Abdication of Leadership and Disciplinary Breakdowns in Leggett Valley Unified School District

LVUSD (the District) is a small, isolated school district located near the northern boundary of Mendocino County. Adjacent school districts are Laytonville to the south and Southern Humboldt to the north.

The District includes the pre-school-12th grade facility in Leggett and the 40- student K-12 Whale Gulch site that is located “off the grid” in a remote location about 1 ½ hours from Leggett.

Until recently, the Leggett Valley campus has attracted transfer students from Southern Humboldt.

Between 2007-08 and April 2009, the student census of the Leggett campus has declined from 124 to 100.

LVUSD is governed by an elected board whose five members serve four-year staggered terms. Two board members are from the Whale Gulch site and three are from Leggett.

The current board president has served since the District separated from Fort Bragg Unified School District in 1989-91. Other members have also served multiple terms.

One board member has completed the Masters in Governance program through the California School Board Association (CSBA). In the past, some board members have attended the Small School Districts (SSD) Conference. Members have not attended the SSD Conference in the past two years. They have not had ethics training or sexual harassment training.

The former superintendent retired at the end of the 2005-06 school year after serving for seven years.

The board chose to manage its own search for his replacement using CSBA guidelines and with the support of Mendocino County Office of Education.

The new superintendent assumed his position in 2006-07. He had formerly retired from a central California district and was unfamiliar with the Leggett community.

In 2007-08, the experienced Leggett principal left the District and the superintendent assumed the combined responsibilities of principal and superintendent and became the sole administrator.

The superintendent’s contract will expire at the end of the 2008-09 school year. An acting principal has been appointed at the Leggett site. The board has determined that Leggett requires a full-time principal, but has not yet determined whether to hire a full-time or part-time superintendent.

A school principal is responsible for day-to-day operations including curriculum implementation and has primary responsibility for student and adult discipline. A district superintendent has overall responsibility for financial and facilities management, implementing the district vision, and for managing relationships with the state and community.

There is considerable disparity in the principal and superintendent roles and different skill sets are required. Combining the two positions means that there is no second authority to help resolve conflicts or handle the most extreme disciplinary issues.

Testimony and school documents indicate that the number, frequency and severity of student behavior referrals have increased since the departure of the full-time principal. Documents show 209 reported student behavior incidents by 62 students in all of 2007-08. Through February of the current school year, 42 students had been referred for 305 incidents.

Written behavioral referrals include incidents described as fighting, harassment, chronic tardiness, truancy, unacceptable language, disrespect, disrespect to a faculty member, prohibited cell phone use, defiance, assault, property damage, bullying, sexual harassment, cheating, possession of a controlled substance, disruptive behavior, dress code violations and profanity.

Since October 2007 serious incidents of student bullying and harassment have been documented in a series of school incident reports and, in some cases, law enforcement reports. In several incidents parents have become involved in defense of both the student victims and the aggressors, who have been characterized by their parents as innocent and wrongly accused.

Student disciplinary actions have been ineffective to correct behavior. Deterrents include lunch detention, in-house suspension under the supervision of the school secretary, and, on rare occasions, home- suspension of up to 5 days. Disciplinary actions have not been consistently enforced by the administrator. There have been no expulsions under the current administration despite incidents of student possession of illegal drugs. There have also been no Student Attendance Review Board (SARB) referrals to address chronic truancy.1

Law enforcement is provided by deputies from the Sheriff’s Sub-Station in Willits which is 45-60 minutes to the south. Deputies who were interviewed stated that they were unfamiliar with the District Civility Policy.

In several interviews, respondents openly discussed the robust local marijuana industry. Some observed that it creates a general disrespect for authority on the part of students and adults. Jurors were told that students are sometimes used by their families as “sentries and informants.” Involvement in production of illegal drugs was also cited as undermining academic motivation and working at cross-purposes with the public school mandate to maintain a drug-free environment.

The strong drug sub-culture in the Leggett community makes it difficult for the school administrator or residents to invite the presence of law enforcement on campus without opening the door to drug-related investigations.

Family loyalties were cited by some as contributing to the current unrest. Some of those interviewed alluded to a strong social norm against ever involving law enforcement.

Families of some of the victims of bullying and/or sexual harassment have left the district.

