Review of the Budget Crisis in the Santa Cruz County Public School Systems with a Focus on Santa Cruz City Schools and Special Education Financing
Background
Santa Cruz County has a population of approximately 260,000. Of that total, 44,906 are attending schools in grades K-12. These students are divided among the ten public school districts, the County Office of Education and various private schools. The public school districts are:
· Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District
· Happy Valley Elementary School District
· Mountain Elementary School District
· Pacific Elementary School District
· Live Oak School District (LO)
· Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD)
· San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District (SLV)
· Santa Cruz City Schools District (SCCS)
· Scotts Valley Unified School District (SV)
· Soquel Union Elementary School District (SOQ)
· County Office of Education (COE)
Santa Cruz County as a whole is experiencing declining public school enrollment (see figure 1).
Figure
1: Enrollment in California Public Schools-Santa Cruz County
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Enrollment |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Data drawn from CBEDS
The decline in enrollment combined with changes in state funding has produced significant public school management challenges in preparation for Budget Year 2004.
The Achilles’ heel of the entire countywide public school system is declining enrollment. Declining enrollment is the leading cause of financial hardship for any school system. The cost of a school district’s physical plant (schools, administrative buildings, grounds, etc.) tends to be stable while annual budgets flucuate based on receiving Average Daily Attendance (ADA) monies from the State of California. ADA is an annually fixed amount of money funded by the State of California to school districts for each student’s daily attendance. Presently, ADA amounts range from approximately $2,256 to $4,688 per student annually.
Scope
The Grand Jury only investigated the administrative and budgetary functions of the County's public school districts. It did not consider issues involving curriculum content or the teaching staff. The Grand Jury reviewed the budgets and administrative structure of all ten public school districts in Santa Cruz County, while focusing on Santa Cruz City Schools.
The Grand Jury, in looking for ways to alleviate the financial hardships currently plaguing county school districts, investigated what Santa Cruz County with a declining student population can do to mitigate its budget crisis.
Fieldwork
The Grand Jury fieldwork included the following interviews and research:
· interviewed administrators from the PVUSD and SCCS
· interviewed the Superintendent and staff at the COE
· reviewed the budgets of the above entities covering the last three years
Findings
Declining Enrollment
1. The total countywide enrollment for public, charter and private schools is 44,906 students.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
The total of 44,906 reflects the enrollment of private (5,505) and public (39,401) students within Santa Cruz County as of October 1, 2002. Charter schools enrollment (1,726 total countywide) is included within the public school number.
2. Public school enrollment countywide is shown in Table 1 below. (Contains the numbers for Charter Schools in the totals supplied.)
Table 1: Countywide Public School enrollment
|
District |
Enrollment |
|
Bonny Doon Union Elementary |
166 |
|
Happy Valley Elementary |
135 |
|
Mountain Elementary |
149 |
|
Pacific Elementary |
87 |
|
Live Oak School District |
1,948 |
|
Pajaro Valley Unified School District |
19,681 |
|
Scotts Valley Unified School District |
2,713 |
|
Soquel Union Elementary School
District |
2,112 |
|
San Lorenzo Valley Unified School
District |
3,869 |
|
Santa Cruz City Elementary Schools
District |
2,636 |
|
Santa Cruz City High School District |
5,157 |
|
Santa
Cruz COE |
748 |
|
Total
Santa Cruz County Enrollment |
39,401 |
Note: Data provided by COE
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
The data comes from the enrollment figures reported in the October 2002
California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) files. CBEDS is an annual data collection occurring
in October that collects various data elements from California K-12 public
schools. Enrollment numbers vary during
the year as a result of students entering or leaving mid-session, as well as
factors such as fluctuating enrollment in the County Office of Education’s
Juvenile Hall class.
3. Charter schools are public schools that must operate under the umbrella of a district or the local county Office of Education. The following is a breakout of the Charter School Data. These numbers are included in the CBEDS (California Basic Educational Data System) figures cited and should not be added to the district totals.
Table 2:
Countywide Charter School Enrollment
|
Charter School |
Chartering Entity Enrollment |
Enrollment |
|
Pacific
Collegiate School |
COE |
318 |
|
Ocean
Alternative Education |
Live
Oak School District |
63 |
|
SLV
Charter Programs |
San
Lorenzo Valley Unified District |
650 |
|
Central
Coast Virtual Charter |
San
Lorenzo Valley Unified District |
43 |
|
Delta
Charter School |
Santa
Cruz City Schools District |
53 |
|
Sojourn
Middle School |
Santa
Cruz City Schools District |
30 |
|
Linscott
Charter School |
Pajaro
Valley Unified School Dist. |
204 |
|
Academic
Vocational Educational Charter |
Pajaro
Valley Unified School Dist. |
47 |
|
Watsonville
Charter School |
Pajaro
Valley Unified School Dist. |
123 |
|
Pacific
Coast Charter |
Pajaro
Valley Unified School Dist. |
195 |
|
Total Charter
Schools Enrollment |
|
1,726 |
Note:
Data provided by COE
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
Since compilation of the figures provided in the finding, the following
occurrences affect charter schools enrollment:
-Sojourn Middle School, Santa Cruz City
Schools District closed during the 2002-03 school year.
- Alianza Elementary School is now a public
charter school within the Pajaro Valley Unified School District, opposed to a
traditional public school. Total
enrollment in October 2002 was 694 students.
-Live Oak District intends to open Cypress
Charter High School, a new charter school, in school year 2003-04. The initial
enrollment, a combination 40 freshmen and sophomores, has a planned growth to
serve approximately 130 students.
According to the California Department of Education’s data, the number
of students enrolled in charter schools within Santa Cruz County has increased
approximately 10% each year since 2000.
4. Private school enrollment is estimated by the COE at 5,505 students. The COE extrapolated enrollment figures using the California Private School Directory for 2001-02. Private school enrollment is difficult to decipher as they are required to file affidavits with the California Department of Education, but may not all do so.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office
of Education PARTIALLY AGREES
Since our preliminary response to the Grand
Jury subcommittee’s inquiry, the California Department of Education has made
available a website (http://www.cde.ca.gov/privateschools/data.html)
that provides updated private school enrollment statistics. According to the census, between 1999 and
2002 private school enrollment decreased from 5,152 students to 4,707. However,
despite attempts to generate a precise number of students who are privately
educated, these figures are likely to still be only a rough approximation due
to the number of private schools that may not have filed for an affidavit.
5. The number of students in legal home schooling could not be estimated by the County Office of Education. Home schooling carried out by parents without valid California credentials is not considered legal in California. Private tutoring by a person holding a valid California teaching credential, enrollment in a private full-time day school or enrollment in an independent study program through a public school with oversight by a credentialed teacher are the only legal ways in which children may be "home schooled".
Response: Santa Cruz County Office
of Education PARTIALLY AGREES
In May 2003, the California Department of
Education changed its policy on home schooling. The CDE re-examined the statutes pertaining to home schooling and
found that certain private school laws pertained to home schools. Thus, there are three ways by which home-schooling
can be considered legal:
1)
by establishing a home-based private school.
2)
by enrolling in a private school independent study program.
3)
by tutoring.
The new policy has not made it any easier to
determine the number of home-schooled children within the County.
