📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Plumas County Grand Jury • 2010-2011

to receive from the State, the State will actually only pay 81.25 cents

7 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 9 findings

F1 Page 14
After review and discussion of the suspension and expulsion procedures as well as the California Education Code 48911, it appeared that school officials did not have a full understanding of the procedures or the purpose of the "Zero Tolerance" ruling.
F2 Page 14
The time frames made clear in the California Education Code 48911 were not in compliance.
F3 Page 14
The alleged events took place September 28, 2010, and it wasn't until two days later that an informal hearing was held by the principal and two Plumas County Sheriff deputies. A hearing is to be within one day of violation. The parent/guardian was not informed nor was she present until she was called by the school, and the student was released to her custody by the principal.
F4 Page 14
The student was suspended from school until a meeting of the School Board had made a decision. This meeting was not held until December 14, 2010.
F5 Page 14
The pupil was active in school activities, held a good grade point average, and had a high SAT score for college acceptance. According to several letters from teachers, the pupil was well liked and a good student. There were no actions taken against the student by the Plumas County authorities. This was the student's senior year. This was a first-time violation by the student. 13
F6 Page 15
The California Education Code 48911 recommendation for expulsion is as follows: a. That other means of correction are not feasible or have repeatedly failed to bring about proper conduct. b. That due to the nature of the violation, the presence of the pupil causes a continuing danger to the physical safety of the pupil or others.
F7 Page 15
Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident of improper expulsions. According to public school board records, other expulsions were addressed at closed school board sessions, and according to concerned community members, were not in the time frame set down by the PCUSD and the State of California.
F8 Page 16
Formed Crisis Response Teams.
F9 Page 16
At Quincy Elementary School, the school secretary and administrative designee (teacher in charge) have been trained to implement a lockdown using the lockdown bell signal whenever a report involving a gun is received on days when the principal is not on campus. I 0. The schedule of the office staff has also been rearranged so that there is always someone at the switchboard during the lunch hour. Conclusion School officials have acted in a responsible manner to improve school safety. Specific Issue #4 - An atmosphere of intolerance exists at the District level. Purpose Statement Examples of intolerance were directly observed by Grand Jury members from interviews, local media, and testimony at public school board meetings. Findings 1) In the fall of 20 I 0, students were exposed to a vehicle with hate language on school property. The vehicle is still, as of spring 2011, present near a local elementary school. It is now on the street but off school property. Even if the truck was present one time instead of many, once showed poor judgment by the school employee. During the December board meeting it was decided to place the issue on the January School Board meeting agenda, but it never was put on any school agenda. Little else was done except that a memo from the school employee was sent to District employees with a response from the Superintendent as well. The Superintendent's initial response was slow and inadequate. 2) Some of the teaching staff feel they are working in an environment of intimidation, harassment, and retribution if there is any questioning or dissent. 15 3) They also feel that concerns about students are not being addressed by the Administration. They report instances of intimidation of principals to be quiet when parents show up at meetings, and to discourage parents from attending meetings. There were also several reports from witnesses of the intimidation of · teachers who speak out. These teachers received poor reviews when not warranted. They were evaluated two-three times a week. They were put into positions which made them uncomfortable. They were given assignments or demands that were excessive. No guidelines were set for what exactly is a "bad teacher". 3) Students' needs are not met equally. For example, students with behavioral problems were denied behavioral consultations because they were too expensive. As required by Article 7 of the Federal law, if a student's behavior affects the learning of other students as well as themselves to a marked degree and over a period of time, the student is required to be tested. Conclusion: The public perception of the school District Board and its policies is controversial and needs to be addressed.

Recommendations 6

Conclusions 2