Other adults related to both the victims and the accused aggressors have remained in the District. Several of these have disrupted the school campus in violation of the district’s Civility Code and relevant sections of the California State Education and Penal Codes which prohibit any person from willfully disturbing any public school or any public school meeting.2 Adult incident reports include: • February 26, 2008: a school coach was confronted on the steps of the LVUSD gym and his life was threatened in retaliation for sexually inappropriate text messages that he and a student had exchanged. The coach was subsequently physically attacked on his way home. • February 27, 2008: one parent approached and verbally attacked another parent near the school cafeteria. The administrator asked both parents to leave campus. The Sheriff was called by the parent who was attacked. • March 3, 2008: four parents verbally attacked a teacher and were involved in a shouting match in the school parking lot. Only one parent was asked to leave and she returned to campus the same afternoon. The teacher reported this incident to law enforcement the following day. • October 17, 2008: a parent addressed the school secretary, using rude and profane language claiming that her son was being unfairly “singled out” for disciplinary action after he had taken part in an incident on a school van the day before. He and two other male students had pulled down their pants and underwear and rubbed their bare buttocks in the faces of two classmates 1 LVUSD and other North County Districts refer truant students to the Willits SARB. The Leggett Valley Unified School District Civility Code and relevant Penal Code and Education Code are available by accessing this 2008-09 report on the Grand Jury website at www.co.mendocino/grandjury while returning from an athletic event. The three aggressors were given 5-day suspensions by the investigating staff member but this was reduced to three- days by the administrator. • October 31, 2008: a parent entered a classroom and, in front of the students, verbally threatened a teacher. The administrator reported the incident to law enforcement by phone but no disciplinary action was taken. • November 21, 2008: a parent demanded entry to a classroom and verbally accosted the teacher in a threatening manner for taking away a student cell phone that was being used improperly in class. No disciplinary action was taken. • February 27, 2009: seeking to confront a student who had been in an argument with his son, the same parent (as above incident) chased the student across campus and attempted to gain entrance to a locked room in which the student had taken refuge. Neither the administrator nor his designee was on campus. Law enforcement was not called. The administrator stated that he had “admonished the parent.” No further disciplinary action was taken. • March 11, 2009: at a school board meeting attended by the Grand Jury, there was a disruptive outburst during the public comment session. One parent was pushing and swearing at another at the school entry and in the parking lot. Neither the administrator nor the board acted to stop the altercation. Law enforcement records indicate that the administrator reported the event the following morning. No disciplinary action was taken.

Parents of several of the student aggressors have disrupted board meetings with angry demands that the board remove a teacher who they claim has treated their children unfairly. They have publicly berated the teacher in question and threatened the board that they will take their children out of the District unless this demand is met. This action would seriously impact the District’s budget.

The board has been unable to control these repeated parental disruptions that have occurred during its meetings and the incumbent administrator has failed to act in accordance with the Civility Policy and with Education Code § 32210 which states that “Any person who willfully disturbs any public school or any public school meeting is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five-hundred dollars ($500).”

During the 2008-09 basketball season, the school board relaxed the academic standards required in order for students to participate in sports. This action effectively lowered the academic bar and undermined an important source of student motivation.

At least three staff members have resigned as a direct result of inappropriate behavior by students and/or parents and the administration’s failure to resolve these disciplinary issues. Some other long-term teachers and staff reported feeling personally threatened and fearful of becoming targets of unsubstantiated parental charges and losing their jobs.

LVUSD has enacted a Civility Policy which specifies how individuals are expected to behave on campus. This policy references relevant Education and Penal Code Sections that require fines and/or jail sentences for offenders.

Education Code § 32211 (a) authorizes the school principal or the designee of the principal to request any person whose presence the principal believes will be disruptive or interfere with classes of the public school program to leave the grounds. The person who is requested to leave has the right to appeal that determination to the superintendent. That appeal shall be made no later than the second succeeding school day and a reply shall be given within 24 hours.

Education Code § 44810 (a) states that “…Every minor over 16 years of age or adult who is not a pupil of the school, including but not limited to any such minor or adult who is the parent or guardian of a pupil of the school, who comes upon any school ground or into any schoolhouse and there willfully interferes with the discipline, good order, lawful conduct, or administration of any school class or activity of the school, with the intent to disrupt, obstruct, or to inflict damage to property or bodily injury upon any person, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” This section further sets forth penalties including fines of up to $1,000 and imprisonment for up to 90 days in a county jail.

Education Code § 44811 states that “Any parent, guardian, or other person whose conduct in a place where a school employee is required to be in the course of his or her duties materially disrupts class work or extracurricular activities or involves substantial disorder is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

The LVUSD Civility Policy specifies that “When violence is directed against an employee or theft against property, employees shall promptly report the occurrence to their principal or supervisor and complete an Incident Report. Employees and supervisors should complete an Incident Report and report to law enforcement, any attack, assault or threat made against them on School/District premises.”

When questioned about missing and incomplete Incident Reports and his repeated failure to promptly contact law enforcement, the incumbent administrator responded, “Talk to my attorney about that. The Civility Policy is interpretive.” In response to several other questions, the incumbent administrator also repeatedly advised the Grand Jury to “…talk to my attorney.”

Education Code § 32211 (e) requires that all entrances to a public school campus be posted with the school hours, defined as the period commencing one hour before classes begin and one hour after classes end. Typically, all visitors are required to check in at school offices and secure a pass before proceeding onto campus.

Unlike other public school campuses, the Grand Jury saw no posting of school hours and no signs directing visitors to check in at the school office.

Despite repeated adult disruptions, the District does not regularly hold lock down drills.

The Grand Jury heard further complaints that the school site administrator has not fulfilled his responsibility to implement the curriculum. Among these complaints are the following: • In November 2008, mathematics instructional materials were not yet available. • In February 2009, elementary science and social studies materials had not yet been ordered. • For more than half of the 2008-09 school year, Spanish students have been taught by substitutes who are unfamiliar with the language. • On April 1, the administrator stated that students were using a computerized language program called Rosetta Stone, but Jurors heard conflicting testimony that the language program was not yet installed. • Parents and teachers reported that no meaningful instruction or assessment of Spanish students had taken place since the first grading period. • High school students who remained registered in the Spanish class in the second and third grading periods were given the same grade they had earned from the qualified Spanish teacher during the first grading period. • Spanish grades were filed over the name of the qualified teacher who had been placed on administrative leave. Subsequently this teacher requested in writing that the teacher’s name be removed from grading reports, since neither teaching nor assessment had taken place during the administrative leave.