Score: -2 (8/23/10)

Stanislaus County Grand Jury • 2007-2008

Part Four: La Grange Elementary School District – Case 08-04

Published: June 09, 2008 12 pages

View Original PDF

⚠️ 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 12 findings

Relocatable classrooms were placed on the La Grange School site in the absence of Division of the State Architect (DSA) approval. a) Plans were not submitted to the DSA nor did DSA approve plans or issue permits for relocatable classrooms to be placed on the La Grange school site, per EdC 17280 and EdC 17350 et seq. b) No permits were issued by Stanislaus County, as that responsibility lies with the DSA. c) Construction inspections were not performed or reported, per EdC 17311 and EdC 17312. d) Final approval was not obtained before these buildings were put into use, per EdC 17315.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recommends that: a) DSA conduct an immediate inspection of the La Grange School facility to determine compliance with DSA requirements for construction on school sites. b) SCOE shall require all school districts to notify SCOE of all construction and to submit copies of DSA construction approval requests. c) SCOE shall require any district with no construction to submit an annual written report certifying to no construction. d) SCOE withhold funds for any school district construction until the district provides SCOE with evidence of DSA construction approval. e) La Grange School District immediately applies to DSA for construction approval for the relocatable classrooms. f) La Grange School District immediately requests an inspection from the California State Fire Marshal. g) La Grange School District removes students from un-approved buildings until they are approved for student occupancy.

Relocatable classrooms, without final approval and containing several safety concerns, were occupied by students, for classroom instruction over a multi-year period. EdC 17295, EdC 81133, and EdC 81130, et seq. a) Fire inspections were not performed. b) There were no fire alarm pulls or telephones for reporting fires or emergencies in these classrooms, per EdC 17077.10 c) The central fire alarm could not be heard in these classrooms. d) Hasps and padlocks were installed on the outside of the only door of a classroom that housed students.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recommends that: a) The La Grange School District immediately applies to the DSA for construction approval for the relocatable classrooms. b) The La Grange School District immediately requests an inspection from the State Fire Marshal. c) The La Grange School District removes students from un-approved classrooms until they are approved for student occupancy.

Safety drills and inspections were not regularly performed, reported, or recorded for several years. a) The La Grange School District did not have a policy for conducting fire drills as required by EdC 32001. b) Fire drills were not conducted on a regular basis, per EdC 32001. c) Mandated inspections by the Fire Marshal were neither requested nor conducted as required. A fire inspection in March 2007 showed “no violations observed.” A fire inspection in January 2008 revealed many violations. A follow-up fire inspection in February 2008 showed that these had been cleared. d) Teachers had neither an adequate nor a reliable way of reporting a fire or emergency without leaving their classes unattended, per EdC 17077.10. e) Teachers had neither an adequate nor a reliable way of knowing if a fire or emergency was occurring elsewhere on campus.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recommends that: a) The State Fire Marshal immediately conducts an inspection of the buildings on the La Grange campus. b) The La Grange School is put on a State Fire Marshal priority list for regular safety and fire inspections. c) The La Grange School District installs a hardwired connection to a public, switched telephone network in each new or modernized classroom, per EdC 17077.10.

Categorical Funds were allotted to and spent by La Grange School District without having the required Schoolsite Council formed to oversee or authorize these expenditures.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recommends that: a) La Grange School District form a Schoolsite Council and document its formation and operation, per EdC 52850, et seq. b) SCOE verify that the La Grange Schoolsite Council has approved the expenditure of categorical funds, per EdC 41572. c) The CDE conduct an immediate audit of these expenditures by the La Grange School District and place the district on a priority list for future annual reviews.

Evaluation, reporting and delivery of services to Special Education students was inconsistent and appeared to be out of compliance with CDE requirements. a) It appeared that Special Education services were not provided in accordance with the CDE requirements, per EdC 56340 et seq. and EdC 56360 et seq. b) It appeared that required members were not present at student Individual Education Plan (IEP) evaluation meetings, per EdC 56341 (b). c) Classroom teachers of Resource Specialist Program (RSP) students were neither advised of IEP meetings nor included in those meetings, per EdC 56341 (b) (2).

