Reada Nde SNSIDIRTff ? ri ?fi{'f; Date 6,1.2/.4_g,{, $omoma Offce of Education

Respondendti sagreeps artiallyw ith this finding. Regardingth e statementth atq ualified programsw ere deniedf unding throughC arl Perkinsg rantsb y SCOE,t he only instancer elating to this finding of which we are awarep ertainst o the teacherm entionedi n the grandj ury report who askedS COEt o fund SkillsU SA with $2,500o f Perkinsm oney. At thatt ime,t he Skills USA programw as alreadyf ully fundedf or that budgety ear fiom non-SCOEn on-Perkins sources.T he teacherw ast old thath is requeswt ould be consideredd uringt he nextf unding cycle. However,t he Carl PerkinsA ct hasb eena mendeds ince2 006-2007a nd SCOE is not receivinga ny Perkinsf undingf or 2007-2008. The issuer egardingw hether" programsa nd materialsn ot allowed by the Carl PerkinsA ct were purchasedw ith the grantm oney" is presentlyp endingw ith the StateD epartmenot f Education. As discussedin the reportb y Loyal Carlon,c opy attachedS, COEe xpendedfu ndsf iom the Perkinsg rant in 2006-2007f or the benefito f vocationalp rogramsa t the Youth Camp and Adera Cal-Safe.A s such,S COEw asa n eligibler ecipiento f thesef unds. The PerkinsA ct in effectf or thatt ime perioda lsop rovidcda t $2355(c)t hat Perkinst undsm ay be used,a mongo thert hings,t o "providep rogramsfb r speciapl opulations"a ndf br "support services." Section2 301( 23) of the Act deflned" specialp opulationst"o includei ndividualsw ith disabilitiesi,n dividualsf rom economicallyd isadvantagefda milies,i ncludingf osterc hildren, individualsp reparingf or non-traditionatlr aininga nde mploymcnts, inglep arentsa. nd 'l'he individualsw ith otherb arrierst o educationaal chievement. vastm ajorityo f SCOEs tudents attendingit s courta ndc ommunitys choolsa rew ithin this defrnitiono f "specialp opulation." In the first paragrapho f its lbur year local performancep lan fbr 2000-2004( which was extended for the 2006-2007s chooly ear), SCOE advisedt he statet hat it was recluestingP erkinsl unds "to addressth e educationaal ndv ocationanl eedso f the speciapl opulationso f at-risks tudentsw" ith the programso ffered by the County office. The disputede xpenditurebse nefitedth eses peciapl opulationsb y, amongo thert hings,a dvising theses tudentso f possiblec areero ptionsa nd by assistingt heses tudentsin finding appropriate careerp athways. Therefore,t hesee xpendituresa ppeart o fall within the permissibleu se of Perkinsf undsa sp rovidedi n the Act. However,i n its letterd atedM arch2 8, 2008,t he StateD epartmenot f Educationa dvisedS COE on paget hreea t (4) that its attorneyd id not believet hat thesee xpensesw ere allowed undert he Act. While the expressl anguageo f the PerkinsA ct appearsto supporta contraryi nterpretation, SCOEd oesn ot believei t is productiveto continuet o spendt ime ande nergyc ontestingth is expenditureo f a relatively small sum of money,a ll of which was clearly spentf or educational purposesth at benefitedS COEs tudents.A ccordingly,S COEh asp roposeda compromise resolution;h owever,w e have not yet heardb ack from the stateo n this matter. 8/19 /08

No responseis required.

Respondenat greesw ith this finding.

Respondendt isagreeps artiallyw ith this finding.S ASI (refenedt o as SASix in the Grand Jury Report) is a prog.u* that tracksg radesa nd creditsf or highly mobile studentsin ordert o maximizet heir ability to meetg raduationre quirementsT. his programw as discussedo n pagel 4 of SCOE'sf our yearl ocalp erfbrmancep lan fbr 2000-2004( whichw as extendedto the endo f the 20Oi schooly ear) that was submittedt o the statei n connectionw ith the requestf br Perkins funding. fne $+,OOOre ferredt o in the GrandJ ury report representsm oney spentb y SCOE to provide technicals upportf or the SASix program,w hich was utilized to supportn ot only the vocationalp rog.urn, at ttre Youth Camp and Adera,b ut alsot he programsb enefitingt he special populationia ttendingS COEc ourta ndc ommunitys chools.A s noteda bove,t he PerkinsA ct statest hat funds 1nuyb . providedt o benellt specialp opulationsa nd to provide supports ervices in connectionw ith this funding.

Respondendt isagreeps artiallyw ith this finding.W e aren ot surew hat the state administiators aidi n his testimonyt o the GrandJ ury. In any event.t he SASix expenditurew as not lor the purchaseo f software.P leases eet he responseto F4 above.

No responseis required.

Respondendt isagreeps artiallyw ith this finding.T he teacherm entionedin the GrandJ ury reporta skedS COEt o fund Skills USA with $2,500o f Perkinsm oney. At thatt ime,t he Skills USA programw as alreadyf ully lundedf br that budgety earl iom non-SCOEn on-Perkins .o.,r".r. The teacherw ast old thath is requeswt ould be consideredd uringt hc next funding cycle. As noteda bove,S COEi s not receivinga ny Perkinsf unding1 br2 007-2008. Fg: Respondenatg reesw ith the undcrlyingb asisl br this finding.W e aren ot surew hat the state administratosr aidi n his testimonyt o the GrandJ ury. We believet hat Perkinsf undsm ay be usedf br Skills USA Programs.

Respondendt isagreesw ith this finding. The GrandJ ury report doesn ot identify the name of the staff personm Jntionedi n this finding. The reassignmenot f the SCOE teacherw ho had askedf or perkinsf undsf br the Skills USA program( whichw asa lreadyf ully fundedf rom other non-SCOEn on-Perkinss ourcesw) ast he subjecto f a grievancew, hich assertedth att he reassignmenotf the teacherw as" punitive,d isciplinaryo r retaliatory."A hearingo n the grievincew as held beforea n impartiala rbitratoro n January2 3.2008. At the hearing.s worn t-estimonyw as takena nd many exhibitsw ere submittedr egardingt he proprietyo f the reassignment.O n May 14, 2008 the impartial arbitratorr uled that the grievancew as without merit. In particular,t he arbitrators tated: "Grievant's primary contentioni s that he was transferredb ecauseh e reporteda n allegedm isuseo f Carl Perkinsf unds to the Stateo f California. This contentioni s not supportedb y the evidence." A copy of the impartial arbitrator'so pinion (redacted)a nd awardi s attachedh ereto. A copy of the swornt estimony given at the arbitrationw ill be madea vailableu pon request' The GrandJ ury report doesn ot provide any informationt hat contradictst he evidencep resented at the hearingo n the grievance. We are therefores urprisedt hat the Grand Jury concludesb y this 8/19/08 finding and recommendationR 6 that the subjectr eassignmenwt as punitive when an impartial arbitratorh asr uled that it was not.

Respondendt isagreesp artially with this finding. SCOE may be askedt o repaya portion of the Perkinsf unding. SCOE hasn ot beeni nformed of any final determinationb y the stateo n this issue. Pleases eet he responseto Fl above. 8/19 /08 Responseto Recommendations Rl: We agreew ith this recommendationw,h ich representesx istingS COEp ractice.