📋
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.
Alameda County Grand Jury
• 2005-2006
Alameda County Office of Education and Alameda County Board of Education
⚠️ 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 4 findings
F1
Page 35
two at approximately 5:00;
F2
Page 35
two at approximately 5:30;
F3
Page 35
eleven at approximately 6:30; and
F4
one at approximately 7:00 These fluctuations violate the Board’s own bylaws requiring that regular meetings be held at 7:30 p.m. on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month (BB 9230(a)2.B). Further, more effort should be made to update and advise the public as to changes in meeting times; for example, through the internet or the creation of a public information line, and therefore comply with the letter and spirit of the Brown Act. Fourth, the Board sets the salary of the Superintendent and, according to her contract, the Board votes annually on an increase that it has granted every year. Surprisingly, there is no formal evaluation process of the superintendent. In order to ensure the public that performance standards are established and met, the Board should implement a process of annually reviewing the superintendent; and it should involve broad based input including that of the superintendents of all school districts in the county. 35 2005-2006 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Recommendations 1
-
R10-20Page 32percent. Two districts participated in 4-5 percent. One district did not participate at all. o With respect to the regional and state programs and services offered, only Hayward, Newark, San Leandro, and one ACOE employee participated. 15 districts did not participate at all. • Districts in the tri-valley area and high performing districts perceive the ACOE provides very little benefit to their districts and students. • Monthly meetings of superintendents are beneficial but only when controlled by the superintendents themselves, not the ACOE. The one ACOE administrator who assists in scheduling is helpful. • Monthly meetings of chief business officials and other assistant superintendents are beneficial. Input regarding business services was requested this year. Sometimes, input regarding professional programming is requested. • While some superintendents believe that the superintendent of the ACOE is approachable and welcomes informal input regarding program suggestions, some do not and requests are not acted upon. • ACOE focuses on providing programming to districts that are physically close to its office. • ACOE is mainly concerned with providing programming to districts that have diverse student populations and/or lower socio-economic means. • Emails regarding legislative updates and educational updates are helpful. • Support with grant writing, technology, labor negotiations, and fiscal matters are helpful when offered. • Community Day Programs provide a much needed service for expelled students. However, capacity is insufficient to meet the county’s needs. • Most districts look to other county offices of education for templates and research on issues facing school districts. • ACOE provides a benefit when it fulfills its statutory obligations, such as fiscal oversight. 32