Related Recommendations (1)

The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recommends that: a) CDE conduct audits of the SELPAs within Stanislaus County. b) Stanislaus County SELPA audit the La Grange School District Special Education program and submit a copy of the audit report to SCOE and the Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury. c) That SCOE develop a procedure to monitor the Special Education programs of its districts, with oversight for small school districts that do not contract with SCOE to deliver these Special Education services.

A Safe School Plan was neither properly prepared, distributed, nor maintained. a) The required Safe School Plan was not available in the La Grange School office, per EdC 32280 et seq. b) The Safe School Plan was not filed with SCOE, per EdC 32280.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recommends that: a) SCOE develop a program to oversee and ensure compliance with EdC 32280 et seq. b) SCOE report failure to comply with the Safe School Plan development requirements to CDE with a recommendation for suitable penalties. c) The La Grange School District develop a comprehensive Safe School Plan, per EdC 32280 et seq.

The School Accountability Report Cards (SARCs) were neither produced nor administered as required by EdC 33126 and EdC 35256.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recommends that: a) The CDE audit the production of SARCs by school districts. b) SCOE develop a system for oversight to ensure compliance by all school districts with this requirement. c) The La Grange School District immediately develop and implement a policy to ensure compliance with this requirement, per EdC 33126 and EdC 35256.

Attendance accounting procedures were irregular. a) Documentation justifying attendance reports was not provided, per EdC 46000 et seq. b) Reported attendance showed irregularities in the multi-year pattern, per EdC 41601 et seq. c) There are no provisions for excusing student absences, to receive ADA for absent students, in the State Attendance Reporting procedures, per EdC 46300 et seq. d) Absent students were marked as present when the missed day’s work was assigned to them by their teacher. This daily class work assignment program did not meet the requirements of an independent study program, making the reporting of these students as present out of compliance with CDE attendance reporting procedures. e) EdC 46300 (e) (1) and EdC 46300 (e) (2) define independent study programs as lasting five consecutive school days or more.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recommends that: a) CDE conduct an audit of the attendance procedures and reporting of the La Grange School District for the last four school years. b) CDE place the La Grange School District on a priority list for the conduct of all mandated attendance audits and reviews. c) SCOE review the attendance reporting procedures of the La Grange School District and establish a program for oversight of future reports.

Duties of the principal/superintendent were neither specified, evaluated, nor known. a) There was no La Grange School Board of Trustees policy for evaluating the principal/superintendent’s performance. b) Some La Grange School Board members were unaware of the principal/superintendent’s duties and responsibilities. c) The La Grange School Board renewed the principal/superintendent’s contract without it having been seen by some La Grange School Board members and without conducting any evaluation of or accountability for the principal/superintendent’s performance. d) There was neither school board policy requiring staff and teachers to be informed of the absence of the principal/superintendent, nor who the credentialed person in charge was, nor how the principal/superintendent could be reached in an emergency.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recommends that: a) The La Grange School Board develop policies and procedures outlining the principal/superintendent’s duties and responsibilities. b) The La Grange School Board members immediately seek training on their duties, responsibilities and functions. c) SCOE provide the La Grange School Board with information on the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) requirements for credentialing administrators. d) The La Grange School Board evaluate the principal/superintendent’s performance annually and keep written personnel records of them, with one of the evaluations taking place within the 90-day period immediately preceding contract renewal.

F10

The La Grange School District Board of Trustees has not served with oversight and appears unaware of its responsibilities and liabilities in the conduct of district management and operations. Areas of concern include the following items: a) The scheduling, conducting, and reporting of safety drills were not performed, per EdC 32001. b) The procurement of, construction of, permits for, and inspections of facilities and equipment placed or constructed on the La Grange School site, were not completed, per EdC 17263, 17267. c) Students were housed in classrooms without proper fire alarms having been approved by the DSA and the State Fire Warden’s office, as required by EdC 17074.52(c) and (e). d) Students were housed in classrooms without proper emergency communication devices having been approved by the DSA and the State Fire Warden’s office, as required by EdC 17077.10. e) The La Grange School Board did not require any reports or notifications of compliance with CDE mandates in the areas of construction, safety drills and activities, or the formation of committees, councils, programs, and activities. f) The La Grange School Board allowed the La Grange School District to function without adequate operational and personnel policies. g) The La Grange School Board provided inadequate supervision and oversight of the activities, decisions, and conduct of the principal/superintendent. h) The La Grange School Board did not practice the required oversight in the chain of command for decision-making, management, and operations, between the La Grange School Board and the principal/superintendent. It may or may not have been in a policy. i) The La Grange School Board neither provided for nor practiced adequate controls on funds expenditures, per EdC 42630 et seq. j) The La Grange School Board did not make mandated visits to school each term, per EdC 35292.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10

