Santa Clara County Grand Jury

1997-1998

2 reports

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: Site team at each location The site teams have responsibility for overseeing the services delivered at a particular site, including the resolution of any issue that may arise. Members of a site team are selected by the staff at each site, along with the system-wide team. Site teams meet monthly, or more frequently if necessary. The current reporting process and schedule referenced in the response are defined on page five of the MOU: “The Site Teams shall provide periodic status reports to the System-Wide Teams. The Executive Team shall also prepare quarterly reports to the Board of Supervisors, Board of Education, Juvenile Court and/or appropriate standing committees.”
Page 1
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: Site team at each location as necessary. The site teams have responsibility for overseeing the services delivered at a The current reporting process and particular site, including the resolution schedule referenced in the response are of any issue that may arise. Members of defined on page five of the MOU: “The a site team are selected by the staff at Site Teams shall provide periodic status each site, along with the system-wide reports to the System-Wide Teams. The team. Site teams meet monthly, or more Executive Team shall also prepare frequently if necessary. quarterly reports to the Board of Supervisors, Board of Education,
R2: System-wide team Juvenile Court and/or appropriate The system-wide team provides standing committees.” operational direction and program accountability for the various sites, The three-level governance structure services, disciplines and agencies meetings provide the boards with status providing programs in juvenile hall and reports. the ranches. The system-wide team includes the director of the alternative The executive team has developed an schools department, director of special attitude of collaboration and cooperation education, deputy chiefs of probation for among the major agencies after nearly juvenile services and juvenile detention, two years of contentious meetings, deputy director of mental health, and including agency territorial disputes and deputy director of the department of personal verbal attacks. As an example, drug and alcohol services. Members for several years the students in the meet bimonthly at a minimum, or more ranch schools attended school every frequently if needed. other day. The COE had argued since 3 1997 that this is an educationally unsound practice and the dialogue 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #1: between COE and probation on this The reporting requirements to the boards point has been described by all parties as are satisfied through the three-level contentious. This concern was governance structure meeting status eventually resolved. As of November reports. The JTF no longer functions as 2001, all students at the ranch schools an entity. attend school on a daily basis. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 2 Appropriately inform responsible parties of performance evaluation consequences for delays in meeting strategies. RESPONSE: We agree that the appropriate staff will be held accountable for meeting the strategies. Responsible parties are informed negative delays impact their annual performance evaluations. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #2: Each site has developed a work plan that Although this recommendation was identifies specific action items, person(s) addressed to the board of education and responsible, and a completion date. board of supervisors, the responsible These work plans are reviewed at each parties held accountable appear to be site team’s monthly meeting, progress staff-level individuals. Individual reports are made, and solutions to teachers, site administrators and county problems are discussed. Within COE, administrators are evaluated for their job performance ratings for teachers, site efforts to assist in the development and administrators and county administrators implementation of site-specific strategies include accountability goals stated in the during their annual performance work plan. evaluations. 4 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 3: Collaboratively identify and provide additional resources adequate to maintain timelines should such action be deemed necessary in their view to comply with the “urgent need” qualifier of the Court Order. RESPONSE: Both Boards have responded to the “urgent need” qualifier of the Court Order and have allocated additional resources to meet the critical needs of youth in institutions. 2001-2002 Grand Jury Acquired staff, instructional materials and other Facts: support necessary to implement the new Schools located at juvenile hall, the strategies at court schools. Funding for ranches and the children’s shelter have staff training was approved by the board developed goals, strategies and timelines of supervisors in its 2001 budget; the to meet the unique educational needs of COE provided $50,000 as matching children placed under their care. Among funds. The COE also funds ongoing the five sites, 83 strategies have been educational programs in court schools. developed. Information from the system- wide team indicates 61 strategies were 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #3: completed by March 31, 2001. Other As stated in the response, the two boards strategies are in progress and expect to did find a need for additional support be completed by September 2002. The resources. These resources are being board of education and the board of funded and provided. Resources supervisors are working in a included funding for additional staff and collaborative manner to provide needed instructional materials. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 4: Include in the definition of core services to be identified in the governance agreement Age-appropriate and meaningful work experience that meets the criteria of school credit. RESPONSE: We agree with the importance of work experience within a comprehensive program. Based on the needs of the youth, the governance structure will evaluate the best means of incorporating such experience. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: As of the writing of this report, there is The governance committee concluded in still no work experience credit available a May 2000 report that vocational for the court school students. Instead of training is a core service and would be a work experience program, a teacher is improved through school credit. assigned to provide the students with an 5 introduction to work experience choices, testing, preference for jobs, pro-social The auto shop program is limited to skills and role-playing. skills needed for work at an oil change type of business. (a) The Grand Jury was told there is no school credit earned nor outside contract for work experience available with any 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #4: agency. Although the governance committee concluded its evaluation and considers (b) Students who are on work crews with credit for work experience beneficial, no the Santa Clara County Water District school credit is currently given. do not receive school credit for this experience. The vocational programs currently operating are construction and auto shop. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 5. Continue to financially support an ongoing program of literacy workshops for teachers and other support staff directly involved with children in institutional schools; and that funding be allocated for training to facilitate the transition to the new model of collaborative decision making. RESPONSE: Funding has been allocated to provide literacy workshops for teachers and other staff, as well as to facilitate the transition to a collaborative decision-making model. alternative school administrators from 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: surrounding counties. Teachers are now receiving both literacy and numeracy training. The COE provides funding and substitute teacher The COE estimates it will need an replacement for two days of training additional $400,000 to maintain current offered on a Saturday or during the programs. The COE is in the process of week. Three additional training days are reducing the number of instructional funded through the State of California. aides, teachers, and administrators at its Under the direction of experienced court schools. The student-to-teacher personnel, the training takes place at ratio has already been raised from 12:1 Santa Clara University. to 15:1. A workshop for administrators is also 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #5: available. Santa Clara County school Funding continues to be provided for administrators attend training with other both literacy and numeracy training. Due 6 to reduced funding levels, the literacy training and other programs could be negatively affected. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Recommendation 6. Include in the Governance Agreement a provision that will address the maintenance of school staffing stability in view of the declining or fluctuating enrollment levels at the court schools. RESPONSE: We agree that staffing stability is important and plans are being developed to address staffing in view of declining or fluctuating enrollment. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: (2) With a ratio of 20:1, staff feels safety An MOU delineates the governance will become a greater issue. structure in place between the COE and the county. Many provisions are (3) Site administrators (principals) will understood and agreed upon by the be reduced from five to three for the parties; however, stability and 2002-2003 school year. maintenance of staffing are not mentioned as a separate provision. 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #6: Even though COE agrees staffing The COE expects the following will stability is important, reductions in negatively impact the maintenance of funding levels will affect staffing at all school staffing stability beginning in the levels. The increased teacher-student summer of 2002: ratio causes both safety and educational concerns to COE and probation staff. (1) Starting in the summer of 2002, the COE has dictated that the teacher student ratio in classes will be 20:1. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 7. Develop a timeline for the implementation of an assessment center at Osborne School. Results should be included in the Joint Task Force report to the Boards. RESPONSE: The Probation Department, Osborne School and the Mental Health Department have designed an interim assessment center. The center is operational. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: and leave juvenile hall where Osborne It was reported by staff that on any given School is located. Fifty percent of the day an average of thirteen students enter students who enter do not stay longer 7 than three days. The board of education program (IEP). An updated supervisors has provided funds to IEP is created for students identified as refurbish a juvenile hall living unit for needing special education. use as an assessment center. Within the 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #7: first three days of entering juvenile hall, The assessment center continues to students are assigned to the assessment operate and appears to provide the center where they are tested in reading necessary evaluation services. There has and mathematics. A career inventory is been a marked improvement in the also administered. Students requiring number of students leaving the additional assessment are referred to the institutional facilities with up-to-date student study team coordinator. individual assessments results. These results are then available for a student’s One-third of the student population next educational experience. enters with a special education diagnosis and with an expired individualized 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 8. Collect and evaluate data and best practices for grouping students by age or living unit (performance) learning levels and consider implementing functional (ability) groupings at Osborne School. RESPONSE: We agree with the need to group students in order to maximize learning opportunities without compromising safety and security. Each site team will evaluate data and best practices and make recommendations related to class assignment procedures. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: classroom facilities make grouping by At McKenna School the children have academic level challenging but not not been convicted for illegal activity impossible. There have been and are more easily grouped for discussions among COE, probation, and academic reasons. At Osborne School the courts about assigning all special such grouping is difficult because many education students to one of the ranch of the students have a history of schools in order to centralize services. violence, and safety issues must be addressed for the academic program to 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #8: be effective. Architectural planning for The site teams continue to deal with the the remodeling at juvenile hall includes student grouping issue, but it remains a the concept of bringing teachers into the complex and unresolved issue. living areas. At the ranches, limited 8 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 9. Collect information to measure the effectiveness of the alternative school department's program. Also, redesign and identify program elements that may need further refinement. RESPONSE: We agree with the need to collaboratively evaluate all aspects of the program and are committed to utilizing evaluation results for continuous improvement. Site teams will have the responsibility for this effort and will report as appropriate. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: and at four of the schools the probation Efforts towards continuous improvement department has added a character and collaborative evaluation of programs development component to its program. have been realized through the creation of The COE contract with Santa Clara site teams, a system-wide team, and an University to provide teacher training in executive team. The site team oversees literacy has resulted in improved reading the services delivered at a particular site levels. The contract with Santa Clara and resolves issues as they arise. The site University also includes numeracy training team also receives and provides input from but it is still too soon to have collected the system-wide team related to gaps in reliable data in this area. core services, program needs, site priorities, policy modifications and budget 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #9: recommendations. The executive team Site teams currently in operation monitors the implementation of the MOU, continue to evaluate their programs. as well as a multi-year action plan that was Reports are made by the site teams to the developed by the JTF. system-wide team. Both the COE and county executive’s office make regular The COE has redesigned its academic reports to the children and families program to focus on literacy and numeracy committee. (See Glossary) 1999-2000 Grand Jury Recommendation 10. Collect and evaluate relevant literature to address the issue of how educational services and the work programs may best be delivered to meet the critical educational needs of wards and dependents. RESPONSE: We agree that relevant literature needs to be reviewed to ensure that educational services and the work progress best meet the critical needs of youth in institutional settings. The site teams are developing a proposal based on relevant best practices. 9 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: School staff showed the Grand Jury new According to California law “...the learning packets and materials for Governing Board of each school district improving the educational program. shall prepare and keep on file for periodic inspection the courses of study (b) Students have an opportunity to prescribed for the schools under its participate in various character jurisdiction." (Ed. Code 51040) The development program options, such as court schools have updated and revised anger management, drug and alcohol all courses of study in the past three counseling and sports programs. years to meet California State Department of Education framework and 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #10: standards. Site team evaluation and recommendations for improving student educational needs (a) Site teams have contributed to the are being implemented as funding is development and implementation of a available. In addition to educational core program based on state guidelines programs, character development classes and best practices developed through support the critical needs of the students. staff training sessions with a consultant from Santa Clara University. Osborne 1999-2000 Grand Jury Recommendation 11. Provide additional resource specialist support at Osborne School so that caseloads do not exceed the maximum allowable. RESPONSE: We agree and an additional Resource Specialist has been assigned to Osborne School. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: (c) Once the IEP’s are completed, At Osborne School, the Grand Jury placement and services are delivered in found the following: accordance with a student’s plan. (a) An additional resource specialist 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #11: was hired to serve students and to The recommended resource specialist support general education teachers. was hired as stated in the response. Special education students receive direct Placement and identified services are services at a teacher-to-student ratio being delivered in accordance with the from 1:1 to 8:1. students’ updated educational plans. (b) A full-time student study team coordinator is available Monday through Friday. 10 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 12. Develop a tool to evaluate progress of Court school students and establish expectations for student achievement to be realized in six month intervals. RESPONSE: We agree and an assessment instrument has been selected, field tested and will be operational in all Court schools by September 1, 2000. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: computer. This information assists in The STAR-AL (STAR) was selected as tracking a student's achievements and the instrument used to assess all students expectations. Court school students are in reading and math. The scores re-tested every sixty days. represent how students performed on the test compared with the performance of a 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #12: nationally representative sample of STAR was the assessment instrument students. The scores present a snapshot initially selected. This instrument is of achievement at a specific point in routinely used and it is providing time. Based on the student's performance information for tracking student on the STAR reading and math tests, a achievement and expectations. diagnostic report is produced by 1999-2000 Grand Jury Recommendation 13. Require each Court school teacher to attend a specific number of literacy workshops and follow-up sessions each year so all teachers may be considered initially "trained" by September 2002. RESPONSE: We agree with the recommendation and the new contract agreement requires all teachers to attend three additional days of training for a total of five days. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #13: A contract between COE and Santa Literacy training is available and all staff Clara University’s Markula Center for is completing the required five days of Applied Ethics was negotiated and training. signed in 2000. A new contract was recently signed to continue this training service. 11 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 14. Collaboratively establish appropriate policies and procedures for the exchange of information under the Integrated Children's Services Program. The results of their efforts should be included in the JTF report to the Board of Education and the Board of Supervisors. RESPONSE: We agree with the recommendation, protocols for sharing are in place. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: and alcohol services Members meet The governance structure allows for a bimonthly, or more frequently as site-based, system-wide form of needed. management to address collaborative program development, exchange of At the site level, the site team is information, resource allocation, budget responsible for working with site staff to decisions, problem solving, program oversee the services delivered and evaluation and accountability. resolve issues that may develop. The integrated children’s services team 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #14: includes the director of special Use of the governance committee education, deputy chiefs of probation for structure provides the mechanism for juvenile services and juvenile detention, informational exchanges and program deputy director of mental health and the status sought by the 1999-2000 Grand deputy director of the department of Jury recommendation. drug 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 15. Continue to seek an appropriate facility for the purpose of establishing a sub-acute residential treatment program as a continuum of care for children and adolescents of Santa Clara County. Once an appropriate facility is secured, it should be renovated as may be necessary and opened as soon as possible. RESPONSE: We are pleased that this long-standing need is being met. We project that the facility will be open in October 2000. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: for youth between the ages of 12 through The board of supervisors authorized the 17 provides a secure residential and out- purchase of the Charter Hospital located patient treatment program for severely at 455 Silicon Valley Boulevard in May emotionally disturbed youth. of 2000. The facility opened in September 2001. The Starlight Program 12 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #15: In addition to community schools, there The county finalized the purchase of a is a transition process that has been facility, although it took longer than developed by COE, probation and social originally anticipated. services using state After Care Grant funds. The agencies continue to work NOTE: After the interviews, observing cooperatively to provide this transition site teams in action, reading the service for students returning to their documentation provided, listening to home school. speakers at various committee meetings and evaluating the current status for Up to three weeks prior to a student’s compliance with the court order, the release a transition counselor meets with 2001-2002 Grand Jury also finds the the student to develop an individualized following: plan for returning to the home school, community school, continuation school 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: or a job training program. In order that children placed under the care of the court are ensured their Each school district has a designated educational needs are effectively contact person for the transition. The addressed, community schools remain a transition counselor and district contact realistic option. The COE will need person review the student’s educational financial assistance from local school status and other information necessary to districts to maintain the current level of make final preparation for a student’s service. This concept has not been return. embraced by the local districts facing financial problems of their own. Many During the transition process the school local districts are developing their own district representative is responsible for programs for returning students. making parental contact. The COE and county have recognized Upon return to the home school, the the expected reductions in funding from juvenile’s probation counselor is state and federal sources. In a proactive responsible for student follow up for as manner, both have invested staff time 10 weeks. After 10 weeks, an After and effort to identify potential strategies Care probation officer or California to absorb the impact of these cuts. outreach officer continues the follow-up Increased class size, reduction of process. personnel and increased financial support from local school districts have 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #17: all been implemented to some degree, Students returning to their regular school yet the anticipated shortfall has not been setting require cooperative support covered. between local schools and county agencies. 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #16: Reductions in available funding will severely threaten the progress made since the court order was issued. 13 schools’ curriculum. (Ref. Finding RECOMMENDATIONS #10) The 2001-2002 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County 5. Provide work experience classes and Office of Education: credit for those students at the Wright, Holden, and James Ranches.
