Score: -1
(0/1/1)
Stanislaus County Grand Jury
• 2001-2002
Reason for Investigation The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury received a complaint from four employees of the Special
⚠️ 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 48 findings
F1
The Modesto City School Administration Staff and the Director of Special Education cooperated fully during the investigation of these complaints.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The Modesto City Schools(cid:31) Special Education employees interviewed were found to be conscientious, dedicated, knowledgeable and professional.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Prior to 2000, the Special Education staff members of the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) team, were required to prepare a three (3) year assessment on certain Special Education students.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The federal law was changed in the 1999-2000 school year to allow staff to waive the three (3) year assessment if they felt it was not necessary and the parent agreed with that decision.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
To facilitate this change in the law, the MCS developed and implemented a form (MCS/SELPA 2-B: June 2000) where staff and parents could indicate by signature their agreement or disagreement to waive the full three (3) year assessment.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
In May 2000 the California Department of Education (DOE) did a Correction Action Plan (CAP) Review on three (3) year assessments.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
MCS was notified by the DOE that, as of December 1, 1999, two-hundred and 5 eighty (280) students had not received reevaluation (assessment) within the prescribed timelines. MCS was given until June 30, 2000 to rectify this.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The MCS/SELPA establish and follow a procedure to ensure that a backlog of students requiring reevaluation does not occur in the future.
F8
The Director of Special Education met with program specialists in early June 2000 and asked them to help correct the problem of tardy reevaluations. This was requested because summer vacation was at hand and school site staff would not be available to complete the reevaluations.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Some of the program specialists thought this request was inappropriate. They felt this was the sole responsibility of the IEP team members.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Some program specialists did complete and/or instructed on-site staff to complete 2-B forms without required input from school psychologists.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
When new or revised MCS forms are introduced, specific in-service training is conducted on the forms.
F11
The Director of Special Education mailed letters to the parents of seventy-two (72) students on June 20, 2000 asking them to sign an enclosed 2-B form and return it to MCS as soon as possible.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The 2-B forms mailed to the parents failed to have any input from staff with knowledge of the students(cid:31) needs. The boxes on the form were checked indicating staff had reviewed the students(cid:31) needs. This was not the case. The signature blocks for staff were blank.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
Twenty-seven (27) of the 2-B forms were signed by the parents and returned to MCS; forty-five (45) were not returned.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
The Director of Special Education sent another letter to the seventy-two (72) parents on September 22, 2000 apologizing and explaining that the letter of June 20, 2000 was sent in error because it failed to have the required input from staff. He stated that this was his error. Testimony was taken that he had instructed a secretary and a clerk to send the letters.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
The 2-B forms, printed in English only, mailed to parents on June 20th have what appears to be a signature block below the typed phrase (cid:31)Staff with Knowledge of Students Needs.(cid:31) The Director testified that this was not intended to be a signature block.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
When practical MCS/SELPA correspondence to parents should be written in a language familiar to them.
F16
The 2-B form was revised in September 2000 to read above the signature block (cid:31)Staff with Knowledge of Students Needs/ Signature.(cid:31) According to the Director, this change was made at the insistence of two school psychologists. When the revised form was reprinted, it still included the old form number MCS/SELPA: 2-B June 2000.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
All MCS forms, when revised, should have printed on them (cid:31)revision(cid:31) and the date revised.
