Administrator
Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools
Peter Daniels, Chief Public Information Officer
Background
Every fall the Teacher Recognition Celebration honors Santa Clara County's finest teachers, each selected by their respective school districts. The SCCOE produces the annual gala with the generous support of community partners Texas Instruments, Santa Clara County Federal Credit Union and the San Jose Mercury News. A fine tradition enduring more than 40 years, the Teacher Recognition Celebration is the oldest and largest celebration of teachers in California, and the most prestigious local award given to classroom teachers.
Today, September 21, 2016, we will honor
Angelica Leolanie Guzmán: County Office of Education, Hollister Head Start
Qinglin (Ching-Ling) Yang: County Authorized Charter School, Bullis Charter School as the Santa Clara County Office of Education and County Authorized Charter School Teachers of the Year.
Fiscal Implications
N/A
Requested Action
N/A
At this time, members of the public may address the Board on any issue within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board that is not listed on this agenda. Members of the public may also address the Board on an agenda item before or during the Board's consideration of the item. No action can be taken on an item not on the agenda at this time, but may be referred to the administration or put on a future agenda. In accordance with Board Bylaw 9323, individual remarks will be limited to 3 minutes each, unless otherwise stipulated.
The superintendent may give a report on any activities related to his duties.
The members of the Board may give reports on any activities related to their duties as members of the Santa Clara County Board of Education.
Request Approval of Minutes of Regular Board Meeting of September 7, 2016.
Administrator
Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools
Steve Olmos, Ed.D., Chief Schools Officer
Background
The attached ongoing contract, CRET-6039, with the California Department of Education (CDE) and the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE), Local Planning Council, must be signed and returned to the Department of Education for the funds to be released from the CDE to the SCCOE.
In order to continue receiving funds, the CDE requires a resolution by the Governing Board on an annual basis authorizing designated personnel to sign contracts.
Fiscal Implications
The Santa Clara County Office of Education will receive $416,245.00. This contract is effective from July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.
Policy Subcommittee Chairperson
Michael Chang, Vice President of the Santa Clara County Board of Education
Administrator
Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools
Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent
Background
On August 17, 2016, the Policy Development Subcommittee met and approved the revisions of Board Bylaw and Exhibits 9270 Conflict of Interest. This is being brought for a second reading and approval.
Board Bylaw/Exhibit 9270 Conflict of Interest
Required annual review and minor revisions to clarify language and additions/changes to designated position list in Exhibit.
Fiscal Implications
There are no fiscal implications.
Administrator
Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools
Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent
Background
The following donations were made to the Santa Clara County Office of Education:
| Program: | Special Education- Student Services |
| Donor: | W. Philip Kegelmeyer, Jr. |
| Donation: | $300 |
| Program: | Special Education- Student Services |
| Donor: | Gary Johnson |
| Donation: | $200 |
| Program: | Communications - Office of the Superintendent |
| Donor: | Sixth District PTA |
| Donation: | $1,000 - Teacher Recognition Event |
Fiscal Implications
The above donations will be deposited in respective program accounts.
Administrator
Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools
Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent
Mark Skvarna, Interim Chief Business Officer
Background
This report reflects budget revisions for the month of August, 2016.
During the month of August, 2016, we increased expenditures budgets by $2,377,161 and allocated $2,377,161 to provide for these expenditures, as illustrated in Exhibit 1.
Requested Action
Approve the Budget Revisions for the month of August 2016
Administrator
Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools
Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent
Mark Skvarna, Interim Chief Business Officer
Background
This report reflects budget revisions for the month of June, 2016.
Budget revisions for the month of June 2016 were not submitted at the July 20, 2016 Board meeting as we were still processing budget revisions until the final closing of the books.
During the month of June, 2016, we decreased expenditures budgets by $16,128,189, we reduced revenue by $10,327,325 and we increased fund balance by $5,800,864.
Requested Action
Approve the budget revisions for the month of June 2016
Administrator
Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent
Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent
Background
On August 17, 2016, the Constituency of the Santa Clara County Board of Education approved the charter petition of the Opportunity Youth Academy Charter School for an initial period of five years of school operation, commencing on September 1, 2016, and continuing through June 30, 2021.
The County Controller's Office requires a board resolution to open a new fund.