6. It is not clear whether enrollment in non-public education is growing or declining because historical information could not be found.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education DISAGREES
As stated in the response to Finding 4, the
California Department of Education now has the capability to generate an
estimate of the number of students in non-public education. Nonetheless, as
there is no way to track the number of illegally home-schooled students or the
enrollment of public schools without affidavits, statistical data may be less
than complete. Using information obtained from the CBEDS we found that between
1999 and 2002 the reported private school enrollment had dropped by 445
students. Although we cannot look at the entire population, this does reveal a
decrease in enrollment in at least one portion of non-public education.
7. Santa Cruz County school administrators agree that all of the school districts are concerned about the effects of declining enrollment.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES
Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES
Response: Live Oak School District
AGREES
Response: Soquel Union Elementary
School District AGREES
8. The enrollment decline is especially severe in:
· Live Oak School District (LO)
· San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District (SLV)
· Santa Cruz City Schools District (SCCS)
· Soquel Union Elementary School District (SOQ)
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES
Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES
The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing.
Response: Soquel Union Elementary
School District AGREES
It is true that the Soquel Union Elementary
School District has had a 17% decline in enrollment over the last five
years. We have mitigated this decline
through an aggressive campaign of student attendance, upon which our funding is
truly based. Although our enrollment
declined between 2001-02 and 2002-03, through this aggressive attendance
campaign, loss of apportionment was minimized.
9. According to the State Franchise Tax Board, Santa Cruz County will lose an additional 2,200 students by the year 2010.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office
of Education DISAGREES
The COE was unable to substantiate this
claim, as no data concerning the State Franchise Tax Board’s review of student population
could be obtained.
10. Explanations for the decline in student enrollment are difficult to pinpoint. The County Office of Education observes that the high cost of housing is forcing younger people with school age children to live elsewhere and this contributes to the decline.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office
of Education AGREES
There are numerous factors that lead to
decreased enrollment, many of which are influences that affect shifts in
population demographics. The high cost
of housing is one of the leading causes that force families with school-age
children out of the County. According
to a study by the U.S. Census Bureau, the median value of owner-occupied
housing units in Santa Cruz in 2000 was $377,500 opposed to the state’s median
value of $211,500 which represents an approximate 75% cost of ownership in our
local market. Furthermore, business closures, low population growth, and
local policies have all contributed to
the overall decrease in Santa Cruz County’s population, which has dropped 0.7%
between July 2000 and July 2002. The
Santa Cruz Sentinel recently published an article, “S.C. shrinks as Watsonville
grows,” about population decline in Santa Cruz City and the County as a whole. Some reasons cited were costly real estate
and a weak economy that pressures residents to leave the area.
11. Table 3 details the average expense per student in each of the school districts in Santa Cruz County.
Table 3:
Average Expense Per Student Comparison
|
Districts |
Enrollment |
District
Expenses |
Average
Expense per Student |
|
County Office of Education (COE) |
115 |
* |
* |
|
Bonny Doon |
168 |
$1,270,208 |
$7,561 |
|
Happy Valley |
131 |
$1,219,983 |
$9,313 |
|
Live Oak |
1,994 |
$13,403,238 |
$6,722 |
|
Mountain |
153 |
$956,706 |
$6,253 |
|
Pacific |
88 |
$841,272 |
$9,560 |
|
Scotts Valley |
2,591 |
$14,643,166 |
$5,652 |
|
Soquel |
2,142 |
$13,478,733 |
$6,293 |
|
San Lorenzo Valley Unified (SLVUSD) |
3,389 |
$19,955,795 |
$5,888 |
|
SLVUSD – Charter |
607 |
* |
* |
|
Santa Cruz City Schools (SCCS) |
7,910 |
$50,915,838 |
$6,437 |
|
COE Alt Ed |
423 |
* |
* |
|
Delta |
54 |
* |
* |
|
Sojourn |
34 |
* |
* |
|
Pacific Collegiate |
257 |
* |
* |
|
Pajaro Valley Unified (PVUSD) - Charter
Schools |
1219 |
* |
* |
|
PVUSD |
18,644 |
$124,974,036 |
$6,703 |
|
Total |
39,919 |
$241,658,975 |
|
Note: Data provided by COE for 2001-2002
budget year
* data not available
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
12. The average expense per student obscures a complex reality. Actual educational value delivered to individual students is affected by costs of mandated programs, cost of the existing physical infrastructure and administrative overhead costs.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office
of Education AGREES
The expenses of each student are indeed much
greater when the cost of the educational environment is factored into the
expense formula. The educational setting, including the school facilities,
effective administration, and the quality of programs, is vitally important in
creating and maintaining a secure, efficient, and friendly atmosphere that
encourages learning. Unfortunately, because the value of these factors is
difficult to determine relative to their cost and usage, they are often under
funded or completely left out of the total expense figures.
13. These non-educational costs relative to the value delivered to individual students go up as enrollments decline unless there is concurrent reduction in mandated programs, physical infrastructure and/or administration.
Response: Santa Cruz
County Office of Education AGREES
However,
these costs should not be classified as non-educational as administrative
systems, facilities, and mandated programs all directly affect the sensitive
educational environment of a student.
Impact of Mandated Programs
14. Mandated programs are activities implemented at the local school district level but whose program features and requirements are established at a higher level of government (e.g. state or federal). Typically these mandated programs come with promises of targeted funding. When the features of a mandated program cost more than the targeted funding provided, school districts must make up the difference from unrestricted funds (e.g. ADA funds). Encroachment is when a mandated program requires unrestricted money to operate according to the program statute.
Response: Santa Cruz
County Office of Education AGREES
15. Local school districts report the three mandated programs that require the most added support (encroachment)form the unrestrited revenue of the general fund are:
ENCROACHMENT
AREA AMOUNT
A. Special
Education $11,897,710*
The special education program encompasses the costs of serving pupils with Individual Education Plans (IEP) as qualifying for services under the Federal IDEA Act and accompanying state legislation.
B. Restricted
Routine Maintenance $
6,627,120*
The Restricted Routine Maintenance Account is a requirement for those districts that have participated in the State School Construction Program, since 1998. Since that time, as a condition of receiving construction funding, school districts are required to contribute 3% of their general fund budget to a restricted account for school maintenance.
C. Pupil
Transportation $
4,455,567*
Pupil Transportation includes expenses for transporting regular education, non-severe and severe special education pupils.
Note: Data provided
by COE
*Countywide totals
for encroachment
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
The data comes from local
school districts’ 2001-2002 reports of expenses.
Special Education Defined
16. Special Education is a federal mandate but not fully funded by federal or state funds to the level of its requirements. In addition, in 1975 when Congress passed IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), they mandated an increased level of service to special education students and agreed to pay 40 percent of required costs.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
Excess costs are defined by the EdSource’s
June 1995 EdFact publication as “the average amount needed to provide an
appropriate education to a student with disabilities that exceeds the expenditure
for a regular education student.” In
1975 when IDEA was passed, federal funding to states was approximately 5% of
the excess costs of providing mandated special education services. Despite the federal government’s intent to
pay 40% of excess expenditures, the federal share is in reality at 17% and
historically has been near that figure.
Contributing to this severe gap in funding, the Special Education
program mandated by the State of California exceeds the program as federally
regulated by the IDEA. However, many
educational groups and organizations are lobbying for increased funding so that
the 40% level is attained. In the mean time, the shortfall creates an added
burden on the local community and to districts struggling to fund general
education plus encroachment. General
education students may be deprived of the full set of opportunities to which
they are entitled.