The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recommends that: a) The La Grange School District immediately adopt and implement a policy requiring all school board members attend available training for school boards offered by SCOE, California School Boards Association (CSBA), and/or other sources on the Brown Act and the California Education Code. b) La Grange School District adopt a Board training policy that applies to the existing board members and to all future elected board members. c) The La Grange School Board immediately develop and adopt a policy, requiring the principal/superintendent to make monthly reports to the Board of any required safety drills, actions and activities, and compliance with same, of all mandated requirements from all agencies that pertain to the operation of the La Grange School District. d) SCOE develop and implement a program of semi-annual in-service board meetings, in January and August, for all school districts in the county. Further, that SCOE solicit and agendize training items from the districts in advance, with items not addressed during the meeting to be addressed with the submitting district as soon as possible after the meeting. SCOE, through district superintendents, should stress the need and importance of this in-service meeting and encourage attendance.

F11

The principal/superintendent of the La Grange School District has not fully met the duties and responsibilities of the position.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11

The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recommends that: a) SCOE develop and implement a program, or expand and existing programs, to train small school principals and superintendents, per EdC 44681 et seq.

F12

In several instances, documents requested by the Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury of the La Grange School District were not provided. Explanations from the La Grange School District office varied: a) Some of the records were “not available” b) Some of the records did not exist c) Some of the records were lost in a computer theft d) For some of the records, there was no explanation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12

The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recommends that: a) The La Grange School District develops and implement policies and procedures to collect, maintain, and safely store appropriate school and district records.

Agency Responses 2

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

Board of Trustees

August 29, 2008 • 22 pages • 24 responses • Score: -1 (+4, 12, -5) View Details ▾

PDF

24 responses to findings and recommendations

Response: Agree Score: +1

The Respondent agrees with this finding. The Respondent's response to each finding is below: (a) The Superintendent ordered multiple portable (i.e., relocatable) buildings for use as classrooms which were advertised as DSA-approved from Mobile Modular. The Superintendent erroneously believed this meant these portable buildings complied with the requirements for DSA approval of construction/reconstruction of school buildings. In a letter dated April 3, 2008, a representative of DSA notified the District that two of the portable buildings on campus did not comply with the requirements for DSA a...

Response: Implemented

Score: 0

The Respondent's response to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: (a) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel DSA to take the recommended actions. (b) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County Office of Education to take the recommended actions. (c) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County Office of Education to take the recommended actions. (d) This...

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. The Grand Jury's citations to Education Code sections 81133 and 81130 et seq. are not relevant as they are intended to apply to postsecondary education institutions. The Respondent's response to each finding is below: (a) Annual fire inspections have been performed on all buildings on the La Grange Elementary School campus during the last two school years. Although the Grand Jury did not indicate the period of time they were reviewing, I have attached copies of the last four (4) fire inspection reports by the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire D...

Response: Implemented

Score: 0

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: (a) The recommendation has been implemented. The District has meetings scheduled with DSA beginning August 4, 2008, to coordinate the process for the approval of the portable classrooms being utilized on campus. (b) This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Stanislaus Consolidated Fire District inspected the buildings in the District during the previous school year, and will do so in the future as required by law. (c) The recommendation has been implemented, and no students will oc...

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. The Respondent's response to each finding is below: The District complies with the statutory requirement in Education Code section 32001 of (a) conducting a fire drill at least once every month at the elementary school level. Section 32001 does not require that a policy exist in writing, only that the practice is consistent with the requirements of that section. Fire drills were conducted on a regular basis during the 2007-2008 school year. (b) Education Code section 32001 requires an elementary school to conduct a fire drill not less than...

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: The This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. (a) Stanislaus Consolidated Fire District has inspected the buildings in the District three times during the 2007-2008 school year (see Exhibit B). Additional inspections beyond regularly scheduled annual inspections would be redundant. This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's (b) jurisdiction to compel the State Fire Marshal to take the recommended actions. This recommendation will not be implemente...