F17
When the twenty-seven (27) 2-B forms signed by parents were returned to MCS, 6 a clerk in the Director(cid:31)s office entered the data into the computer and forwarded it electronically to the DOE.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
The clerk attempted to match the names of IEP team members at the students(cid:31) school site to the Form 2-B(cid:31)s.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
The clerk printed the names of these staff members in the signature block of the returned 2-B forms. She could not recall if that was done on her own initiative or she was instructed to do so.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
Many of these staff, whose names appeared on the 2-B forms, had no association whatsoever with the student. In fact, several of the staff whose names appeared on the forms had retired prior to the forms being filled out.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
When school began in September, some of the 2-B forms, with names of staff printed on them, were discovered at school sites by staff members.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
Several staff members expressed concern that their names appeared on the 2-B forms giving the impression that they had reevaluated the student. They were also concerned that, while the files indicated the students had been reevaluated, they may not have been.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
The Director addressed this concern with a letter to staff dated September 28,
No recommendations for this finding
F24
The Director also stated in his letter that the staff names were put on the 2-B forms by a clerk in his office and routed to the school sites without his knowledge.
No recommendations for this finding
F25
The clerk testified that she did not print the names onto the 2-B forms to facilitate the routing to school sites.
No recommendations for this finding
F26
A secretary testified that the Director told her and a clerk to put staff names on the 2-B forms. A program specialist testified that the clerk had told her that the Director had instructed her to put the names on the forms.
No recommendations for this finding
F27
The Director testified that he does not remember telling the clerk to put staff names on the 2-B forms. He thinks she did it on her own initiative.
No recommendations for this finding
F28
Program specialists were initially instructed by the Director to review the files of 7 the twenty-seven (27) students and remove the 2-B forms completed by the clerk in his office.
No recommendations for this finding
F29
Program specialists were then re-directed by the Director not to remove the 2-B forms. However, some files had already been reviewed by the program specialists.
No recommendations for this finding
F30
The Director testified that (cid:31)We do not remove forms from student files.(cid:31) (cid:31)No one has the authority to remove it unless it goes through the process.(cid:31)
No recommendations for this finding
F31
The Director denied telling program specialists to pull 2-B forms from student files. After discovering they were pulling 2-B forms, he told them to put them back.
No recommendations for this finding
F32
The Director recanted his previous testimony and testified he had told the program specialists (cid:31)to replace(cid:31) the improper 2-B forms with newly completed ones.
No recommendations for this finding
F33
The Grand Jury reviewed twenty-one (21) of the twenty-seven (27) files in question and found only seven (7) contained the 2-B forms with the printed staff names on them.
No recommendations for this finding
F34
The Grand Jury reviewed the list of seventy-two (72) students who had letters mailed to their parents on June 20, 2000. Their schools of attendance were identified and forty-nine (49) of the seventy-two (72) students(cid:31) files were reviewed. This included twenty-one (21) of the twenty-seven (27) files of those students whose parents returned the 2-B forms of June 20, 2000.
No recommendations for this finding
F35
Of the forty-nine (49) student files reviewed, six (6) were found not to have been reevaluated as required.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The MCS Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, as the Director(cid:31)s immediate supervisors, verify and assure that the seventy two (72) students whose parents received letters and reevaluation forms on June 20, 2000 have, in fact, been reevaluated, and their files contain the proper documentation of the reevaluation.
F36
During the review, fifteen (15) 2-B forms with names printed on them were found.
No recommendations for this finding
F37
The complaining employees contacted the Executive Director of the Modesto Teachers Association (MTA) about the questionable 2-B forms.
No recommendations for this finding
F38
The MTA filed an application and request for group legal services (September 14, 2000) with the law firm of Tuttle and McClosky. MTA wanted an opinion of any liability for Special Education staff whose names had been falsified on the 2-B forms and if they were legally obligated to report these falsifications.
No recommendations for this finding
F39
The law firm replied (September 18, 2000) and suggested that MTA contact MCS 8 and demand that the student reevaluation be properly done immediately on the questioned students.
No recommendations for this finding
F40
The Executive Director of MTA requested that the Director of Special Education send him a list of the Special Education staff whose names had been printed on the (cid:31)forged(cid:31) 2-B forms. There was a cc to the Superintendent of MCS.
No recommendations for this finding
F41
The Director of Special Education provided a list of the names of Special Education staff whose names had been (cid:31)forged(cid:31) on the 2-B forms to the Executive Director of MTA.