17. The average cost of educating a pupil in special education is more than 100 percent greater than that of educating a student in general education.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
18. Special education is a major expense to districts for a small number of high need students, primarily due to increasing number of students identified with special education requirements, increasing litigation, broader parent demands for services within the Individual Education Plans, and increasing severity of disabilities and multiple disabilities.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
Special education programs provide
individualized services that are mandated by law for students with a variety of
needs. These services are far more costly than general education services. In
addition, the number of students entering into these programs has risen due to
advances in medicine, diagnosis, and life-preserving techniques that increase
the survival rate and life spans of high risk and severally disabled students.
The numbers of autistic and emotionally disturbed students within special
education programs have also risen creating a demand for a variety of
additional services in order to cover the diversity of needs. Almost all these
students depend on additional assistance and services such as one-on-one aides,
specific modes of transportation, and many services available only from
non-educational agencies but dictated by Individual Education Plans (IEP). These services cause the average cost of
special education to soar above general education costs.
19. With the closing of many state hospitals in the 1970s, local communities now serve a population with more severe disabilities, which require increased services at higher costs. Advocates and legal challenges that require districts to respond to individual student needs without regard to cost are fueling the spiraling costs.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
Along with legal challenges, it is the court
decisions that require districts to provide for the individual students’ needs
that exceed levels of appropriate models of service. Courts pass rulings that
demand a district provide for detailed additional services without regard to
necessary funding to cover the costs.
For example, each special education student is set up with an annual IEP
that outlines the services that must be provided for them. These often include
nurses, special transportation, and a long list of mandated requirements.
Creating IEPs is an extremely time-consuming process as it requires the
student, the parents, the special education teacher, and several other district
and agency personnel to attend the meeting. These are all factors that drive up
the cost of special education which the district must provide without receiving
adequate funding.
20. The average countywide annual cost for regular education students is $5,593 and the average for non-severe special education students is $13,519 and for the special education students with the most intense needs the average is $31,483.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
These costs are influenced by the
specificity of the educational codes that stem from the Individual Education
Plans, IDEA, Americans with Disabilities Act, and California Education Code,
Sections 56360-56370 (partially quoted here):
Each special education local plan area shall ensure that a continuum of program options is available to meet the needs of individuals with exceptional needs for special education and related services, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq.) and federal regulations relating thereto.
All districts work to uphold this law, but
in order to provide services equal to that guaranteed to general education
students they must bear the weight of the staggering cost differences. This creates a heavy fiscal responsibility
on the district and county office of education, especially when the number of
special education students with severe needs is rapidly increasing and the
education of these students can exceed general education expenses by as much as
$30,000 or more.
21. The current funding level for special education by the Federal government is between 15-18 percent and only recently reached that level.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
Data for Santa Cruz County supports that
federal funding is currently at about 17%, significantly less than the federal
government’s promised 40%.
22. In the 2000-2001 school year, California school districts and county offices of education spent more than $4.5 billion on direct services to disabled students. Total federal, state, and local revenue sources for special education that year were roughly $3.3 billion. The $1.2 billion shortfall (a 26% shortfall) came from other local educational agencies' funding sources, impacting other educational programs.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
23. IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) is up for re-authorization this year in the U.S. Congress.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
The purpose
of this reauthorization is to fulfill the promises made back in 1975 and to
increase the federal funding level to the promised 40%. Furthermore, the new
legislation aims to promote a unified system that reduces program complexities,
creates more flexibility within the allotment of special education resources, and
is overall a more equitable and cost-effective means of conflict resolution.
Advocates stress the need for a simplification and clarification of the
previous legislation.
References: Department of Education’s website at http://www.ed.gov/offices/
OSERS/Policy/IDEA/
and the recent article in the Mercury
News on June 25, 2004 entitled “Don’t
turn back clock on special education” (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/6165337.htm).
Special Education in Santa Cruz County
24. In Santa Cruz County school districts the funding shortfall is slightly higher at 27% as compared to the state average of 26% noted above.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
25. The County of Santa Cruz receives approximately $28 million dollars annually for special education funding. 40% of this funding comes from federal sources and 60% from state revenues.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education DISAGREES
While the County of Santa Cruz does receive approximately $28 million annually in AB602 Special Education funding, the breakdown of the funding sources is different than the figures shown in the report. The funding levels are approximately 13.83% federal funds, 12.56% local taxes and 73.61% state funds. We are not sure what the 40% federal and 60% state funding levels mentioned in the report are in reference to but those levels of funding could refer to the original intent of the federal government to fund Special Education at 40%. Unfortunately, this funding level has never materialized.
26. Table 4 displays revenue for special education, special education expenditures and encroachment of special education expenditures on general education programs.
Table
4: Special Education Encroachment by District
|
District |
Total
Special Revenue |
Special
Education Expenditures |
Special
Education Encroachment |
||
|
Bonny Doon |
$107,405 |
$127,551 |
($20,146) |
||
|
Happy Valley |
$49,602 |
$49,602 |
$0 |
||
|
Live Oak |
$1,039,672 |
$1,884,626 |
($844,954) |
||
|
Mountain |
$57,744 |
$58,967 |
($1,223) |
||
|
Pacific |
$33,737 |
$67,767 |
($34,030) |
||
|
Scotts
Valley |
$878,572 |
$1,858,371 |
($979,799) |
||
|
Soquel |
$923,226 |
$1,695,801 |
($772,575) |
||
|
San Lorenzo
Valley |
$1,769,474 |
$2,844,809 |
($1,075,335) |
||
|
Santa Cruz
Elem. |
$1,301,199 |
$2,355,213 |
($1,054,014) |
||
|
Santa Cruz
High |
$2,832,259 |
$5,357,126 |
($2,524,867) |
||
|
Co. Office
of Ed. |
$4,700,673 |
$4,470,571 |
$230,102* |
||
|
Alternative
Ed. |
$248,831 |
$250,094 |
($1,263) |
||
|
Delta
Charter School |
$19,931 |
$19,931 |
$0 |
||
|
Pacific
Collegiate |
$115,072 |
$16,710 |
$98,362* |
||
|
Sojourn
Charter |
$14,934 |
$14,934 |
$0 |
||
|
Pajaro
Valley Unified |
$13,988,498 |
$17,499,215 |
($3,510,717) |
||
|
Total
encroachment |
$28,080,829 |
$38,571,288 |
($10,490,459) |
||
Note:
Data provided by COE
* COE and PCS received
restricted funds for special education but these funds were not exhausted in
this year due to small numbers of students. These funds cannot be used for any
other purpose.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
However, the COE would like to make note that the footnote is
incorrect. A clarification is needed to point out that there are actually a
growing number of students receiving funds, rather than an implied diminishing
student population. Furthermore, some of these funds are non-restrictive and
can be redistributed. Thus the COE would like to replace the above statement
with the original footnote provided at the time of our response to inquiries as
follows:
*Excess revenue is redistributed starting at the annual certification February
2003 through June 2003 to districts with encroachment.
Furthermore, this chart could be clarified by removing the word “encroachment” from the bottom “Total” line, as only the third column represents encroachment.