Categorical Funds were allotted to and spent by La Grange School District without having the required Schoolsite Council formed to oversee or authorize these expenditures.

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. The District had a functioning School Site Council through the 2003-2004 school year. For the 2004-2005 school year and the 2005-2006 school year, there was no School Site Council due to disinterest within the District and the community, which is not uncommon in a District that serves a population as small as La Grange's. The District followed the previously approved expenditure plan for categorical funds. During the 2006-2007 school year, no categorical funds were expended because attempts to form a School Site Council were still unsucces...

Response: Implemented

Score: 0

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: The recommendation was implemented in August 2007 and a School Site Council was (a) operating during the 2007-2008 school year. This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's (b) jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County Office of Education to take the recommended actions. This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's (c) jurisdiction to compel the CDE to take the recommended actions. Finding No. 5 Evaluation, reporting and delivery of servi...

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The Respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Respondent's response to each finding is below: Based on the District's investigation, the District is not aware of any instance where (a) special education services were not provided to eligible students when required by law. There were two IEP meetings during the 2007-2008 school year where the required (b) members were not present. In the first, for Student No. 5040991642, the student's IEP meeting was rescheduled during the summer recess at the family's request due to a family emergency prior to the scheduled IEP meeting, and some me...

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's (a) jurisdiction to compel the CDE to take the recommended actions. This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's (b) jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County SELPA to take the recommended actions. This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's (c) jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County Office of Education to take the recommended actions. Finding No. 6 A...

Response: Disagree Score: -1

The Respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. The Respondent's response to each finding is below: The District has always had a properly prepared, distributed and maintained Safe School (a) Plan, including one for the 2007-2008 school year. (Exhibit E.) Plans are revised and adopted by the Board on an annual basis. Plans are also distributed and posted in every room on campus. The plans are reviewed with staff members during a workshop prior to the start of each school year, including the 2007-2008 school year. (Exhibit F.) The Safe School Plan was not available in the La Grange Elementary...

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's (a) jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County Office of Education to take the recommended actions. This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's (b) jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County Office of Education to take the recommended actions. This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The District (c) already has a properly prepared, distributed and maintained sa...

The School Accountability Report Cards (SARCs) were neither produced nor administered as required by EdC 33126 and EdC 35256.

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The Respondent agrees partially with this finding. While the School Accountability Report Cards (SARCs) were not timely produced for the 2006-2007 school year, the SARC for the 2007-2008 school year is typically not developed until the beginning of the following school year and therefore is not currently due.

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's (a) jurisdiction to compel the CDE to take the recommended actions. This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's (b) jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County Office of Education to take the recommended actions. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented during the (c) 2008-2009 school year. The District has contracted with a private company AXIOM, Inc., to complete...

Response: Disagree Score: -1

The Respondent disagrees wholly with this finding. The Respondent's response to each finding is below: The Superintendent provided the Grand Jury with sufficient documentation regarding the (a) recording and reporting of attendance, including classroom attendance registers, copies of the monthly attendance reports submitted to the Stanislaus County Office of Education, and a detailed presentation on the content of these documents and the District's attendance recording and reporting procedures. Fluctuations in reported attendance in recent years is attributable the increase in (b) enrollment d...

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's (a) jurisdiction to compel the CDE to take the recommended actions. This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's (b) jurisdiction to compel the CDE to take the recommended actions. Although the District does not have the authority to compel SCOE to implement this (c) recommendation, the District is currently working with SCOE to audit its attendance reporting. The initial audit completed by SCOE, da...

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. The Respondent's response to each finding is below: There was no La Grange Elementary School Board of Trustees policy for evaluating the (a) principal/superintendent's performance. The Board is currently developing a formal policy for evaluating the principal/superintendent's performance and expects to adopt such policy by the start of the 2008-2009 school year. Each member of the Board of Trustees is aware of the principal/superintendent's general (b) duties and responsibilities. The Grand Jury has not identified a particular board member...

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the (a) future. Board members have begun the process of reviewing sample Superintendent evaluation models and policies, one of which will be chosen and implemented by the start of the 2008-2009 school year. The recommendation has been implemented, in that Board members regularly receive (b) training on particular aspects of their duties, responsibilities, and functions. These trainings will continue to be scheduled as necessary. This recomme...