F2: System-wide team The system-wide team provides operational direction and program accountability for the various sites, services, disciplines and agencies providing programs in juvenile hall and the ranches. The system-wide team includes the director of the alternative schools department, director of special education, deputy chiefs of probation for juvenile services and juvenile detention, deputy director of mental health, and deputy director of the department of drug and alcohol services. Members meet bimonthly at a minimum, or more frequently if needed. The three-level governance structure meetings provide the boards with status reports. The executive team has developed an attitude of collaboration and cooperation among the major agencies after nearly two years of contentious meetings, including agency territorial disputes and personal verbal attacks. As an example, for several years the students in the ranch schools attended school every other day. The COE had argued since 3 1997 that this is an educationally unsound practice and the dialogue between COE and probation on this point has been described by all parties as contentious. This concern was eventually resolved. As of November 2001, all students at the ranch schools attend school on a daily basis. 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #1: The reporting requirements to the boards are satisfied through the three-level governance structure meeting status reports. The JTF no longer functions as an entity. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 2 Appropriately inform responsible parties of performance evaluation consequences for delays in meeting strategies. RESPONSE: We agree that the appropriate staff will be held accountable for meeting the strategies. Responsible parties are informed negative delays impact their annual performance evaluations. 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #2: Although this recommendation was addressed to the board of education and board of supervisors, the responsible parties held accountable appear to be staff-level individuals. Individual teachers, site administrators and county administrators are evaluated for their efforts to assist in the development and implementation of site-specific strategies during their annual performance evaluations. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: Each site has developed a work plan that identifies specific action items, person(s) responsible, and a completion date. These work plans are reviewed at each site team’s monthly meeting, progress reports are made, and solutions to problems are discussed. Within COE, job performance ratings for teachers, site administrators and county administrators include accountability goals stated in the work plan. 4 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 3: Collaboratively identify and provide additional resources adequate to maintain timelines should such action be deemed necessary in their view to comply with the “urgent need” qualifier of the Court Order. RESPONSE: Both Boards have responded to the “urgent need” qualifier of the Court Order and have allocated additional resources to meet the critical needs of youth in institutions. staff, instructional materials and other support necessary to implement the new strategies at court schools. Funding for staff training was approved by the board of supervisors in its 2001 budget; the COE provided $50,000 as matching funds. The COE also funds ongoing educational programs in court schools. 2001-2002 Grand Jury Acquired Facts: Schools located at juvenile hall, the ranches and the children’s shelter have developed goals, strategies and timelines to meet the unique educational needs of children placed under their care. Among the five sites, 83 strategies have been developed. Information from the systemwide team indicates 61 strategies were completed by March 31, 2001. Other strategies are in progress and expect to be completed by September 2002. The board of education and the board of supervisors are working in a collaborative manner to provide needed 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #3: As stated in the response, the two boards did find a need for additional support resources. These resources are being funded and provided. Resources included funding for additional staff and instructional materials. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 4: Include in the definition of core services to be identified in the governance agreement Age-appropriate and meaningful work experience that meets the criteria of school credit. RESPONSE: We agree with the importance of work experience within a comprehensive program. Based on the needs of the youth, the governance structure will evaluate the best means of incorporating such experience. As of the writing of this report, there is still no work experience credit available for the court school students. Instead of a work experience program, a teacher is assigned to provide the students with an 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: The governance committee concluded in a May 2000 report that vocational training is a core service and would be improved through school credit.
Page 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: System-wide team Juvenile Court and/or appropriate The system-wide team provides standing committees.” operational direction and program accountability for the various sites, The three-level governance structure services, disciplines and agencies meetings provide the boards with status providing programs in juvenile hall and reports. the ranches. The system-wide team includes the director of the alternative The executive team has developed an schools department, director of special attitude of collaboration and cooperation education, deputy chiefs of probation for among the major agencies after nearly juvenile services and juvenile detention, two years of contentious meetings, deputy director of mental health, and including agency territorial disputes and deputy director of the department of personal verbal attacks. As an example, drug and alcohol services. Members for several years the students in the meet bimonthly at a minimum, or more ranch schools attended school every frequently if needed. other day. The COE had argued since 3 1997 that this is an educationally unsound practice and the dialogue 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #1: between COE and probation on this The reporting requirements to the boards point has been described by all parties as are satisfied through the three-level contentious. This concern was governance structure meeting status eventually resolved. As of November reports. The JTF no longer functions as 2001, all students at the ranch schools an entity. attend school on a daily basis. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 2 Appropriately inform responsible parties of performance evaluation consequences for delays in meeting strategies. RESPONSE: We agree that the appropriate staff will be held accountable for meeting the strategies. Responsible parties are informed negative delays impact their annual performance evaluations. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #2: Each site has developed a work plan that Although this recommendation was identifies specific action items, person(s) addressed to the board of education and responsible, and a completion date. board of supervisors, the responsible These work plans are reviewed at each parties held accountable appear to be site team’s monthly meeting, progress staff-level individuals. Individual reports are made, and solutions to teachers, site administrators and county problems are discussed. Within COE, administrators are evaluated for their job performance ratings for teachers, site efforts to assist in the development and administrators and county administrators implementation of site-specific strategies include accountability goals stated in the during their annual performance work plan. evaluations. 4 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 3: Collaboratively identify and provide additional resources adequate to maintain timelines should such action be deemed necessary in their view to comply with the “urgent need” qualifier of the Court Order. RESPONSE: Both Boards have responded to the “urgent need” qualifier of the Court Order and have allocated additional resources to meet the critical needs of youth in institutions. 2001-2002 Grand Jury Acquired staff, instructional materials and other Facts: support necessary to implement the new Schools located at juvenile hall, the strategies at court schools. Funding for ranches and the children’s shelter have staff training was approved by the board developed goals, strategies and timelines of supervisors in its 2001 budget; the to meet the unique educational needs of COE provided $50,000 as matching children placed under their care. Among funds. The COE also funds ongoing the five sites, 83 strategies have been educational programs in court schools. developed. Information from the system- wide team indicates 61 strategies were 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #3: completed by March 31, 2001. Other As stated in the response, the two boards strategies are in progress and expect to did find a need for additional support be completed by September 2002. The resources. These resources are being board of education and the board of funded and provided. Resources supervisors are working in a included funding for additional staff and collaborative manner to provide needed instructional materials. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 4: Include in the definition of core services to be identified in the governance agreement Age-appropriate and meaningful work experience that meets the criteria of school credit. RESPONSE: We agree with the importance of work experience within a comprehensive program. Based on the needs of the youth, the governance structure will evaluate the best means of incorporating such experience. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: As of the writing of this report, there is The governance committee concluded in still no work experience credit available a May 2000 report that vocational for the court school students. Instead of training is a core service and would be a work experience program, a teacher is improved through school credit. assigned to provide the students with an 5 introduction to work experience choices, testing, preference for jobs, pro-social The auto shop program is limited to skills and role-playing. skills needed for work at an oil change type of business. (a) The Grand Jury was told there is no school credit earned nor outside contract for work experience available with any 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #4: agency. Although the governance committee concluded its evaluation and considers (b) Students who are on work crews with credit for work experience beneficial, no the Santa Clara County Water District school credit is currently given. do not receive school credit for this experience. The vocational programs currently operating are construction and auto shop. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 5. Continue to financially support an ongoing program of literacy workshops for teachers and other support staff directly involved with children in institutional schools; and that funding be allocated for training to facilitate the transition to the new model of collaborative decision making. RESPONSE: Funding has been allocated to provide literacy workshops for teachers and other staff, as well as to facilitate the transition to a collaborative decision-making model. alternative school administrators from 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: surrounding counties. Teachers are now receiving both literacy and numeracy training. The COE provides funding and substitute teacher The COE estimates it will need an replacement for two days of training additional $400,000 to maintain current offered on a Saturday or during the programs. The COE is in the process of week. Three additional training days are reducing the number of instructional funded through the State of California. aides, teachers, and administrators at its Under the direction of experienced court schools. The student-to-teacher personnel, the training takes place at ratio has already been raised from 12:1 Santa Clara University. to 15:1. A workshop for administrators is also 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #5: available. Santa Clara County school Funding continues to be provided for administrators attend training with other both literacy and numeracy training. Due 6 to reduced funding levels, the literacy training and other programs could be negatively affected. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Recommendation 6. Include in the Governance Agreement a provision that will address the maintenance of school staffing stability in view of the declining or fluctuating enrollment levels at the court schools. RESPONSE: We agree that staffing stability is important and plans are being developed to address staffing in view of declining or fluctuating enrollment. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: (2) With a ratio of 20:1, staff feels safety An MOU delineates the governance will become a greater issue. structure in place between the COE and the county. Many provisions are (3) Site administrators (principals) will understood and agreed upon by the be reduced from five to three for the parties; however, stability and 2002-2003 school year. maintenance of staffing are not mentioned as a separate provision. 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #6: Even though COE agrees staffing The COE expects the following will stability is important, reductions in negatively impact the maintenance of funding levels will affect staffing at all school staffing stability beginning in the levels. The increased teacher-student summer of 2002: ratio causes both safety and educational concerns to COE and probation staff. (1) Starting in the summer of 2002, the COE has dictated that the teacher student ratio in classes will be 20:1. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 7. Develop a timeline for the implementation of an assessment center at Osborne School. Results should be included in the Joint Task Force report to the Boards. RESPONSE: The Probation Department, Osborne School and the Mental Health Department have designed an interim assessment center. The center is operational. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: and leave juvenile hall where Osborne It was reported by staff that on any given School is located. Fifty percent of the day an average of thirteen students enter students who enter do not stay longer 7 than three days. The board of education program (IEP). An updated supervisors has provided funds to IEP is created for students identified as refurbish a juvenile hall living unit for needing special education. use as an assessment center. Within the 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #7: first three days of entering juvenile hall, The assessment center continues to students are assigned to the assessment operate and appears to provide the center where they are tested in reading necessary evaluation services. There has and mathematics. A career inventory is been a marked improvement in the also administered. Students requiring number of students leaving the additional assessment are referred to the institutional facilities with up-to-date student study team coordinator. individual assessments results. These results are then available for a student’s One-third of the student population next educational experience. enters with a special education diagnosis and with an expired individualized 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 8. Collect and evaluate data and best practices for grouping students by age or living unit (performance) learning levels and consider implementing functional (ability) groupings at Osborne School. RESPONSE: We agree with the need to group students in order to maximize learning opportunities without compromising safety and security. Each site team will evaluate data and best practices and make recommendations related to class assignment procedures. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: classroom facilities make grouping by At McKenna School the children have academic level challenging but not not been convicted for illegal activity impossible. There have been and are more easily grouped for discussions among COE, probation, and academic reasons. At Osborne School the courts about assigning all special such grouping is difficult because many education students to one of the ranch of the students have a history of schools in order to centralize services. violence, and safety issues must be addressed for the academic program to 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #8: be effective. Architectural planning for The site teams continue to deal with the the remodeling at juvenile hall includes student grouping issue, but it remains a the concept of bringing teachers into the complex and unresolved issue. living areas. At the ranches, limited 8 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 9. Collect information to measure the effectiveness of the alternative school department's program. Also, redesign and identify program elements that may need further refinement. RESPONSE: We agree with the need to collaboratively evaluate all aspects of the program and are committed to utilizing evaluation results for continuous improvement. Site teams will have the responsibility for this effort and will report as appropriate. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: and at four of the schools the probation Efforts towards continuous improvement department has added a character and collaborative evaluation of programs development component to its program. have been realized through the creation of The COE contract with Santa Clara site teams, a system-wide team, and an University to provide teacher training in executive team. The site team oversees literacy has resulted in improved reading the services delivered at a particular site levels. The contract with Santa Clara and resolves issues as they arise. The site University also includes numeracy training team also receives and provides input from but it is still too soon to have collected the system-wide team related to gaps in reliable data in this area. core services, program needs, site priorities, policy modifications and budget 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #9: recommendations. The executive team Site teams currently in operation monitors the implementation of the MOU, continue to evaluate their programs. as well as a multi-year action plan that was Reports are made by the site teams to the developed by the JTF. system-wide team. Both the COE and county executive’s office make regular The COE has redesigned its academic reports to the children and families program to focus on literacy and numeracy committee. (See Glossary) 1999-2000 Grand Jury Recommendation 10. Collect and evaluate relevant literature to address the issue of how educational services and the work programs may best be delivered to meet the critical educational needs of wards and dependents. RESPONSE: We agree that relevant literature needs to be reviewed to ensure that educational services and the work progress best meet the critical needs of youth in institutional settings. The site teams are developing a proposal based on relevant best practices. 