Administrator
Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools
Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent
Background
On June 24, 2016 the Charter Schools Office (CSO) of the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE) received a petition for an SCCOE authorized independent, countywide charter school from the Options For Youth (OFY) – Santa Clara charter team. OFY is seeking approval to establish and operate a public charter high school for county-wide benefit serving students in ages 13-22 for a proposed charter term of five years beginning in July 2017.
On August 17, 2016 the Santa Clara County Board of Education (SCCBOE) held a public hearing on the OFY charter petition.
The Education Code requires that the SCCBOE “shall either grant or deny the charter within 90 days of receipt of the petition. However, this date may be extended by an additional 30 days if both parties agree to the extension.”
Legal Standards for Countywide Charters
Per Education Code Section § 47605.6 (b) (1) (5), a county board of education may grant a charter for the operation of a school under this part only if the board is satisfied that granting the charter is consistent with sound educational practice and that the charter school has reasonable justification for why it could not be established by petition to a school district pursuant to Section § 47605. Additionally, a county board may approve a county‐wide charter pursuant to this part only if it finds that the educational services to be provided by the school will offer services to a pupil population that will benefit from those services and that cannot be served as well by a charter school that operates in only one school district in the county. The county board of education shall deny a petition for the establishment of a charter school if the board finds one or more of the following:
(1) The charter school presents an unsound educational program for the pupils to be enrolled in the charter school.
(2) The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition.
(3) The petition does not contain the number of signatures required by subdivision (a).
(4) The petition does not contain an affirmation of each of the conditions described in subdivision (d).
(5) The petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of all of the charter elements.
(6) The petition does not include a declaration of whether the charter school shall be the exclusive public school employer of employees of the charter school for purposes of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA).
(7) Any other basis that the County Board finds justifies the denial of the petition.
Analysis
Staff reviewed the petition using the criteria established in California Education Code § 47605.6 (b) and County Board Policy 0420.4 (c) and found:
1. Required signatures: The signature requirement set forth in Education Code Section § 47605.6 (b) (3).
Staff found that the petition included the appropriate number of signatures.
2. Affirmation that the charter school shall be nonsectarian
Staff found that the petition contains the required affirmation.
3. Affirmation that the charter school shall not discriminate against pupils
Staff found that the petition contains the required affirmation.
4. Affirmation that the charter school shall not charge tuition
Staff found that the petition contains the required affirmation.
5. Reasonably comprehensive description of the required elements
While staff found that the petition provided a relatively comprehensive description of the required educational elements (with missing details or specificity) there were significant inconsistencies and questions regarding other required elements including, but not limited to, the location selection, its revenues and expenditures, and its governance structure through its relationship with Options For Youth, Inc. and Pathway Management Group, Inc. Some of the key elements and issues are summarized below with greater detail in the Staff Analysis and Proposed Findings of Fact dated September 21, 2016.
Educational Program:
OFY describes a target population that may demonstrate significant academic gaps and lack of academic success. It provides a reasonably comprehensive program which would need additional clarity regarding supports for Special Education and English Language Learners. The petition describes significant support staff but fails to include them in the budget.
Facility Location:
The petition describes an initial site located in Gilroy which will serve students spread across Santa Clara County; however, Gilroy is located at the southern-most region of the county. This location will provide a hardship on any students wishing to attend the program from other communities. Based on the choice of location students may be better served by a district rather than countywide charter. The choice of a location in Gilroy would seem to be contrary to the Countywide Benefit number 3 as stated in the petition:
“Without a countywide charter, Santa Clara County’s at-risk students will not have equal enrollment opportunities at OFY-Santa Clara. Per Education Code Section § 47605(d), a charter school must give enrollment preference to students residing in the school district; a countywide charter allows OFY-Santa Clara to prioritize all of Santa Clara County’s student equally and better serve OFY-Santa Clara’s student population—a population that may move frequently between district boundaries.” (OFY Petition Page 5, 6)
Additionally, the statements in the petition regarding OFY’s plan to open additional resource centers at is will raise concerns about compliance with the geographic limitations applicable to charter schools and the potential exposure to litigation on this issue.