F10

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The District disagrees partially with this finding. The District's response to each finding is below: The Board disagrees with this finding. As stated in the

R10

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

The District's response to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: This recommendation will not be implemented because the Grand Jury's (a) recommendation is vague and impractical, particularly to its reference for training on unspecified subject matter areas within the 2,000+ page California Education Code. The La Grange School Board of Trustees, collectively, or individual trustees, attend trainings throughout their terms. When a particular need is identified the Board, collectively, or individual trustees will attend the necessary training. It is not necessary nor, to the Board's k...

F11

The principal/superintendent of the La Grange School District has not fully met the duties and responsibilities of the position.

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The Respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Grand Jury did not specify its criteria or benchmarks for concluding that the Superintendent has not fully met the duties and responsibilities of the position. To the extent deficiencies have been identified by the Grand Jury, they will be corrected, however, the Superintendent has adequately met the duties and responsibilities of the position, including, but not limited to, the orderly and efficient operation of the District.

R11

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's (a) jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County Office of Education to take the recommended actions. Finding No. 12 In several instances, documents requested by the Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury of the La Grange Elementary School District were not provided. Explanations from the La Grange Elementary School District office varied: Some of the records were "not available." (a) Some of the records did not exist. (b) Some of the re...

F12

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. There were several requested documents requested by the Grand Jury that were not available, for the reasons stated in Finding No. 12, however, Respondent cannot respond to the disposition of any particular document without specific identification of each unavailable document by the Grand Jury.

R12

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Board members have begun the process of reviewing sample document maintenance policies, one of which will be chosen and implemented by the start of the upcoming school year. If you have any questions or if the Board can be of any additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted by vote of the Governing Board as follows: Sincerely, Joen 10 Joseph Magnu, Superintendent/Secretary to the Governing Board JM/ Attachments: Exhibits A-H 5416.5/164356<br>Page 22

Response La Grange School District Administration

August 13, 2008 • 19 pages • 24 responses • Score: -1 (+4, 11, -5) View Details ▾

PDF

24 responses to findings and recommendations

Response: Agree Score: +1

The Respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as the District is still investigating this finding. The Respondent's response to each finding is below: (a) The District is investigating this finding and will provide a detailed response when the La Grange Elementary School Board of Trustees submits its written response due on or before September 1, 2008. (b) It is unclear if this is a finding directed at an act or omission by the District. The Superintendent is unable to respond. (c) The District is investigating this finding and will provide a detailed response when the La Gran...

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: (a) This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel DSA to take the recommended actions. (b) This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County Office of Education to take the recommended actions. (c) This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County Office of Education to take the recommended actions. (...

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

Response: Implemented

Score: 0

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. The Respondent's response to each finding is below: (a) The District complies with the statutory requirement in Education Code section 32001 of conducting a fire drill at least once every month at the elementary school level. Section 32001 does not require that a policy exist in writing, only that the practice is consistent with the requirements of that section. (b) Fire drills were conducted on a regular basis during the 2007-2008 school year. Education Code section 32001 requires an elementary school to conduct a fire drill not less than ...

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: (a) This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Stanislaus Consolidated Fire District has inspected the buildings in the District three times during the 2007- 2008 school year (see Exhibit A). Additional inspections beyond regularly scheduled annual inspections would be redundant. (b) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the State Fire Marshal to take the recommended actions. (c) This recommendation will not be imple...

Categorical Funds were allotted to and spent by La Grange School District without having the required Schoolsite Council formed to oversee or authorize these expenditures.

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

Response: Implemented

Score: 0

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: (a) The recommendation was implemented in August 2007 and a School Site Council was operating during the 2007-2008 school year. (b) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County Office of Education to take the recommended actions. (c) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the CDE to take the recommended actions. Finding No. 5 Evaluation, reporting and delivery of servi...

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The Respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Respondent's response to each finding is below: (a) Based on the District's investigation, the District is not aware of any instance where special education services were not provided to eligible students when required by law. (b) There were two IEP meetings during the 2007-2008 school year where the required members were not present. In the first, for Student No. 5040991642, the student's IEP meeting was rescheduled during the summer recess at the family's request due to a family emergency prior to the scheduled IEP meeting, and some me...