No recommendations for this finding
F42
The Director of Special Education sent a fax to the MCS Superintendent summarizing how he had corrected the 2-B problem by having the program specialists take the twenty-seven (27) students back through the reevaluation process. There was no mention of the other forty-five (45) students whose parents received letters and incomplete 2-B forms to sign and did not return them.
No recommendations for this finding
F43
The Executive Director of MTA contacted the DOE by telephone and discussed the 2-B matter with a representative. The Director also faxed the DOE a copy of a questionable 2-B form, but never received a return call or any correspondence from the DOE.
No recommendations for this finding
F44
One of the complainants contacted the DOE by telephone and spoke to a Special Education consultant who handled the MCS/SELPA review. The consultant said she accepted the Director of Special Education(cid:31)s explanation of the 2-B incident and how he had corrected the problem. She was satisfied that the matter was corrected.
No recommendations for this finding
F45
The Special Education consultant does not recall the complainant(cid:31)s phone call. She testified no written report was ever made by DOE of the allegation of falsified Special Education documents.
No recommendations for this finding
F46
The Special Education consultant called the MCS Director of Special Education after a call from the MTA Executive Director. She accepted the Special Education Director(cid:31)s explanation that he had a secretary in his office write the names of IEP members on the 2-B form rather than have it typed. The consultant suggested he not do that again.
No recommendations for this finding
F47
The Director testified that no one from DOE ever contacted him regarding the 2-B form issue.
No recommendations for this finding
F48
The MCS Superintendent of Schools did not assign anyone to investigate the complaint of the MTA or the complainants. CONCLUSIONS 9 The Civil Grand Jury concluded that:
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Accusations of misconduct or illegal acts should not be investigated by the accused party. Investigations should be undertaken by the supervisor of the accused or a disinterested third party. COMPLAINT: 11
Conclusions 37
-
CL1 Page 10The Director of Special Education was under severe time constraints from the DOE to complete the tardy student reevaluation forms or face possible sanctions for being out of compliance.
-
CL2 Page 10The Director, after being refused by his program specialists, instructed his secretary and a clerk to complete the reevaluation forms without required staff input and mail them with his cover letter to parents for signature.
-
CL3 Page 10This lack of a three (3) year evaluation could conceivably result in a student going six (6) years without an evaluation as required by law.
-
CL4 Page 10When the signed 2-B forms were returned by the parents, there is strong evidence suggesting that the Director instructed a clerk to put staff names on the forms. After the forms had the names placed on them, it gave the appearance that the students had been reevaluated with input from the staff. The forms were then placed in the students(cid:31) files.
-
CL5 Page 10The Directors(cid:31) letter of September 22, 2000, apologizing to the affected parents and stating he made an error by not having staff input, is misleading. The Director sent the letter knowing it was misleading, untruthful, and done as part of an overall strategy to bring compliance without completing reevaluation and to avoid possible sanctions by DOE.
-
CL6 Page 10When staff discovered what had occurred and questioned his actions, the Director sent each affected staff member a letter placing the blame on a clerk. It appears that the Director attempted to wrongfully place blame on a clerk, rather than assume full responsibility for his own actions.
-
CL7 Page 10At first the Director denied, then admitted, that he had ordered program specialists to illegally remove 2-B forms from students(cid:31) files.
-
CL8 Page 10A program specialist advised 2-B forms had been illegally removed from students(cid:31) files, but the exact number was unknown.
-
CL9 Page 10It appeared to the Grand Jury that several students who required reevaluation were not taken back through the process and reevaluated.
-
CL10 Page 10The DOE, after being contacted by the MTA and a MCS psychologist, both 10 expressing concern about (cid:31)forged documents(cid:31), should have conducted a thorough investigation of the matter.
-
CL11 Page 11Simply accepting the Director of Special Education(cid:31)s explanation, and not documenting the matter, makes the DOE remiss in its duties and responsibilities.