Revenue and Expenditures:
The petition provides what appears to be a fiscally viable program based on the other OFY programs throughout the state. However through further analysis questions arose as to how ADA is calculated when no delineation or provisions are made for students served whose age will not generate ADA and the substantial overstatement of expenditures throughout the budget in the areas of management, books and supplies, student activities, consulting, and administration. Further questions arose as to the proposed teacher student ratio of 1:50 enrolled students when the ADA is projected on 1:24.
Governance:
The petition provides that the school would be governed by OFY‐Santa Clara, Inc. but Options For Youth‐California, Inc. is the sole member of the former corporation, and as such, exercises effectively complete control over both the corporation and the school. Additionally, another related corporation, Pathways Management Group, serves as OFY’s management corporation. The specifics of the relationships between the entities and their officers and employees and the reason for this structure are not clearly described and lead to an overall lack of transparency in the school’s operations, particularly as it appears that none of these entities are proposed to comply with the requirements of the Brown Act. The petition further describes an advisory committee comprised of parents, community members and OFY staff which will meet four times a year. However, given the breadth of OFY‐California, Inc.’s authority and the limited role of the advisory committee, it is unclear how much effect the advisory committee will have on the governance and operations of the school. It is problematic that the degree of local representation and local voice in the charter school operation is not clearly set forth or articulated in the petition.
Racial and Ethnic Balance:
The petition describes an admission and random lottery process that meets county-wide requirements. Due to the unique target population, OFY’s student population will not likely reflect the ethnic balance reflective of the county’s general student population as described in Education Code. However, it will meet the countywide racial and ethnic balance among its pupils in the targeted student population.
Admission Requirements:
The preferences as stated in the public random drawing in the OFY charter petition do not reflect the same target school population in the charter. If fully enrolled with the intended target student population OFY will not likely be reflective of Santa Clara County. However, it may meet the countywide racial and ethnic balance among its pupils in the targeted student population.
6. Unsound Education Program
Staff finds that overall the petition provides information substantiating the required elements for a sound educational program though there are areas, specifically including services for special education students and English learners, that require more details or specificity in order to constitute a thorough description of a sound educational program.
7. Demonstrably unlikely to implement the Program
The concerns described throughout this document and the Staff Analysis and Proposed Findings of Fact regarding deficiencies in the description of the required charter elements, the EERA statement, budget issues, issues regarding compliance with the law and other identified areas of concern serve to establish that the petitioner is demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition.
8. Requirements for Grade-Levels Served, Facility Location, and Students Served
Staff found that for the most part the petition appears to meet the requirements for grade levels served facility location (other than concerns regarding future additional resource centers) and students served, though there are concerns about the commitment to the target student population based on the proposed location of the school, the reservation of authority to expand to serve grades Kindergarten through six, and the lack of admission preference for the target students.
9. Any Other Criteria Set Forth in the Statute
Other statutory criteria that are specifically applicable to this countywide charter petition include:
(a) Inclusion of a statement regarding employment for purposes of the EERA
While the charter petition states that the OFY-Santa Clara will be the employer for all purposes, it also specifies that the OFY-Santa Clara will be covered by the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) as opposed to the EERA which is inconsistent with this specific charter requirement as well as other terms of the Charter Schools Act and the EERA.
(b) Finding by the SCCBOE that the educational services to be provided will offer services to a pupil population that will benefit from those services and that cannot be served as well by a charter school that operates in only one school district in the county.
The petition describes educational services that may benefit the target student population, but the petitioner operates numerous charter schools through school district approved charters offering the same program to the same or similar target student population.
(c) Staff has a reasonable justification why it could not be established by petition to a school district pursuant to Education Code Section § 47605.
The petitioner operates numerous schools providing the same educational program and structure pursuant to a variety of charters approved by individual school districts, and relies on the stated success of those schools in support of this overall petition. According to the OFY website it currently serves over 130,000 students in three counties and none of its current charters are county‐wide. This undermines the petitioner’s justification for seeking countywide approval and indicates that the proposed school could be established by petition to a school district.