27. The special education programs in Santa Cruz County have two administrative staffs for Special Education Local Program Administration (SELPA). These staffs supervise and distribute state funds for special education. Pajaro Valley Unified School District runs its own SELPA. The COE and the other nine school districts are in a consortium called North County SELPA.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Education and
Santa Cruz County Office of Education PARTIALLY AGREE
SELPA (Special Education Local Plan
Area) is a regional service area program
that has local service plans throughout the state. Within our county, there are
two SELPAs. Prior to 1990, the SELPA was a consortium between all of Santa Cruz
County and San Benito County. In 1990, the SELPA split into the independent San
Benito County SELPA, the North Santa Cruz County SELPA, and the Pajaro Valley
SELPA in order to more adequately accommodate the growing population of special
education students. South County SELPA-
Pajaro Valley District SELPA - is a single district entity with one staff
composed of a director who fills the positions of the South County SELPA and
special education director for the district.
North County SELPA is comprised of nine school district entities, with
one coordinating administrator and nine special education directors. In most districts, the special education
director also performs other functions. These SELPAs exist as separate units to
best represent their respective populations and effectively handle
administrative responsibilities. However, in instances where individual districts do not have a
significant population of certain need students, such as the visually impaired,
these two SELPAs collaborate and provide services countywide to reduce costs
and enhance the scope of programs offered.
Response: Pajaro Valley Unified
School District PARTIALLY AGREES
The district agrees with County Office of
Education and County Board of Education responses.
28. The enrollment for each SELPA, as of the latest reporting cycle of December 1, 2002, is displayed in Table 5.
Table
5: SELPA Student Enrollment
|
Student
Enrollment |
Total
Enrollment |
Special
Education |
Percent |
|
North
County -all districts except Pajaro |
19,720 |
2,602 |
13.20% |
|
South
County -Pajaro District |
19,681 |
2,271 |
11.50% |
|
Total
Countywide |
39,401 |
4,873 |
12.30% |
Note:
Data provided by COE
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Education AGREES
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES
29. The COE administers the North County SELPA which serves as a conduit for special education funds from the state to the school districts.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education PARTIALLY AGREES
The
North Santa Cruz County SELPA is a multi-district consortium of which the
County Office is a member. The Governing Council of the SELPA is comprised of
the superintendents/administrative officers of each member district, charter
school and the COE. The County Office of Education has an additional responsibility to serve as the
"administrative unit" for the consortium. The County Office
responsibilities in serving as the Administrative Unit include distribution of
funds. However, it does not administer the SELPA. The SELPA Office is
independent of any particular Local Education Agency (LEA), but the Governing Council established that the SELPA
Administrator is responsible to the SELPA as a whole and therefore is expected
to serve all LEAs equitably.
30. The funds for the consortium in the northern county area are approximately $11 million annually. The COE retains 50% to cover the cost of programs they provide (including 61 special education teachers’ salaries) and the remaining funds are distributed to the consortium members. If there are excess costs for the program, the school districts may have to reimburse the COE for participating in the program.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education DISAGREES
All north county Special Education AB 602 funding is administered by the North County SELPA and flows through the Santa Cruz COE as the Administrative Unit to the SELPA. The SELPA first allocates revenue to the agencies, such as the COE, that provide regional programs. The cost of regional programs to the districts is based on their portion of AB602 ADA and actual utilization of regional programs. The SELPA allocates approximately 31.72% of the $11 million received by the SELPA to the Santa Cruz County Office of Education to run Special Education Regional Programs. The COE Regional Program costs include the salaries of the approximately 35 COE special education teachers. Since the implementation of the AB602 funding model in 98/99, the regional programs provided by the COE are funded by SELPA at 100% and bill back for excess cost is no longer a part of the formula. After the Regional Special Education Programs operated by the COE are funded, the remaining revenue is distributed to the districts to operate their individual programs.
31. The COE could not provide information about the costs of services and programs for individual students across the county. COE officials observed that the bulk of special education students use relatively small amounts of specical education services and a small number of students are very expensive. The COE does not keep track of the cost of programs per individual student and its record keeping is not structured to permit the evaluation of amount of services delivered to individuals.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
Not only is it cost prohibitive to initiate
this type of tracking plan, but also there are two large privacy issues that
arise when contemplating keeping detailed records for special education
students. The first is confidentiality. To record every expense on a special
education student would be a violation of the Family Privacy Act, Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and civil rights.
Specifically in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), it is
stated that the rights of children and their families must be safeguarded
through procedural protections in accordance with due process. IDEA therefore
would prevent listing children’s names with their expenses as this information
would be harmful if made public. Secondly, this type of record keeping would be
considered discrimination, as these records are not kept for general education
students. This type of system is impractical to implement, as it is cost
prohibitive, and impossible to determine the percentage of a service that a
specific child uses of every program, service, technological device, etc.
32. The COE Special Education programs are effective in delivering services to special education students.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
The Santa Cruz County of Education appreciates the Grand Jury’s arrival at this conclusion. Through the assistance of its experienced staff, the COE will carry on providing its comprehensive level of services and will continually upgrade in order to ensure that special education students receive the best education possible. By implementing strategies such as operating regional programs to serve specific needs children, the overall quality of services available to students increases in the most effective and cost efficient manner. Moreover, the COE has taken measures to further heighten its success by implementing the Baldridge system of management in the educational process. Baldridge techniques aide the COE in its efforts to continually review its progress and target areas it would like to strengthen.
Restricted Routine Maintenance
33. The Restricted Routine Maintenance Account is a requirement for those districts that have participated in the State School Construction Program, since 1998. Since that time, as a condition of receiving construction funding, school districts are required to contribute 3% of their general fund budget to a restricted account for school maintenance.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
34. Once the money has been allocated to this restricted routine maintenance, it can no longer be used for other general education programs.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
Transportation
35. In the mid 1980s, the State Legislature changed the funding formula for reimbursement for pupil transportation costs. The mechanism moved from an "actual cost based" system to a "capped revenue" system. Districts began receiving funding based on the previous year's revenue, not actual transportation expense. Over time, transportation costs have grown but state provided transportation revenue has been reduced. Today's transportation funding statewide is generally less than 50% of reported cost while the average for Santa Cruz districts is 45%.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
36. County Office of Education staff asserted that consistent with existing statutes, public school transportation for the student in regular education is a privilege, not a right.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
37. County Office of Education staff also asserted that consistent with federal statutes, transportation of Special Education students is a right, not a privilege and is dictated by the IEP.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
38. Table 6 identifies the revenues/costs for Santa Cruz County districts for regular education and special education transportation. Because of the low incidence and special needs of the special education population the elevated cost for that population is partially due to the "door to door" services that are provided.
Table 6:
Countywide Transportation Cost and Revenue
|
|
Transportation
Revenue |
Regular Education |
Special Education |
Transportation
Encroachment |
|
Total |
$3,688,073 |
$4,443,089 |
$3,700,551 |
($4,430,611) |
Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
This is just one example of why special
education expenses far exceed those of
general education. Students with special
needs often need “curb-to-curb”
service, aides to assist them on their
rides, or cannot be on the bus for
long periods of time, so that they may not
be transported with general education students. This increases the cost as more
buses with specialized equipment are required.