9 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: School staff showed the Grand Jury new According to California law “...the learning packets and materials for Governing Board of each school district improving the educational program. shall prepare and keep on file for periodic inspection the courses of study (b) Students have an opportunity to prescribed for the schools under its participate in various character jurisdiction." (Ed. Code 51040) The development program options, such as court schools have updated and revised anger management, drug and alcohol all courses of study in the past three counseling and sports programs. years to meet California State Department of Education framework and 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #10: standards. Site team evaluation and recommendations for improving student educational needs (a) Site teams have contributed to the are being implemented as funding is development and implementation of a available. In addition to educational core program based on state guidelines programs, character development classes and best practices developed through support the critical needs of the students. staff training sessions with a consultant from Santa Clara University. Osborne 1999-2000 Grand Jury Recommendation 11. Provide additional resource specialist support at Osborne School so that caseloads do not exceed the maximum allowable. RESPONSE: We agree and an additional Resource Specialist has been assigned to Osborne School. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: (c) Once the IEP’s are completed, At Osborne School, the Grand Jury placement and services are delivered in found the following: accordance with a student’s plan. (a) An additional resource specialist 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #11: was hired to serve students and to The recommended resource specialist support general education teachers. was hired as stated in the response. Special education students receive direct Placement and identified services are services at a teacher-to-student ratio being delivered in accordance with the from 1:1 to 8:1. students’ updated educational plans. (b) A full-time student study team coordinator is available Monday through Friday. 10 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 12. Develop a tool to evaluate progress of Court school students and establish expectations for student achievement to be realized in six month intervals. RESPONSE: We agree and an assessment instrument has been selected, field tested and will be operational in all Court schools by September 1, 2000. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: computer. This information assists in The STAR-AL (STAR) was selected as tracking a student's achievements and the instrument used to assess all students expectations. Court school students are in reading and math. The scores re-tested every sixty days. represent how students performed on the test compared with the performance of a 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #12: nationally representative sample of STAR was the assessment instrument students. The scores present a snapshot initially selected. This instrument is of achievement at a specific point in routinely used and it is providing time. Based on the student's performance information for tracking student on the STAR reading and math tests, a achievement and expectations. diagnostic report is produced by 1999-2000 Grand Jury Recommendation 13. Require each Court school teacher to attend a specific number of literacy workshops and follow-up sessions each year so all teachers may be considered initially "trained" by September 2002. RESPONSE: We agree with the recommendation and the new contract agreement requires all teachers to attend three additional days of training for a total of five days. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #13: A contract between COE and Santa Literacy training is available and all staff Clara University’s Markula Center for is completing the required five days of Applied Ethics was negotiated and training. signed in 2000. A new contract was recently signed to continue this training service. 11 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 14. Collaboratively establish appropriate policies and procedures for the exchange of information under the Integrated Children's Services Program. The results of their efforts should be included in the JTF report to the Board of Education and the Board of Supervisors. RESPONSE: We agree with the recommendation, protocols for sharing are in place. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: and alcohol services Members meet The governance structure allows for a bimonthly, or more frequently as site-based, system-wide form of needed. management to address collaborative program development, exchange of At the site level, the site team is information, resource allocation, budget responsible for working with site staff to decisions, problem solving, program oversee the services delivered and evaluation and accountability. resolve issues that may develop. The integrated children’s services team 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #14: includes the director of special Use of the governance committee education, deputy chiefs of probation for structure provides the mechanism for juvenile services and juvenile detention, informational exchanges and program deputy director of mental health and the status sought by the 1999-2000 Grand deputy director of the department of Jury recommendation. drug 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 15. Continue to seek an appropriate facility for the purpose of establishing a sub-acute residential treatment program as a continuum of care for children and adolescents of Santa Clara County. Once an appropriate facility is secured, it should be renovated as may be necessary and opened as soon as possible. RESPONSE: We are pleased that this long-standing need is being met. We project that the facility will be open in October 2000. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: for youth between the ages of 12 through The board of supervisors authorized the 17 provides a secure residential and out- purchase of the Charter Hospital located patient treatment program for severely at 455 Silicon Valley Boulevard in May emotionally disturbed youth. of 2000. The facility opened in September 2001. The Starlight Program 12 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #15: In addition to community schools, there The county finalized the purchase of a is a transition process that has been facility, although it took longer than developed by COE, probation and social originally anticipated. services using state After Care Grant funds. The agencies continue to work NOTE: After the interviews, observing cooperatively to provide this transition site teams in action, reading the service for students returning to their documentation provided, listening to home school. speakers at various committee meetings and evaluating the current status for Up to three weeks prior to a student’s compliance with the court order, the release a transition counselor meets with 2001-2002 Grand Jury also finds the the student to develop an individualized following: plan for returning to the home school, community school, continuation school 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: or a job training program. In order that children placed under the care of the court are ensured their Each school district has a designated educational needs are effectively contact person for the transition. The addressed, community schools remain a transition counselor and district contact realistic option. The COE will need person review the student’s educational financial assistance from local school status and other information necessary to districts to maintain the current level of make final preparation for a student’s service. This concept has not been return. embraced by the local districts facing financial problems of their own. Many During the transition process the school local districts are developing their own district representative is responsible for programs for returning students. making parental contact. The COE and county have recognized Upon return to the home school, the the expected reductions in funding from juvenile’s probation counselor is state and federal sources. In a proactive responsible for student follow up for as manner, both have invested staff time 10 weeks. After 10 weeks, an After and effort to identify potential strategies Care probation officer or California to absorb the impact of these cuts. outreach officer continues the follow-up Increased class size, reduction of process. personnel and increased financial support from local school districts have 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #17: all been implemented to some degree, Students returning to their regular school yet the anticipated shortfall has not been setting require cooperative support covered. between local schools and county agencies. 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #16: Reductions in available funding will severely threaten the progress made since the court order was issued. 13 schools’ curriculum. (Ref. Finding RECOMMENDATIONS #10) The 2001-2002 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County 5. Provide work experience classes and Office of Education: credit for those students at the Wright, Holden, and James Ranches.
F3: Executive team The executive team provides policy direction for institutional programs and monitors the implementation of the MOU, as well as a multi-year action plan. The executive team consists of the assistant superintendent of student services, chief probation officer and a deputy county executive. The executive team meets quarterly, or more frequently as necessary.
