Marin County Grand Jury • 2024-2025 • Agency Response
Response to: School Resource Officers Revisited

School District P.o. Box 4988*

Published: January 01, 1998 9 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings and Recommendations 8 findings

F1
Excellent collaboration between Marin County Public Health officers and Marin's public school administrators during the COVID-19 pandemic produced science-based and demonstrably workable guidelines for reopening Marin County's public schools safely early in the 2020-21 school year. I (we) agree with the finding. • Finding
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
By August 1, 2022 the Marin County Superintendent of Schools and all Marin public school districts should convene a countywide Lost Learning Task Force to rapidly develop lost learning recovery models that are available for implementation by all of Marin's public school districts. This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be • implemented in the future. There are currently multiple existing groups and structures in place that are charged with coming together to examine how the pandemic has impacted our learners and what we might do as a system to develop and implement plans for learning loss mitigation, with the clear understanding that remote learning is not effective or accessible for many students. The Marin County Superintendent of Schools convenes a monthly meeting of Marin County School District Superintendents to coordinate efforts and share best practices for supporting student learning and success. The frequency of these meetings was increased to weekly through a majority of the pandemic, including regular participation of the Marin County Public Health Office and/or Deputy Public Health Officer. A central priority of the Superintendents group through the past two years is to share best practices to address learning loss, and to implement robust student and staff mental health and wellness supports. All Marin County school districts applied for and were recipients of Learning Loss Mitigation Funding (LLMF) to support pupil academic achievement and mitigate learning loss related to COVID-19 school closures. As such all school districts were required to create learning continuity and attendance plans, which have been adopted and submitted to the California Department of Education. In addition to monthly Superintendents meetings, other countywide groups that meet on a regular basis with representatives from all school districts who have been addressing learning loss mitigation through the pandemic include the Innovative Learning Team (ILT), District Business Officials (DBOs), Elementary and Middle School Principals Networks, and the Marin County Schools Wellness Collaborative. For the purposes of this recommendation the ILT, under the leadership of the Marin County Office of Education, will serve as the Lost Learning Task Force, and will agendize learning loss mitigation to rapidly develop lost learning recovery models that are available for implementation by all of Marin's public school districts, and provide updates on best practices to the Superintendents.
F2
Since experts agree that in-person classroom instruction is best for students, putting students first by keeping schools open as much as possible should be an imperative for all of Marin's educators. I (we) agree with the finding. . Finding
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
By August 1, 2022 the Marin County Superintendent of Schools and all Marin public school districts should also call on the Lost Learning Task Force, as a second but vital priority, to develop and recommend protocols and policies for minimizing the length of emergency school closures during future disruptions. . This recommendation has been implemented. This recommendation has been implemented, although not in the name of a Lost Learning Task Force. Prior to COVID there was strong consensus among all Marin County Public School leaders that continuity of school operations and in person learning is a critical priority. Tools to support this priority through recent experiences with wildfire, air quality and winter storms have been developed in collaboration with Marin County Public Health and the Office of Emergency Services. Tools include an air quality chart that identifies appropriate indoor and outdoor activities at school to support health and safety depending on changing air quality indicators, systems of communication and planning for potential closures, and many districts taking the step of adding additional potential instructional days (similar to snow days in the mountainous areas) in the event of a closure. When the first shelter in place and suspension of classroom activity was ordered in the Spring of 2020, immediate steps were taken in conjunction with Public Health to develop protocols and procedures for a safe return to site based classroom instruction, resulting in the development of the Marin County School Guidelines (30 Point Plan) first issued June 18, 2020. With the fundamental goal of keeping students in site based classroom instruction these guidelines have been continually revised and updated. Public Health is currently working with all Marin County public, private, independent and parochial schools in planning for the 2022-23 school year including the development of a COVID mitigation strategies chart, similar to the air quality chart, to help schools continue implement best practices and procedures aligned with changing COVID-19 transmission levels and risks due to future variants and uncertainties, with the central and agreed upon priority of keeping students in site based classroom instructions. This work is ongoing. Kentfield School District Responses to the 2021-2022 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report Marin Schools: A Prescription for COVID Recovery
F3
Because labor negotiations over resuming in-person classroom instruction added to the complexity and delays in public school reopenings, Marin's public school districts would benefit by developing standard practices and models for resolving staff concerns. I (we) partially disagree with the finding. • Labor negotiations added to the complexity in public school reopenings, for good reason. We disagree that standard practices and models should be developed for resolving staff concerns. The structure and nature of labor units, negotiations, and collective bargaining agreements appropriately are designed to address a wide variety of individualized and localized concerns and circumstances that must be addressed to reach agreement in each respective district. Marin County public school teachers and school staff (labor) should be commended for their efforts to help Marin County public schools to be among the first in the state to return to and sustain in person classroom instruction. The Kentfield School District opened in a phasing model and ultimately was the first Marin County Public School to fully open for in person instruction. Although our approach differed from other school districts, we would not have wanted to delay or accelerate the process of safely opening school for in person instruction. We learned a lot through navigating the various stages of the pandemic and welcome recommendations and revisions to our practices. Finding
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Marin's Public schools would benefit from studying the private and public schools that demonstrated an ability to fully reopen early in the 2020-21 school year while complying with Marin's Public Health requirements. I (we) partially disagree with the finding. • While it is beneficial to review best practices and resources that were developed by schools during the pandemic, we disagree that additional study is needed regarding how private and some public schools were able to reopen early in the 2020-21 school year. Private and public schools worked collaboratively and directly with Public Health to develop the 30-point plan that allowed Marin schools to reopen in compliance with Marin's Public Health requirements, while continually adjusting to conditions and changing guidance to remain open during the biggest surges of COVID-19 in our community. Finding
No recommendations for this finding
F5
As a consequence of significant differences in the amount of in-person instruction time offered by Marin County's 18 public school districts during the 2020-21 school year, Marin's public school students experienced wide disparities in educational instruction. I (we) agree with the finding. Finding
No recommendations for this finding
F6
A shortage of in-person instruction during the 2020-21 school year slowed measurable learning progress for many Marin public school students, resulting in deficits that should be addressed over the long-term with a concerted recovery program. I (we) agree with the finding. . Finding
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Slow in-person school reopenings undermined confidence in public schools and contributed to an enrollment decline, potentially weakening long-term financial support for Marin's districts that rely on attendance for state funding. I (we) partially disagree with the finding. • Kentfield School District is not funded through daily attendance. Our priority is to ensure that our public schools offer the highest level of academic rigor and expectations for learning while supporting the social emotional growth and well-being of our children. Finding
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The Marin County Superintendent of Schools and Office of Education are best positioned to take a leadership role in enabling school districts to coordinate and implement a focused pandemic recovery plan that addresses students' academic, social, and emotional needs. I (we) agree with the finding. • California LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION Bill Information Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Home California Law (i) Search Code: Select Code > Section: 1 or 2 or 1001 Up^ << Previous Next >> cross-reference chaptered bills PDF | Add To My Favorites Highlight Search Phrase: PENAL CODE - PEN PART 2. OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE [681 - 1620] (Part 2 enacted 1872.) TITLE 4. GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS [888 - 939.91] (Title 4 repealed and added by Stats. 1959, Ch. 501.) CHAPTER 3. Powers and Duties of Grand Jury [914 - 939.91] (Chapter 3 added by Stats. 1959, Ch. 501.) ARTICLE 2. Investigation of County, City, and District Affairs [925 - 933.6] (Heading of Article 2 amended by Stats. 1973, Ch. 1036.) 933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. (Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.)
No recommendations for this finding

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.