A Case Study: “Santa Cruz City Schools: Declining Enrollment, Increased Requirements and Community preferences”
39. Santa Cruz City Schools is actually two school districts sharing one administration. There is an elementary district and a secondary district. In this report we will refer to Santa Cruz City Schools (SCCS) as a single administrative entity except where the differences between the elementary and secondary district are important.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
40. An overview of SCCS is provided in Table 7.
Table 7: Santa Cruz City Schools
District
|
Founded |
Number of
Students |
Yearly
Budget |
Number of
District Employees |
|
1857 |
7,793 |
$55,896,870 |
939 |
Fifteen
Schools — Kindergarten (K) through 12th Grade
· Two Ark Studies Schools: Ark School (9-12) and Home Studies AFE (K-12)
· Alternative Family Education K-12
· Bayview Elementary School
· Branciforte Elementary School
· De Laveaga Elementary School
· Gault Elementary School
· Monarch Elementary School
· Natural Bridges Elementary School
· Westlake Elementary School
· Sojourn Charter Middle School
· Branciforte Junior High School
· Mission Hill Junior High School
· Delta Charter High School
· Harbor High School
· Loma Prieta High School
· Santa Cruz High School
· Soquel High School
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District PARTIALLY AGREES
Sojourn Charter Middle School has voluntarily
ceased to exist. Note there are not two Ark Studies Schools. There is Ark
School (9-12) and Alternative Family Education (K-12)
41. The Elementary District historical enrollment is shown by Figure 2 below:
Figure 2:
Enrollment in California Public Schools-Santa Cruz City Elementary
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Enrollment |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District DISAGREES
The 1997-98 Santa Cruz City Elementary
enrollment was 3, 192.
42. The High School District historical enrollment is shown by Figure 3.
Figure 3:
Enrollment in California Public Schools-Santa Cruz City High
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Enrollment |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District DISAGREES
The Santa Cruz High School District
historical enrollment is as follows:
1993-94 and 1994-95 – As reported
1995-96 5,461
1996-97 5,646
1997-98 5,676
1998-99 5,767
43. Many students from SCCS were transferred to Scotts Valley School District, which opened in 1999. This negatively impacted SCCS’s ADA.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
44. Overall SCCS enrollment has declined 12.7% since 1999.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District DISAGREES
Overall SCCS enrollment has declined 13%
since 1999.
The Budget Crisis in SCCS
45. A parcel tax measure was passed in 2002. According to district officials, these amounts will not be sufficient to cover growing deficits into school year 2003-2004.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
46. The budget for school year 2003-2004 is projected to be $4,500,000 less than the budget available in 2002-2003.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District DISAGREES
The budget for school year 2003-04 is projected
to be $3,900,000 less than the budget available 2002-03.
SCCS Physical Plant
47. Over the last ten years the physical plant of Santa Cruz City Schools has modestly expanded with the addition of alternative education sites, portable classrooms to implement K-3 class size reductions at various existing schools and a new district headquarters.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
48. In the current fiscal year, in order to remain solvent, SCCS must reduce its budget by $2 million.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District DISAGREES
In the current fiscal year, in order to
remain solvent, SCCS must reduce its budget by $2.3 million.
49. In 1998, voters approved bond measures totaling $86 million designated for school remodeling. These funds cannot be used for annual education programs.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
50. The District has been in the process of renovating older school buildings in order to bring them into compliance with federal mandates.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
51. In 2002, voters approved $55 million in Measures C&D for certain school programs.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District DISAGREES
In 2002, voters approved $2,035,000 million
in Measures C&D for certain school programs.
52. The community expressed, in a series of public meetings with the school board, the desire to retain the existing schools.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
Special Education in Santa Cruz City Schools
53. SCCS provides $8,270,216.50 in special education services out of a total school budget of $55,000,000. $3,907,236 of these special education expenses encroach on general education programs.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
54. SCCS provides the following special education programs:
· Adaptive Physical Education
· Deaf and Hard of Hearing
· Extended Year services
· Occupational Therapy
· Preschool Resource Specialist Program
· Resource Specialist Program
· Preschool Special Day Class
· Special Day Class
· Preschool Speech
· Speech and Language Program
· Non-public Agency Services
· Non-public School Services
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
55. These programs are supported by these additional support services
· Administration
· Bilingual Assessment Team
· Central Assessment Team
· Psychologists
· Transition Program
· Workability/Vocational Education Other Administrative
· Home and Hospital Program
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
56. The costs of these programs and services are summarized in Table 8.
Table 8: Cost
of Special Education Program
and Services
in Santa Cruz City Schools
|
Special Education
Program |
# of Students |
Cost per student |
Budget |
|
Adaptive Physical Education |
40 |
$7,664 |
$153,297 |
|
Deaf and Hard of Hearing |
36 |
$12,432 |
$124,327 |
|
Extended Year services |
TBD |
|
$32,399 |
|
Occupational Therapy |
47 |
$2,079 |
$97,741 |
|
Pre-School Resource Specialist Program |
12 |
$10,319 |
$124,605 |
|
Resource Specialist Program |
751 |
$6,520 |
$2,495,883 |
|
Pre-School Special Day Class |
7 |
$20,457 |
$143,201 |
|
Special Day Class |
167 |
$19,556 |
$1,583,088 |
|
Pre-School Speech |
49 |
$2,986 |
$146,352 |
|
Speech and Language Program |
359 |
$2,194 |
$424,619 |
|
Non-public Agency Services |
84 |
$32,587 |
$917,137 |
|
Non-public School Services |
5 |
$50,220 |
$251,102 |
|
Administration |
|
|
$555,720 |
|
Bilingual Assessment Team |
|
|
$11,480 |
|
Central Assessment Team |
|
|
$124,614 |
|
Psychologists |
|
|
$574,115 |
|
Transition Program |
|
|
$155,615 |
|
Workability/Vocational Education |
|
|
$201,130 |
|
Other Administrative |
|
|
$78,079 |
|
Home and Hospital Program |
|
|
$31,706 |
|
Medi-Cal Grants |
|
|
$44,000 |
|
Total |
|
|
$8,270,210 |
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
57. There are 1,067 students receiving special education services in SCCS. The numbers cited in the table above tally to more than 1,067 because some students require services in more than one program. SCCS could not provide information about the distribution of services across all the 1,067 students in special education.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
58. Santa Cruz City Schools could not provide information about the costs of services and programs for all individual students. The district does not keep track of the cost of programs per student and its record keeping is not structured to permit the evaluation of the amount of services delivered to individuals.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District PARTIALLY AGREES
Could not provide
complete information.
59. For this report, SCCS did determine the cost on an individual basis of the special education services used by the ten students who consume the most services. The results are presented in Table 9 below.