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: (a) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the CDE to take the recommended actions. (b) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County SELPA to take the recommended actions. (c) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County Office of Education to take the recommended actions. Finding No. 6 A...

Response: Disagree Score: -1

The Respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. The Respondent's response to each finding is below: (a) The District has always had a properly prepared, distributed and maintained Safe School Plan, including one for the 2007-2008 school year. (Exhibit D.) Plans are revised and adopted by the Board on an annual basis. Plans are also distributed and posted in every room on campus. The plans are reviewed with staff members during a workshop prior to the start of each school year, including the 2007-2008 school year. (Exhibit E.) The Safe School Plan was not available in the La Grange Elementary...

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: (a) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County Office of Education to take the recommended actions. (b) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County Office of Education to take the recommended actions. (c) This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The District already has a properly prepared, distributed and maintained saf...

The School Accountability Report Cards (SARCs) were neither produced nor administered as required by EdC 33126 and EdC 35256.

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: (a) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the CDE to take the recommended actions. (b) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County Office of Education to take the recommended actions. (c) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented during the 2008- 2009 school year. The District has contracted with a private company AXIOM, Inc., to complete...

Response: Disagree Score: -1

The Respondent disagrees wholly with this finding. The Respondent's response to each finding is below: (a) The Superintendent provided the Grand Jury with sufficient documentation regarding the recording and reporting of attendance, including classroom attendance registers, copies of the monthly attendance reports submitted to the Stanislaus County Office of Education, and a detailed presentation on the content of these documents and the District's attendance recording and reporting procedures. (b) Fluctuations in reported attendance in recent years is attributable the increase in enrollment d...

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: (a) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the CDE to take the recommended actions. (b) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the CDE to take the recommended actions. (c) Although the District does not have the authority to compel SCOE to implement this recommendation, the District is currently working with SCOE to audit its attendance reporting. The initial audit completed by SCOE, da...

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. The Respondent's response to each finding is below: (a) There was no La Grange Elementary School Board of Trustees policy for evaluating the principal/superintendent's performance. The Board is currently developing a formal policy for evaluating the principal/superintendent's performance and expects to adopt such policy by the start of the 2008-2009 school year. (b) The La Grange Elementary School Board of Trustees will respond to this finding in its written response due on or before September 1, 2008. (c) The La Grange Elementary School Bo...

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: (a) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Board members have begun the process of reviewing sample Superintendent evaluation models and policies, one of which will be chosen and implemented by the start of the 2008-2009 school year. (b) The recommendation has been implemented, in that Board members regularly receive training on particular aspects of their duties, responsibilities, and functions. These trainings will continue to be scheduled as necessary. (c) This rec...

F10

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. The La Grange Elementary School Board of Trustees will respond to the particular finding in its written response due on or before September 1, 2008.

R10

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: (a) The La Grange Elementary School Board of Trustees will respond to this recommendation in its written response due on or before September 1, 2008. (b) The La Grange Elementary School Board of Trustees will respond to this recommendation in its written response due on or before September 1, 2008. (c) The La Grange Elementary School Board of Trustees will respond to this recommendation in its written response due on or before September 1, 2008. (d) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within ...

F11

The principal/superintendent of the La Grange School District has not fully met the duties and responsibilities of the position.

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

R11

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The Respondent's responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations are as follows: (a) This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is not within the District's jurisdiction to compel the Stanislaus County Office of Education to take the recommended actions. Finding No. 12 In several instances, documents requested by the Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury of the La Grange Elementary School District were not provided. Explanations from the La Grange Elementary School District office varied: Some of the records were "not available." (a) (b) Some of the records did not exist. (c) Some of th...

F12

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. There were several requested documents requested by the Grand Jury that were not available, for the reasons stated in Finding No. 12, however, the Superintendent cannot respond to the disposition of any particular document without specific identification of each unavailable document by the Grand Jury.

R12

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Board members have begun the process of reviewing sample document maintenance policies, one of which will be chosen and implemented by the start of the upcoming school year. If you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully submitted, Josu My Joseph Magnu, Superintendent La Grange Elementary School District JM/ Attachments: Exhibits A - G ٠, La Grange Elementary School District 30237 Floto Street; P.O. Box 66 La Grange, CA 95329 Joseph Magnu Phon...

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District Fire District

Stanislaus County Office of Education Agency