Page 1
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: System-wide team Juvenile Court and/or appropriate The system-wide team provides standing committees.” operational direction and program accountability for the various sites, The three-level governance structure services, disciplines and agencies meetings provide the boards with status providing programs in juvenile hall and reports. the ranches. The system-wide team includes the director of the alternative The executive team has developed an schools department, director of special attitude of collaboration and cooperation education, deputy chiefs of probation for among the major agencies after nearly juvenile services and juvenile detention, two years of contentious meetings, deputy director of mental health, and including agency territorial disputes and deputy director of the department of personal verbal attacks. As an example, drug and alcohol services. Members for several years the students in the meet bimonthly at a minimum, or more ranch schools attended school every frequently if needed. other day. The COE had argued since 3 1997 that this is an educationally unsound practice and the dialogue 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #1: between COE and probation on this The reporting requirements to the boards point has been described by all parties as are satisfied through the three-level contentious. This concern was governance structure meeting status eventually resolved. As of November reports. The JTF no longer functions as 2001, all students at the ranch schools an entity. attend school on a daily basis. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 2 Appropriately inform responsible parties of performance evaluation consequences for delays in meeting strategies. RESPONSE: We agree that the appropriate staff will be held accountable for meeting the strategies. Responsible parties are informed negative delays impact their annual performance evaluations. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #2: Each site has developed a work plan that Although this recommendation was identifies specific action items, person(s) addressed to the board of education and responsible, and a completion date. board of supervisors, the responsible These work plans are reviewed at each parties held accountable appear to be site team’s monthly meeting, progress staff-level individuals. Individual reports are made, and solutions to teachers, site administrators and county problems are discussed. Within COE, administrators are evaluated for their job performance ratings for teachers, site efforts to assist in the development and administrators and county administrators implementation of site-specific strategies include accountability goals stated in the during their annual performance work plan. evaluations. 4 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 3: Collaboratively identify and provide additional resources adequate to maintain timelines should such action be deemed necessary in their view to comply with the “urgent need” qualifier of the Court Order. RESPONSE: Both Boards have responded to the “urgent need” qualifier of the Court Order and have allocated additional resources to meet the critical needs of youth in institutions. 2001-2002 Grand Jury Acquired staff, instructional materials and other Facts: support necessary to implement the new Schools located at juvenile hall, the strategies at court schools. Funding for ranches and the children’s shelter have staff training was approved by the board developed goals, strategies and timelines of supervisors in its 2001 budget; the to meet the unique educational needs of COE provided $50,000 as matching children placed under their care. Among funds. The COE also funds ongoing the five sites, 83 strategies have been educational programs in court schools. developed. Information from the system- wide team indicates 61 strategies were 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #3: completed by March 31, 2001. Other As stated in the response, the two boards strategies are in progress and expect to did find a need for additional support be completed by September 2002. The resources. These resources are being board of education and the board of funded and provided. Resources supervisors are working in a included funding for additional staff and collaborative manner to provide needed instructional materials. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 4: Include in the definition of core services to be identified in the governance agreement Age-appropriate and meaningful work experience that meets the criteria of school credit. RESPONSE: We agree with the importance of work experience within a comprehensive program. Based on the needs of the youth, the governance structure will evaluate the best means of incorporating such experience. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: As of the writing of this report, there is The governance committee concluded in still no work experience credit available a May 2000 report that vocational for the court school students. Instead of training is a core service and would be a work experience program, a teacher is improved through school credit. assigned to provide the students with an 5 introduction to work experience choices, testing, preference for jobs, pro-social The auto shop program is limited to skills and role-playing. skills needed for work at an oil change type of business. (a) The Grand Jury was told there is no school credit earned nor outside contract for work experience available with any 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #4: agency. Although the governance committee concluded its evaluation and considers (b) Students who are on work crews with credit for work experience beneficial, no the Santa Clara County Water District school credit is currently given. do not receive school credit for this experience. The vocational programs currently operating are construction and auto shop. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 5. Continue to financially support an ongoing program of literacy workshops for teachers and other support staff directly involved with children in institutional schools; and that funding be allocated for training to facilitate the transition to the new model of collaborative decision making. RESPONSE: Funding has been allocated to provide literacy workshops for teachers and other staff, as well as to facilitate the transition to a collaborative decision-making model. alternative school administrators from 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: surrounding counties. Teachers are now receiving both literacy and numeracy training. The COE provides funding and substitute teacher The COE estimates it will need an replacement for two days of training additional $400,000 to maintain current offered on a Saturday or during the programs. The COE is in the process of week. Three additional training days are reducing the number of instructional funded through the State of California. aides, teachers, and administrators at its Under the direction of experienced court schools. The student-to-teacher personnel, the training takes place at ratio has already been raised from 12:1 Santa Clara University. to 15:1. A workshop for administrators is also 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #5: available. Santa Clara County school Funding continues to be provided for administrators attend training with other both literacy and numeracy training. Due 6 to reduced funding levels, the literacy training and other programs could be negatively affected. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Recommendation 6. Include in the Governance Agreement a provision that will address the maintenance of school staffing stability in view of the declining or fluctuating enrollment levels at the court schools. RESPONSE: We agree that staffing stability is important and plans are being developed to address staffing in view of declining or fluctuating enrollment. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: (2) With a ratio of 20:1, staff feels safety An MOU delineates the governance will become a greater issue. structure in place between the COE and the county. Many provisions are (3) Site administrators (principals) will understood and agreed upon by the be reduced from five to three for the parties; however, stability and 2002-2003 school year. maintenance of staffing are not mentioned as a separate provision. 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #6: Even though COE agrees staffing The COE expects the following will stability is important, reductions in negatively impact the maintenance of funding levels will affect staffing at all school staffing stability beginning in the levels. The increased teacher-student summer of 2002: ratio causes both safety and educational concerns to COE and probation staff. (1) Starting in the summer of 2002, the COE has dictated that the teacher student ratio in classes will be 20:1. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 7. Develop a timeline for the implementation of an assessment center at Osborne School. Results should be included in the Joint Task Force report to the Boards. RESPONSE: The Probation Department, Osborne School and the Mental Health Department have designed an interim assessment center. The center is operational. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: and leave juvenile hall where Osborne It was reported by staff that on any given School is located. Fifty percent of the day an average of thirteen students enter students who enter do not stay longer 7 than three days. The board of education program (IEP). An updated supervisors has provided funds to IEP is created for students identified as refurbish a juvenile hall living unit for needing special education. use as an assessment center. Within the 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #7: first three days of entering juvenile hall, The assessment center continues to students are assigned to the assessment operate and appears to provide the center where they are tested in reading necessary evaluation services. There has and mathematics. A career inventory is been a marked improvement in the also administered. Students requiring number of students leaving the additional assessment are referred to the institutional facilities with up-to-date student study team coordinator. individual assessments results. These results are then available for a student’s One-third of the student population next educational experience. enters with a special education diagnosis and with an expired individualized 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 8. Collect and evaluate data and best practices for grouping students by age or living unit (performance) learning levels and consider implementing functional (ability) groupings at Osborne School. RESPONSE: We agree with the need to group students in order to maximize learning opportunities without compromising safety and security. Each site team will evaluate data and best practices and make recommendations related to class assignment procedures. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: classroom facilities make grouping by At McKenna School the children have academic level challenging but not not been convicted for illegal activity impossible. There have been and are more easily grouped for discussions among COE, probation, and academic reasons. At Osborne School the courts about assigning all special such grouping is difficult because many education students to one of the ranch of the students have a history of schools in order to centralize services. violence, and safety issues must be addressed for the academic program to 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #8: be effective. Architectural planning for The site teams continue to deal with the the remodeling at juvenile hall includes student grouping issue, but it remains a the concept of bringing teachers into the complex and unresolved issue. living areas. At the ranches, limited 8 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 9. Collect information to measure the effectiveness of the alternative school department's program. Also, redesign and identify program elements that may need further refinement. RESPONSE: We agree with the need to collaboratively evaluate all aspects of the program and are committed to utilizing evaluation results for continuous improvement. Site teams will have the responsibility for this effort and will report as appropriate. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: and at four of the schools the probation Efforts towards continuous improvement department has added a character and collaborative evaluation of programs development component to its program. have been realized through the creation of The COE contract with Santa Clara site teams, a system-wide team, and an University to provide teacher training in executive team. The site team oversees literacy has resulted in improved reading the services delivered at a particular site levels. The contract with Santa Clara and resolves issues as they arise. The site University also includes numeracy training team also receives and provides input from but it is still too soon to have collected the system-wide team related to gaps in reliable data in this area. core services, program needs, site priorities, policy modifications and budget 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #9: recommendations. The executive team Site teams currently in operation monitors the implementation of the MOU, continue to evaluate their programs. as well as a multi-year action plan that was Reports are made by the site teams to the developed by the JTF. system-wide team. Both the COE and county executive’s office make regular The COE has redesigned its academic reports to the children and families program to focus on literacy and numeracy committee. (See Glossary) 1999-2000 Grand Jury Recommendation 10. Collect and evaluate relevant literature to address the issue of how educational services and the work programs may best be delivered to meet the critical educational needs of wards and dependents. RESPONSE: We agree that relevant literature needs to be reviewed to ensure that educational services and the work progress best meet the critical needs of youth in institutional settings. The site teams are developing a proposal based on relevant best practices. 9 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: School staff showed the Grand Jury new According to California law “...the learning packets and materials for Governing Board of each school district improving the educational program. shall prepare and keep on file for periodic inspection the courses of study (b) Students have an opportunity to prescribed for the schools under its participate in various character jurisdiction." (Ed. Code 51040) The development program options, such as court schools have updated and revised anger management, drug and alcohol all courses of study in the past three counseling and sports programs. years to meet California State Department of Education framework and 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #10: standards. Site team evaluation and recommendations for improving student educational needs (a) Site teams have contributed to the are being implemented as funding is development and implementation of a available. In addition to educational core program based on state guidelines programs, character development classes and best practices developed through support the critical needs of the students. staff training sessions with a consultant from Santa Clara University. Osborne 1999-2000 Grand Jury Recommendation 11. Provide additional resource specialist support at Osborne School so that caseloads do not exceed the maximum allowable. RESPONSE: We agree and an additional Resource Specialist has been assigned to Osborne School. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: (c) Once the IEP’s are completed, At Osborne School, the Grand Jury placement and services are delivered in found the following: accordance with a student’s plan. (a) An additional resource specialist 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #11: was hired to serve students and to The recommended resource specialist support general education teachers. was hired as stated in the response. Special education students receive direct Placement and identified services are services at a teacher-to-student ratio being delivered in accordance with the from 1:1 to 8:1. students’ updated educational plans. (b) A full-time student study team coordinator is available Monday through Friday. 10 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 12. Develop a tool to evaluate progress of Court school students and establish expectations for student achievement to be realized in six month intervals. RESPONSE: We agree and an assessment instrument has been selected, field tested and will be operational in all Court schools by September 1, 2000. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: computer. This information assists in The STAR-AL (STAR) was selected as tracking a student's achievements and the instrument used to assess all students expectations. Court school students are in reading and math. The scores re-tested every sixty days. represent how students performed on the test compared with the performance of a 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #12: nationally representative sample of STAR was the assessment instrument students. The scores present a snapshot initially selected. This instrument is of achievement at a specific point in routinely used and it is providing time. Based on the student's performance information for tracking student on the STAR reading and math tests, a achievement and expectations. diagnostic report is produced by 1999-2000 Grand Jury Recommendation 13. Require each Court school teacher to attend a specific number of literacy workshops and follow-up sessions each year so all teachers may be considered initially "trained" by September 2002. RESPONSE: We agree with the recommendation and the new contract agreement requires all teachers to attend three additional days of training for a total of five days. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #13: A contract between COE and Santa Literacy training is available and all staff Clara University’s Markula Center for is completing the required five days of Applied Ethics was negotiated and training. signed in 2000. A new contract was recently signed to continue this training service. 11 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 14. Collaboratively establish appropriate policies and procedures for the exchange of information under the Integrated Children's Services Program. The results of their efforts should be included in the JTF report to the Board of Education and the Board of Supervisors. RESPONSE: We agree with the recommendation, protocols for sharing are in place. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: and alcohol services Members meet The governance structure allows for a bimonthly, or more frequently as site-based, system-wide form of needed. management to address collaborative program development, exchange of At the site level, the site team is information, resource allocation, budget responsible for working with site staff to decisions, problem solving, program oversee the services delivered and evaluation and accountability. resolve issues that may develop. The integrated children’s services team 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #14: includes the director of special Use of the governance committee education, deputy chiefs of probation for structure provides the mechanism for juvenile services and juvenile detention, informational exchanges and program deputy director of mental health and the status sought by the 1999-2000 Grand deputy director of the department of Jury recommendation. drug 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 15. Continue to seek an appropriate facility for the purpose of establishing a sub-acute residential treatment program as a continuum of care for children and adolescents of Santa Clara County. Once an appropriate facility is secured, it should be renovated as may be necessary and opened as soon as possible. RESPONSE: We are pleased that this long-standing need is being met. We project that the facility will be open in October 2000. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: for youth between the ages of 12 through The board of supervisors authorized the 17 provides a secure residential and out- purchase of the Charter Hospital located patient treatment program for severely at 455 Silicon Valley Boulevard in May emotionally disturbed youth. of 2000. The facility opened in September 2001. The Starlight Program 12 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #15: In addition to community schools, there The county finalized the purchase of a is a transition process that has been facility, although it took longer than developed by COE, probation and social originally anticipated. services using state After Care Grant funds. The agencies continue to work NOTE: After the interviews, observing cooperatively to provide this transition site teams in action, reading the service for students returning to their documentation provided, listening to home school. speakers at various committee meetings and evaluating the current status for Up to three weeks prior to a student’s compliance with the court order, the release a transition counselor meets with 2001-2002 Grand Jury also finds the the student to develop an individualized following: plan for returning to the home school, community school, continuation school 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: or a job training program. In order that children placed under the care of the court are ensured their Each school district has a designated educational needs are effectively contact person for the transition. The addressed, community schools remain a transition counselor and district contact realistic option. The COE will need person review the student’s educational financial assistance from local school status and other information necessary to districts to maintain the current level of make final preparation for a student’s service. This concept has not been return. embraced by the local districts facing financial problems of their own. Many During the transition process the school local districts are developing their own district representative is responsible for programs for returning students. making parental contact. The COE and county have recognized Upon return to the home school, the the expected reductions in funding from juvenile’s probation counselor is state and federal sources. In a proactive responsible for student follow up for as manner, both have invested staff time 10 weeks. After 10 weeks, an After and effort to identify potential strategies Care probation officer or California to absorb the impact of these cuts. outreach officer continues the follow-up Increased class size, reduction of process. personnel and increased financial support from local school districts have 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #17: all been implemented to some degree, Students returning to their regular school yet the anticipated shortfall has not been setting require cooperative support covered. between local schools and county agencies. 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #16: Reductions in available funding will severely threaten the progress made since the court order was issued. 13 schools’ curriculum. (Ref. Finding RECOMMENDATIONS #10) The 2001-2002 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County 5. Provide work experience classes and Office of Education: credit for those students at the Wright, Holden, and James Ranches.
R3: Continue operation of the assessment #17) center at Osborne and McKenna Schools to assure students are The 2001-2002 Santa Clara County Civil properly identified and appropriate Grand Jury recommends that the County educational plans are current. (Ref. Office of Education and the Santa Clara
Additional Recommendations 11

Not linked to specific findings.