Table 9: Special Education Expense for 10 Students in SCCS
|
|
Student
1 |
Student
2 |
Student
3 |
Student
4 |
Student
5 |
Student
6 |
Student
7 |
Student
8 |
Student
9 |
Student
10 |
Totals |
|
Speech/Language |
$
174 |
$
1,620 |
|
|
$
2,223 |
|
$
3,729 |
$
798 |
$
320 |
$
1,147 |
$
10,012 |
|
Occupational Therapy |
|
$
452 |
|
|
$
906 |
|
$
4,011 |
$
3,173 |
$
904 |
$
906 |
$
10,352 |
|
Adaptive PE |
$ 14,540 |
$
1,933 |
|
|
|
|
|
$
2,131 |
$
960 |
$
2,136 |
$
21,701 |
|
Classroom Teacher |
$
6,865 |
$
6,832 |
$
687 |
|
|
$
4,600 |
$
5,013 |
|
$
5,013 |
$
8,006 |
$
37,015 |
|
Interpreter |
|
|
|
|
|
$
2,338 |
|
|
|
|
$ 2,338 |
|
Instructional Assistant |
$ 20,071 |
$ 19,169 |
$
2,461 |
$
28,000 |
$
32,966 |
|
|
|
|
$
24,609 |
$
127,276 |
|
Behavior Tech |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
33,315 |
$ 21,818 |
$ 17,936 |
|
$
73,069 |
|
Behavior/Inclusion Specialist |
|
$
940 |
|
|
$
5,658 |
|
$
470 |
$
943 |
|
$
943 |
$ 8,954 |
|
NPA Behavior Specialist |
|
$
1,125 |
|
|
$
18,055 |
|
$
3,600 |
$
3,380 |
$
1,500 |
$
20,750 |
$
48,410 |
|
NPA Augmented Comm |
|
$
2,700 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ 2,700 |
|
Vocational Education |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
1,614 |
|
$ 1,614 |
|
Instructional Materials |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
773 |
$ 773 |
|
Facilitated Communication |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
2,725 |
|
$ 2,725 |
|
Lawyer Fees |
|
|
|
|
$
2,309 |
|
|
$
19 |
$ 11,176 |
$ 219,879 |
$
233,383 |
|
Non-public School Placement |
|
|
$ 58,442 |
$
74,880 |
|
$ 22,050 |
|
|
|
|
$
155,372 |
|
Equipment Lease |
|
$
2,888 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ 2,888 |
|
FC Specialist |
|
|
|
|
$
6,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ 6,000 |
|
Transition Services |
|
|
|
|
$
753 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ 753 |
|
Resource Specialist |
|
|
|
|
$
1,044 |
$
3,850 |
$
471 |
$
3,795 |
|
|
$ 9,160 |
|
Extended Year |
|
$
3,000 |
|
|
$
3,000 |
|
$
3,000 |
$
3,000 |
$
3,000 |
|
$
15,000 |
|
Transportation |
$
5,000 |
|
$
5,000 |
$
5,000 |
|
$
5,000 |
|
|
$
5,000 |
$
5,000 |
$
30,000 |
|
Admin Support |
$
2,796 |
$
2,796 |
$
2,796 |
$
2,796 |
$
2,796 |
$
2,796 |
$
2,796 |
$
2,796 |
$
2,796 |
$
2,796 |
$
27,964 |
|
Psychologist Support |
$
381 |
$
1,087 |
$
1,270 |
|
$
1,270 |
$
896 |
$
896 |
$
717 |
$
1,505 |
$
1,353 |
$ 9,374 |
|
IEP Team Meetings |
$ 21,000 |
$ 15,000 |
$
9,000 |
|
$
72,000 |
$ 12,000 |
$
52,000 |
$ 21,000 |
|
$
46,500 |
$
248,500 |
|
|
$ 70,827 |
$ 59,543 |
$ 79,655 |
$ 110,676 |
$ 148,981 |
$ 53,530 |
$ 109,301 |
$ 63,570 |
$ 54,449 |
$ 334,800 |
$
1,085,333 |
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
60. 1% of the special education students population in SCCS consume 13% of the special education resources required. Put another way, 10 students consume 2% of the entire SCCS budget.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
61. The encroachment of special education on the general education budget is imposing a nearly $580 reduction per student on the delivery of educational services to the rest of the general student population. Put another way the average student’s access to general education services is reduced by nearly 7% to pay for the encroachment of special education programs.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
62. Encroachment of mandated special education is nearly double the budget shortfall in SCCS in 2002-2003.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
Other Mandated Programs in Santa Cruz City Schools
63. SCCS has $1,753,605 in restricted maintenance budget.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
64. Transportation for 120 special education students cost $630,358. The district receives $127,945 in state funding for special education transportation. This program encroaches $502,413 into the general revenue programs.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools
District AGREES
Conclusions
1. Declining enrollment is likely to eventually affect the fiscal well being of every school district in Santa Cruz County.
2. Deficits are likely to continue if school districts retain their existing physical plants, continue to locally fund mandated programs and experience declining enrollment.
3. Over the last five years, some districts are lurching through annual crises of budget deficits which could have been foreseen and are likely to continue into the foreseeable future.
4. Restricted routine maintenance doesn't necessarily represent true encroachment. It is nevertheless an example of the legislature requiring specific use of unrestricted funding. The option to prioritize this expense into other needs is removed from local board control.
5. Some special education students are costing the district 10-25 times the ADA available for the average student.
6. Federally directed special education programs, combined with the lack of state and federal funding for these mandates, are significantly encroaching on revenue available for general education programs.
7. As evidenced by the COE and SCCS, county school districts are operating special education programs in accordance with statute and with a high degree of compassion. However, these programs are decreasing money available for general education programs.
8. The COE and SCCS do not keep records in a way that permits managing costs across the IEPs of individual special education students. Without this information special education programs cannot be efficiently managed nor can Individual Education Plans be managed effectively and/or efficiently.
9. The Special Education Local Program Administration program (SELPA) creates additional duplicated administrative staff when administered separately by both northern county and southern county.
10. The Parcel Tax Measures approved by voters in SCCS in 2002 will not be sufficient to cover existing deficits. Additional tax revenues will only postpone the time for restructuring.
11. The citzens of SCCS’s preference for retaining existing schools means that potential savings gained from reducing the physical plant will be difficult to achieve. Given existing demographic trends SCCS will need to raise significantly more revenue through increases in enrollment, relief from unfunded mandates or from tax increases or balance its budget through increased program cuts in general education services and administration.
12. Given that there is capacity in the physical plant for more students in the districts with declining enrollment, districts can add to their ADA with outreach programs to students not in public education.
13. Students and taxpayers could be better served by the consolidation of educational resources across the County of Santa Cruz.
14. Parents should take great pride in and credit for the involvement and commitment they have shown to the schools and their children.
15. The special education teachers and staff are clearly dedicated and worthwhile services are being provided to the students of special needs in Santa Cruz County.
16. None of the conclusions of this report are intended to disparage the requirements of those with special needs. It is essential that, as a community, as we consider the exceptional requirements of the few we do not lose sight of the needs of the rest of our children.
Recommendations
1. The County Board of Education, the COE and Pajaro Valley Unified School District should examine and consolidate the administration of the SELPA programs.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office
of Education
The recommendation requires further
analysis.
The COE agrees that all of the involved
agencies should reexamine the original reasons for splitting into two SELPAs
and see if anything has significantly changed that would suggest a need for
reconsolidation. A dedicated effort
will be made to gather input from administration as well as teachers, local
interest groups, and especially parents of special needs children.
However, concerning such a consolidation, there is an underlying concern that merging programs would not be as plausible a solution as it is first appears. Rejoining the two SELPAs would almost be a regressive decision as the split in the early 90’s was a natural partition that allowed the two programs to operate more effectively and fully carry out the services mandated by the state. The population of students within the Pajaro Valley SELPA alone is nearly as large as that of the North County multi-district SELPA warranting a need for separate services and local representation. A consolidation of these two entities would not necessarily result in fewer administrators or in the implied reduction of expenditures. The large number of students served and the nature of those services, many of which require the SELPA director and/or district director of special education be involved, is prohibitive to eliminating one of the duplicated SELPA director positions. A consolidation could possibly create tension and conflict over systems of management and a reduction in localized control of services all of which were considerations when the combined SELPA was portioned in the early 1990’s.
