Photo credit: Public Health Image Library / unsplash
Photo credit: Public Health Image Library / unsplash
In a decision with statewide ruling this week, the California Department of Education ruled that the San Bernardino County Office of Education had made a mistake in approving multiple districts to spend money on low-income students and other student groups in need.
The department upheld a complaint filed in June 2020 against the office of San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Ted Alejandre on behalf of two religious organizations in the San Bernardino area. The district office should not have signed three school districts local control and accountability plans that did not justify how they would spend tens of millions of dollars, the ruling said. It included spending on police and law enforcement, which the organizations argued should instead have been spent on counseling and wellness centers for black and Latin American students.
LCAPs are the annual plans in which districts indicate their priorities for spending money from the local control funding formula, including additional funding for “high-need students”: English learners, homeless, nursing students, and low-income students.
The California Department of Education previously ruled that individual counties, including Los Angeles and Long Beach, either miscalculated or undocumented funding for students in need. But in a “historic decision,” the department held for the first time a county office “responsible for its failure to oversee” said Nicole Gon Ochi, senior attorney for public advocates. Together with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, she filed the complaint on behalf of local advocacy groups.
“We hope the ruling serves as a wake-up call for all district leaders to be more vigilant in their oversight,” Ochi said. “The district offices should see that the community is watching and hold them accountable for the districts meeting their commitments to equity, transparency, and community involvement.”
When drawing up their accountability plans, districts must indicate how they would increase or improve services for high-need students in proportion to the additional resources those students will generate. In addition to goals, districts should set metrics to document improvements.
The complaint alleged that the districts of the San Bernardino City Unified School, Hesperia Unified and Victor Valley Union High School failed to do so. The Department of Education agreed and ordered the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools to ensure that the county’s districts comply with state regulations.
In a unilateral statement on Wednesday, Alejandre’s office denied doing anything wrong and said it would ask the ministry to clarify aspects of the verdict. Under local control, the statement said, the district office has a limited “supportive role”.
“The headmaster of San Bernardino County stands by his position that this case has met all legal requirements relating to his limited supervisory duties,” it said. The office “does not develop LCAPs on behalf of districts and is not responsible for allocating or determining the district’s funds.”
The California County Superintendents Educational Services Association, which represents the county offices and trains county officials in overseeing the county’s accountability plans, declined to comment on the ruling.
The complaint stated that the three districts combined did not allocate more than $ 150 million in “supplementary and concentration grants,” as the additional funding is called, to the intended student groups. The district office said it took funding into account when reviewing district budgets and other financial documents. However, the Department of Education said that transparency to the public requires that all expenses be set out in the accountability plans.
Police funding questioned
The complaint also related to $ 14 million spent on police services by the Chaffey Joint Union High School, Apple Valley Unified and Hesperia Unified counties. Parents associated with the community organizations that filed the complaint, Inland Congregations United for Change and Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement, have argued for years that the police alienated colored students instead of helping them. The districts asserted that the use of the supplementary and concentration funds to ensure school security was justifiable, since the students earmarked for funding make up the majority of the students in the grammar schools.
But the department rejected this argument, affirming, as before, that “simply stating that a district has high enrollment by (intended student groups) does not meet this standard to increase or improve services, as care of students is not to be equated with enrollment ”. Students.”
The complaint cited research that the presence of police officers not only improves the school climate, but also harms students whose misconduct could be solved without criminal subpoenas and arrests.
The department did not comment directly on the funding of counselors versus police officers, suggesting that this is a local decision. However, the decision stated that the three school districts failed to explain how the use of law enforcement funds would be “effective” and aimed primarily at high-need students, as required by law. The district office in turn should have questioned the means, but did not, according to the judgment.
“We feel confirmed by the decision,” said Sergio Luna, main organizer of the Inland Congregations United for Change. “For years, our students and parents have tried to be involved in the decision-making of their school district, but they have been consistently excluded, even when it comes to spending too much on the school police.”
Parents and students in a number of counties, as well as some heads of state, have urged school authorities to reduce or eliminate the police presence on the high school campus (see here and here). That pressure could accelerate with the new state decision as districts are in the process of approving LCAPs for 2021-22.
The complaint raised a third problem. The district office should have obliged the districts to transfer unused supplementary and concentration funds and spend them on targeted student groups in the following year. Public advocates have held this position for years, arguing that the districts were inappropriately breaking the law by spending the leftover funds however they wanted.
However, consistent with the position of the State Board of Education, the Department of Education said that the funding formula for local control does not tie a district’s hands from year to year.
However, that should change. Governor Gavin Newsom agrees with proponents and has included a provision in the 2021-22 budget that obliges districts to spend unused fringe benefits and focus on targeted students in their next budget.
The Ministry of Education’s decision recognizes that the rules are subject to change. If they do, the district offices must ensure that the districts comply, it said.
Last fall, after the complaint was filed, Felicia Jones, a parent in the Rialto School District near San Bernardino, underscored the district office’s oversight role. “We don’t have enough power within each organization to monitor every district,” she said. “Therefore this complaint is critical; the stamping of LCAPs must stop. “
For more reports like this, click here to sign up for EdSource’s free daily email on the latest in education.
source https://collegeeducationnewsllc.com/state-orders-stricter-county-oversight-of-districts-spending-for-low-income-kids-english-learners/
No comments:
Post a Comment