. FII. There are multiple Brown Act violations during District School Board meetings that can be remedied with education, training, and a desire to act professionally. Response: Disagree There are not "multiple" Brown Act violations during meetings. The reportfails to providefactual examples to support theflnding. The District agrees that board training sessions are important. All Board members attended Brown Act and ethics training on November 11,2014 and March 2, 2015. The Board will continue to receive regular training regarding these issues.