Response: Pajaro Valley Unified
School District
This recommendation will not be implemented
because it would result in the loss of local control that has benefited PVUSD
students without any reduction in costs.
Additionally, there is the possiblity that the reunification of the
SELPAs would result in an increased encroachment for PVUSD.
The North Santa Cruz County school
districts, PVUSD, and the San Benito County school districts were previously
joined into one SELPA. These three
areas split into separate SELPAs in the early 1990s in order to more
effectively serve the populations of the three individual areas. The arrangement has allowed the PVUSD SELPA
to be more immediately responsive to its students and families than was true
under the old model. The state requires
that each SELPA must be of sufficient size and scope to provide a full
continuum of special education services.
The PVUSD is comfortably able to do this. Reconsolidation with the other Santa Cruz districts into a single
SELPA has the potential of reducing the effectiveness of services to our
students.
Reconsolidation would not reduce
expenses. The high cost of providing
Special Education is due to the intensive programs and services that are
required by special education students in order to achieve their IEP goals
paired with insufficient funding from state and Federal governments. The vast majority of the funds allocated to
these programs is for specialized personnel.
Due to the fact that PVUSD has full caseloads in all of its programs,
combining them with other similar programs in the North Santa Cruz County SELPA
districts would not result in any reduction of personnel so no significant cost
savings would be realized.
The only potential savings would be through
reduction of SELPA administrative staff.
If the two SELPA’s were to reconsolidate, the governing board of the new
SELPA would need to follow legal mandates in selecting the new administrative
unit (AU), which could be assigned to any of the participating LEAs (districts
and COE). The new AU would then be
responsible for employing the SELPA Director.
It is not a forgone conclusion that the COE would become the AU for the
new SELPA. It is just as possible that
PVUSD, being the largest LEA, would act as the AU. In either case, there would be a reduction of a .5 SELPA Director
since the two SELPAs currently have 1.5 Directors. If the Director for North Santa Cruz County SELPA assumed the
Directorship for the larger combined SELPA, PVUSD would reduce its administrative
staff by .5 of a SELPA Director. If the
PVUSD SELPA Director assumed the Directorship for the larger combined SELPA,
the current .5 position would need to be increased to a full-time position and
the current North Santa Cruz County position would be eliminated. Through reviewing the Grand Jury Report, it
is clear that PVUSD already employs far fewer Special Services administrators
than are employed in the North Santa Cruz County SELPA districts to serve approximately
the same number of students. This has
been possible due to combining SELPA and District resources. Without the ability to continue doing
so, the district would likely need to
increase its remaining .5 Director of Special Services to a full-time position
in order to meet the ongoing needs of the District Special Education and Health
Services programs. The end result is
that through reconsolidation of the two SELPAs, there would be, at most, a .5
position reduction in administrative staff and it is likely that there would be
no reduction.
The Grand Jury report indicates on page 5-7,
Item 24, that the Special Education encroachment in Santa Cruz County school
districts “is slightly higher at 27% as compared to the state average of
26%”. Using the data presented in
Table 4, Page 5-8 of the Grand Jury Report, the percentage of encroachment for
each individual school district can be calculated. PVUSD’s encroachment percentage is approximately 20% which is
less than the state average. Many of
the other Santa Cruz County school districts have much higher encroachment
rates typically ranging from 38% to 53%.
The combined Special Education encroachment for all of the districts in
the county totals $10,490,459. PVUSD’s
portion of this is only $3,510,717 or 33.47% even though it is the same size
and serves approximately the same number of students as the Districts in North
Santa Cruz County. Since PVUSD’s encroachment is already lower than the state
average and many of the other districs are above the state average, combining
the two SELPAs and their resources into one SELPA may lead to a larger
encroachment rather than a smaller one for PVUSD depending on the method of
allocation of funds.
2. The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should conduct a study to determine why students opt out of the public school system and develop recommendations for attracting students back to the public schools.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office
of Education
This has been partially implemented
Multiple studies have already taken place,
such as the one at San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District (SLVUSD). SLVUSD recently completed a demographic
study evaluating the entire student population in the District including where
they are attending school. Each school administrator is doing outreach by
meeting with parents of students who request inter-district transfers. They are
giving tours of their schools and inviting students to attend school for a day.
They are visiting pre-schools and introducing the SLVUSD schools to the parents
before it is time to enter school. The Valley Press -each week features an
article written by an administrator to keep the public informed of events and
programs. The video class from the SLV high school produced a video featuring
sixth graders expressing their concerns about moving on to junior high. Then
the class went to the junior high and interviewed students there to tell their
junior high experiences and showing the facilities. This video is shown to
sixth graders and parents to dispel concerns about entering the upper grades.
The public is invited to attend many events including open houses at all of the
District’s schools. Many schools have
programs similar to those of Happy Valley Elementary. The principal meets with parents of children attending private
schools or on inter-district transfers to review the focus of the school and
gives them a tour of the facility. Their children may attend Happy Valley School
for a day where they are paired up with a "buddy" from a classroom of
their peers. Parents and students are
invited to attend special events and open house each spring.
The COE intends to
research the results of various studies and strategies and work with the
districts to conduct similar surveys in the fall when regular school sessions
resume.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District
Santa Cruz City Schools
would be willing to participate in such a study if the study itself is cost
neutral and facilitated by the COE.
Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES
The San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District hired Lapkoff & Gobelet Demographic Research Inc. to conduct a demographic study of the District. The study was completed and the results were presented to the Board of Trustees and to the public in February 2003. In addition, SLVUSD revised procedures for interdistrict transfers as well as the tracking of students leaving the District. It should be noted that SLVUSD has nine alternative K-12 programs to attract and retain students desiring a non-traditional program.
Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES
The Live Oak School District did complete an extensive community
study by a twenty-five (25) person citizens’ advisory committee during the
2001-2002 school year. The District’s
Economic Viability Report, with recommendations, was adopted by the Live Oak
Governing Board on February 12, 2002, with full implementation in the 2002-2003
academic year.
Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY
AGREES
The Soquel Union
Elementary School District would cooperate with the County Office of Education
to survey parents as to why they choose a private school option. The Soquel Union Elementary School District
does attract new students enrolling from private schools each year and has an
interest in continuing to do so.
However, we understand that some families choose a private school option
for reasons that cannot be accommodated in the public school setting, such as
religious instruction.
3. The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should plan and implement aggressive outreach programs to attract more current home school and private school students into public education.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office
of Education
This has been implemented
Some of the implemented programs are
included in the response to Recommendation #2.
In addition, the COE works with the districts in their efforts to
attract students back into the public schools.
Aptos Junior High is a prime example of that school's dedication to
actively attract students in nonpublic education by implementing a recovery campaign. Aptos Junior High’s strategies have included
conducting parent surveys, followed by a community outreach program addressing
false perceptions relating to the school and promoting the successes of the
school. Santa Cruz City Schools is
currently implementing a similar program.
We understand there is a certain population
of students and parents who consistently prefer non-public education to that of
public schools. The students’ reasons
often include, need for a religious environment, more focused or
"themed" schools, social interaction issues, and parental desires to
educate their own children. Some
districts are responding to this want for alternatives by providing home
schooling options, dual immersion programs, and preschools on elementary campuses
to introduce parents and children to public schools. They are also providing “Schools of Emphasis” that focus on fine
arts or a focus on specific academic areas such as a strong science curriculum.
Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District
This is currently being implemented.
Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES
The San Lorenzo Valley Unified School
District operates a Charter program that serves over 650 students in an
alternative setting; this is a significant part of our public school system.
Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES
The Live Oak District’s
Economic Viability Plan outlined an option of programs to attract and retain
students within the District. The
District has increased its home school population and created a new charter
high school program.
Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES
The Soquel Union Elementary School District currently operates an independent study program that is an option for parents in our district who wish to implement home instruction. The program does outreach activities, although we would not wish to implement an “aggressive” campaign. The majority of students find many benefits in instruction with peers in the school setting, and Soquel encourages this setting. We are concerned than an unintended negative consequence of an aggressive campaign might be students entering independent study situations that are less than optimal. Home independent study instruction that is successful requires tremendous home resources and commitment. Our district has an independent study contract with parents that clearly states obligations under this program. It is not unusual for families to enter into these programs and find that they cannot sustain the rigor required to keep students on track toward eventual high school graduation requirements.
Soquel Schools do attract new students
enrolling from private schools each year and have an interest in continuing to
do so. Additional ideas for attracting
private school students to our public schools are always welcome and
implemented as possible within our resources. However, we understand that some
families choose a private school option for reasons that cannot be accommodated
in the public school setting, such as religious instruction.
4. The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office
of Education
This has been partially implemented.
The COE already
follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues,
program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan
with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state
mandates. A five-year plan is difficult
in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from
year-to-year. Once the prediction gets
out past the third year there is little credibility in it.
Response: Santa
Cruz City Schools District
This is currently being
implemented.
Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES
The SLVUSD already
provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board
Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second
Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and
approval. The three year projections of
the financial status of the District is a legally required component of
the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also
presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget
development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing
Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the
contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically.
This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least
annually.
Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES
Since the adoption of
its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided
the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma.
This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board
appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September
2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12,
2002. The District’s last State Second
Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8
students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance
decline is stabilizing.
Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES
The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
5. All districts and the COE should create automated cost tracking systems for each special education student. All districts and the COE should then aggregate special education costs at the district level in order to be able to present and evaluate the effectiveness of mandated special education programs.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office
of Education
This will not be implemented because it is a
violation of multiple statutes.
The
reason the COE does not keep an itemized individual record of cost per programs
within special education services is because doing so would create privacy and
discrimination issues. Considering that the costs of programs per individual
students are not kept for general education students, to specifically target
special education students would not only be an infringement on the privacy
guaranteed to them by the Family Privacy Act, Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), IDEA PL 94-142, and Americans with
Disabilities Act, but also violates civil rights. These statues and legislation
have been designed to safeguard the security and confidentiality of an
individual's personal information, and to list the specific expenses of each
disabled student would be considered illegal and a blatant form of
discrimination. Lastly, even if this system of record keeping were legal to
implement, it would be incredibly expensive, time consuming, and virtually
impossible to compile a list of all the students and the services they require.
Furthermore, tracking a detailed summary of financial expenses would be futile
as these programs are mandated by the state and dictated by IEP’s. The district has no choice but to provide
the required services regardless of their costs. Ac
Response: Santa
Cruz City Schools District
This requires further
analysis including cost benefit analysis.
Response:
Pajaro Valley Unified School District
The district agrees
with County Office of Education and County Board of Education Response.
Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES
SLVUSD has begun to
study District procedures including: compliance, staffing ratios, and SNPA/NPS
costs in order to determine how our services are aligned to the State’s Special
Education performance Indicator report. Comparing unlike Districts may lead one
to draw false conclusions.
Response: Live
Oak School District PARTIALLY AGREES
Creating an automated cost tracking system will vary between district to district (i.e. various salary schedules, overhead cost, etc.) and district to regional program (i.e. various salary schedules and overhead cost, etc.). Any cost comparison indicators should also be aligned and measured against the State’s Special Education Performance Indicator report. Comparing unlike districts’ student cost to unlike performance basis will force one to draw false conclusions.
Response: Soquel Union Elementary
School District PARTIALLY AGREES
Creating an automated
cost tracking system will vary between district to district (i.e. various
salary schedules, overhead costs, etc.) and district to regional programs (i.e.
various salary schedules and overhead costs, etc.). Any cost comparisons indicators should also be aligned and
measured against the State’s Special Education Performance Indicator
report. Comparing unlike district
student costs to an unlike performance basis will force one to draw false
conclusions.
6. The COE should examine the potential benefits of consolidating the administration and/or implementation of selected and/or all special education programs in the COE.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office
of Education
Requires further analysis and clarity as to
what the recommendation specifies. It is difficult to determine whether the
recommendation addresses consolidation within the COE, consolidating COE
administration with SELPA, or consolidation with districts.
In respect to the examination of
consolidation benefits in general, there is an existing review process in place
that continually exams these programs. This is apparent in the work done by the
Special Education Council which constantly looks for ways to become more
efficient in special education operations and to reduce costs. One such example
is the recent change to a new agency to provide one-to-one instructional aides
personnel that is saving the districts thousands of dollars.
With respect to the administration within the COE, consolidation has already been implemented. The special education programs of Santa Cruz County COE have been consolidated down to two administrators with one support staff shared among them. These administrators distribute state funds among the COE special education programs and oversee the entire educational process of the COE special education district. The support staff consists of three individuals whose duties are mandated by the federal government and whose work is vital to providing support services for special education programs. Within this framework, there is no real room for further reduction of COE administrative staff.
7. The COE should solicit funds from the state and federal governments to cover the cost of mandated special education programs.
Response: Santa Cruz County Office
of Education
This has been implemented.
The COE’s Special Education Department
reviews mandated programs every year, pinpoints the areas where more funds are
needed, and actively solicits funds from the government. A prime example is that the SELPA Director,
representing all SELPA member districts, actively participates in the Coalition
for Adequate Funding for Special Education in its ongoing efforts to increase
funding for special education. The
Coalition sponsors legislation and has lobbies in both Sacramento and
Washington D.C. The SELPA Administrator is also active in the State SELPA
Directors Organization. The SELPA administrator provides updated legislative
information and encourages administrators, teachers and parents to contact
their congressman and legislators to lobby for special education funding.
As the federal government is in the process
of reauthorizing IDEA, there is a concerted effort to get Congress to live up
to its promise of 40% funding for special education.
Responses Required
|
Entity |
Findings |
Recommendations |
Respond
Within |
|
Santa Cruz County Board of Education |
27-28 |
1 |
60 Days (Sept 2, 2003) |
|
Santa Cruz County Office of Education |
1-6, 9-38 |
1-7 |
60 Days (Sept. 2, 2003) |
|
Santa Cruz City Schools District |
7,8,39, 40-64 |
2-5 |
90 Days (Sept. 30, 2003) |
|
Pajaro Valley Unified School District |
7,27,28 |
1,5 |
90 Days (Sept. 30, 2003) |
|
San Lorenzo Valley School District |
7-8 |
2-5 |
90 Days (Sept. 30, 2003) |
|
Live Oak School District |
7-8 |
2-5 |
90 Days (Sept. 30, 2003) |
|
Soquel Union Elementary School District |
7-8 |
2-5 |
90 Days (Sept. 30, 2003) |
This page intentionally left blank.