R5: Continue to financially support an ongoing program of literacy workshops for teachers and other support staff directly involved with children in institutional schools; and that funding be allocated for training to facilitate the transition to the new model of collaborative decision making. RESPONSE: Funding has been allocated to provide literacy workshops for teachers and other staff, as well as to facilitate the transition to a collaborative decision-making model. alternative school administrators from surrounding counties. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: Teachers are now receiving both literacy and numeracy training. The COE The COE estimates it will need an provides funding and substitute teacher additional $400,000 to maintain current replacement for two days of training programs. The COE is in the process of offered on a Saturday or during the reducing the number of instructional week. Three additional training days are aides, teachers, and administrators at its funded through the State of California. court schools. The student-to-teacher Under the direction of experienced ratio has already been raised from 12:1 personnel, the training takes place at to 15:1. Santa Clara University. A workshop for administrators is also available. Santa Clara County school administrators attend training with other 2001-2002 Grand Jury
Page 1
R6: Include in the Governance Agreement a provision that will address the maintenance of school staffing stability in view of the declining or fluctuating enrollment levels at the court schools. RESPONSE: We agree that staffing stability is important and plans are being developed to address staffing in view of declining or fluctuating enrollment. (2) With a ratio of 20:1, staff feels safety will become a greater issue. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: An MOU delineates the governance structure in place between the COE and the county. Many provisions are understood and agreed upon by the parties; however, stability and maintenance of staffing are not mentioned as a separate provision. (3) Site administrators (principals) will be reduced from five to three for the 2002-2003 school year. 2001-2002 Grand Jury
Page 1
R7: Develop a timeline for the implementation of an assessment center at Osborne School. Results should be included in the Joint Task Force report to the Boards. RESPONSE: The Probation Department, Osborne School and the Mental Health Department have designed an interim assessment center. The center is operational. and leave juvenile hall where Osborne School is located. Fifty percent of the students who enter do not stay longer 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: It was reported by staff that on any given day an average of thirteen students enter 7 education program (IEP). An updated IEP is created for students identified as needing special education. 2001-2002 Grand Jury
Page 1
R8: Collect and evaluate data and best practices for grouping students by age or living unit (performance) learning levels and consider implementing functional (ability) groupings at Osborne School. RESPONSE: We agree with the need to group students in order to maximize learning opportunities without compromising safety and security. Each site team will evaluate data and best practices and make recommendations related to class assignment procedures. classroom facilities make grouping by academic level challenging but not impossible. There have been discussions among COE, probation, and the courts about assigning all special education students to one of the ranch schools in order to centralize services. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: At McKenna School the children have not been convicted for illegal activity and are more easily grouped for academic reasons. At Osborne School such grouping is difficult because many of the students have a history of violence, and safety issues must be addressed for the academic program to be effective. Architectural planning for the remodeling at juvenile hall includes the concept of bringing teachers into the living areas. At the ranches, limited 2001-2002 Grand Jury
Page 1
R9: Collect information to measure the effectiveness of the alternative school department's program. Also, redesign and identify program elements that may need further refinement. RESPONSE: We agree with the need to collaboratively evaluate all aspects of the program and are committed to utilizing evaluation results for continuous improvement. Site teams will have the responsibility for this effort and will report as appropriate. and at four of the schools the probation department has added a character development component to its program. The COE contract with Santa Clara University to provide teacher training in literacy has resulted in improved reading levels. The contract with Santa Clara University also includes numeracy training but it is still too soon to have collected reliable data in this area. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: Efforts towards continuous improvement and collaborative evaluation of programs have been realized through the creation of site teams, a system-wide team, and an executive team. The site team oversees the services delivered at a particular site and resolves issues as they arise. The site team also receives and provides input from the system-wide team related to gaps in core services, program needs, site priorities, policy modifications and budget recommendations. The executive team monitors the implementation of the MOU, as well as a multi-year action plan that was developed by the JTF. 2001-2002 Grand Jury
Page 1
R10: Collect and evaluate relevant literature to address the issue of how educational services and the work programs may best be delivered to meet the critical educational needs of wards and dependents. RESPONSE: We agree that relevant literature needs to be reviewed to ensure that educational services and the work progress best meet the critical needs of youth in institutional settings. The site teams are developing a proposal based on relevant best practices. School staff showed the Grand Jury new learning packets and materials for improving the educational program. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: According to California law “...the Governing Board of each school district shall prepare and keep on file for periodic inspection the courses of study prescribed for the schools under its jurisdiction." (Ed. Code 51040) The court schools have updated and revised all courses of study in the past three years to meet California State Department of Education framework and standards. (b) Students have an opportunity to participate in various character development program options, such as anger management, drug and alcohol counseling and sports programs. 2001-2002 Grand Jury
Page 1
R11: Provide additional resource specialist support at Osborne School so that caseloads do not exceed the maximum allowable. RESPONSE: We agree and an additional Resource Specialist has been assigned to Osborne School. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: At Osborne School, the Grand Jury found the following: (c) Once the IEP’s are completed, placement and services are delivered in accordance with a student’s plan. (a) An additional resource specialist was hired to serve students and to support general education teachers. Special education students receive direct services at a teacher-to-student ratio from 1:1 to 8:1. 2001-2002 Grand Jury
Page 1
R12: Develop a tool to evaluate progress of Court school students and establish expectations for student achievement to be realized in six month intervals. RESPONSE: We agree and an assessment instrument has been selected, field tested and will be operational in all Court schools by September 1, 2000. computer. This information assists in tracking a student's achievements and expectations. Court school students are re-tested every sixty days. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: The STAR-AL (STAR) was selected as the instrument used to assess all students in reading and math. The scores represent how students performed on the test compared with the performance of a nationally representative sample of students. The scores present a snapshot of achievement at a specific point in time. Based on the student's performance on the STAR reading and math tests, a diagnostic report is produced by 2001-2002 Grand Jury
Page 1
R13: Require each Court school teacher to attend a specific number of literacy workshops and follow-up sessions each year so all teachers may be considered initially "trained" by September 2002. RESPONSE: We agree with the recommendation and the new contract agreement requires all teachers to attend three additional days of training for a total of five days. 2001-2002 Grand Jury
Page 1
R14: Collaboratively establish appropriate policies and procedures for the exchange of information under the Integrated Children's Services Program. The results of their efforts should be included in the JTF report to the Board of Education and the Board of Supervisors. RESPONSE: We agree with the recommendation, protocols for sharing are in place. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: The governance structure allows for a site-based, system-wide form of management to address collaborative program development, exchange of information, resource allocation, budget decisions, problem solving, program evaluation and accountability. and alcohol services Members meet bimonthly, or more frequently as needed. The integrated children’s services team includes the director of special education, deputy chiefs of probation for juvenile services and juvenile detention, deputy director of mental health and the deputy director of the department of drug 2001-2002 Grand Jury
Page 1
R15: Continue to seek an appropriate facility for the purpose of establishing a sub-acute residential treatment program as a continuum of care for children and adolescents of Santa Clara County. Once an appropriate facility is secured, it should be renovated as may be necessary and opened as soon as possible. RESPONSE: We are pleased that this long-standing need is being met. We project that the facility will be open in October 2000. for youth between the ages of 12 through 17 provides a secure residential and outpatient treatment program for severely emotionally disturbed youth. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: The board of supervisors authorized the purchase of the Charter Hospital located at 455 Silicon Valley Boulevard in May of 2000. The facility opened in September 2001. The Starlight Program 12 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: In addition to community schools, there is a transition process that has been developed by COE, probation and social services using state After Care Grant funds. The agencies continue to work cooperatively to provide this transition service for students returning to their home school. 2001-2002 Grand Jury
Page 1
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
FI: The SJUSD has exercised suitable financial management and oversight of Measure C expenditures, while providing appropriate reporting to the public. There is no evidence of any inappropriate use of funds.
FII: Although administrative and support (soft) costs are reported at quarterly BOC meetings, this information is not included in quarterly progress reports issued by the district.
FIII: Change Order No. 3 for Contract No. 7030 (in the amount of $54,326.00) was approved without securing bids, in violation of Section 20118.4 of the California Public Contract Code, in that it exceeded 10% of the original contract price ($494,233.00). Corrective action is being taken as a result of the Grand Jury inquiry and new contracting practices are being developed to prevent inadvertent violations in the future.
FIV: Participation in the Measure C BOC had declined to the point where only four of the original sixteen members remained active before the BOE took action to appoint new members. In addition, no formal membership process existed to acknowledge resignations from the Measure C BOC or to remove members who had become inactive. Five new members have been appointed to the BOC since October 2002, and the district is developing formal BOC membership guidelines.