-
CL12 Page 11The Grand Jury found portions of testimony from the Director of Special Education to be in conflict with the testimony of at least four (4) other witnesses.
-
CL13 Page 11The Superintendent of MCS failed to adequately investigate and address this issue.
-
CL14 Page 13The individual was not hired from Sonoma County to fill a position for program specialist, but for the position of speech therapist.
-
CL15 Page 13The individual was not, at the time of his employment by MCS (1992), a long-time friend of the MCS Director of Special Education.
-
CL16 Page 13The individual did not possess a masters degree as required by MCS when he applied for the position of program specialist in 1993.
-
CL17 Page 13The Assistant Superintendent for Personnel had the authority to waive the MCS requirement for a masters degree during the filling of the program specialist position in 1993 and exercised his right to do so.
-
CL18 Page 13The Director of Special Education does not make the final decision of who will be hired. This is the function of the Personnel Department, based in part on the Director(cid:31)s recommendation.
-
CL19 Page 13The Director of Special Education committed no improprieties in the filling of the program specialist position and the selection of the individual.
-
CL20 Page 15The Procedural Handbook is an integral part of the SELPA and is identified as such by SELPA documents.
-
CL21 Page 15The existence of the Procedural Handbook is, for all practical purposes, unknown by Special Education staff on site.
-
CL22 Page 15The Director of Special Education has been reluctant to distribute the Procedural Handbook.
-
CL23 Page 15The MCS has failed to follow SELPA policy by not implementing the provisions stated therein, (cid:31)it (procedural handbook) contains specific procedures for the coordination of the Local Plan(cid:31) (page five Local Plan Section II). (cid:31)It is intended to provide structure to the entire SELPA in implementing legal requirements(cid:31) (Procedural Handbook page one). It would be difficult for the MCS(cid:31) Special Education Department and staff to implement and follow the requirements of the SELPA when the very document to be followed is not made available to them.
-
CL24 Page 15The Director of Special Education(cid:31)s testimony concerning the Procedural Handbook frequently lacked clarity and often changed.
-
CL25 Page 17Resource specialists(cid:31) caseloads have been exceeded.
-
CL26 Page 17The resource specialists(cid:31) caseloads were, at times, being exceeded during the school year 2001-2002.
-
CL27 Page 17The MCS has failed to submit caseload waivers to the SBE as required by Education Code Section 56362 (c).
-
CL28 Page 17The Director appears to be attempting to correct the problem with additional teaching time.
-
CL29 Page 19The Director of Special Education spends an inordinate amount of time dealing with compliance and potential legal issues.
-
CL30 Page 19It is difficult for the Director to provide leadership and direction because of the time spent on compliance and legal issues.
-
CL31 Page 19The Director, according to many witnesses, is infrequently seen or heard from by the Special Education site staff.
-
CL32 Page 19The policies and procedures required to drive the Special Education program are not in written format or readily available to Special Education staff.
-
CL33 Page 19Communications from the Director are generally verbal, which creates misunderstandings, errors, confusion and results in a lack of accountability.
-
CL34 Page 21Modesto City Schools administration prepared Board Policy drafts on SELPA administration to include the CAC but failed to formalize and approve it as Board Policy as required by Education Code Sections: 56001, 56190-56194, 56195.7, 56200 (f), 56205 (12) and 56240.
-
CL35 Page 21Modesto City Schools(cid:31) Special Education administration has assigned its newly 21 hired Assistant Director the task of providing a potential CAC member interest survey.
-
CL36 Page 22The meeting times and location of CAC meetings did not prove conducive to parents and external organizations attending meetings. Movement to more convenient times and rotational school sites was begun in September 2001 to increase CAC attendance.
-
CL37 Page 22The CAC is not provided an annual budget, making it difficult to initiate parent training workshops or implement innovative ideas at school sites.
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Modesto City High School District
School District