(d) Any Other Basis the County Board Finds Justifies Denial
i. The petition describes a target student population that is already being served by a SCCOE‐dependent charter school, Opportunity Youth Academy (OYA), and the purpose and proposed program is duplicative of OYA. Further, while the number of students in the target population is substantial it is a difficult pupil population to attract and enroll and the petition’s projected enrollment may be overstated given the established and operating OYA in multiple locations in the county.
ii. The initial location for the proposed countywide charter is Gilroy, located at the southern‐most end of the county, and it would be a hardship for many students to attend, especially those in the intended population who are already disengaged from school.
iii. The petition’s proposal for the addition of satellite resource centers at the charter operator’s option implicates concerns regarding compliance with geographic limitation requirements.
iv. The petition appears to reserve to the charter operators the authority to determine what laws of general application (such as the Brown Act and the Public Records Act) apply to its operations as well as which SCCOE directives are “reasonable” and require the OFY-Santa Clara to comply. This is likely to lead not only to violations of law and California public policy, but also to ongoing tension and disputes between the OFY-Santa Clara and SCCOE.
Based upon these findings of fact, it is recommended that the petition be denied.
Administrator
Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools
Mary Ann Dewan, Ph. D., Deputy Superintendent
Mark Skvarna, Interim Chief Business Officer
Background
Per Board Policy BP 3312 (a), contracts from $100,000 up to $250,000 are to be provided as one information item at a regular meeting of the Board.
For your information, the table below lists the contracts processed in the month of August 2016 from $100,000 up to $250,000.
Fiscal Implications
| Vendor | Description | Branch | Responsible Person | Contract Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tristar Risk Management | 2016-17 annual contract for Workers' Compensation claims administration for self-insured claims. The contractor pays claims, provides services based upon agreed levels in accordance with RFP 13-12-13, analyzes losses, and recommends methods of reducing costs. | Business Services | Mark Skvarna | $219,586 |
| SafeTrans Transportation | 2016-17 contract for round-trip transportation for students attending county operated schools in the Special Education Department. | Student Services | Steve Olmos, Ed. D. | $200,000 |
| Speech Pathology Group | 2016-17 contract for speech and language therapy services, in accordance with the students' Individual Education Plan (IEP) for the 2016-2017 school year. | Student Services | Steve Olmos, Ed. D. | $200,000 |
| YMCA of Silicon Valley/Project Cornerstone | Project Cornerstone will coordinate the 4th Santa Clara County-wide Developmental Asset Survey in the Fall of 2016 for all public school districts in the county. The survey measures students' attitudes, behaviors and developmental assets, and supports the State's priorities for engagement, with positive measures of students' sense of safety and school connectedness. Target audience includes 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th and 11th grades. Aggregate results will be released in March 2017 and will be made available to the public. | Office of the Superintendent | Jon Gundry | $175,000 |
| EBS Healthcare Staffing Services | 2016-17 contract for licensed staff of Speech and Language Pathologists (SLP), Occupational Therapists (OT), Physical Therapists (PT), and Teachers. All consultants will provide services as stated in the Individual Education Plan (IEP). | Student Services | Steve Olmos, Ed. D. | $150,000 |
Administrator
Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools
Steve Olmos, Ed. D., Chief Schools Officer
Mary Ann Dewan, Ph. D., Deputy Superintendent
Mark Skvarna, Interim Chief Business Officer
Background
Per Board Policy BP 3312 (a), contract agreements estimated to exceed $250,000 shall be placed on the agenda of regular County Board meetings as individual information items.
101 Therapy Staffing provides California State Certified Special Education Teachers and Instructional Specialists (IA), as requested by the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE) Special Education department. Teachers and IAs will provide special education services in compliance with applicable state and federal regulations, and in accordance with SCCOE's policies, procedures, rules and regulations.
Fiscal Implications
| Vendor | Description | Branch | Responsible Person | Contract Amount |
| 101 Therapy Staffing, Inc. | 2016-2017 contract for California State certified Special Education Teachers and Instructional Specialists (IA) staff. | Student Services | Steve Olmos, Ed. D. | $250,000 |
Administrator
Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools
David Wu, Chief Technology Officer
Mary Ann Dewan, Ph. D., Deputy Superintendent
Mark Skvarna, Interim Chief Business Officer
Background
Per Board Policy BP 3312 (a), contract agreements estimated to exceed $250,000 shall be placed on the agenda of regular County Board meetings as individual information items.
This project will expand the current Versifit Edvantage Data Warehouse and Dashboard to include all interested districts within Santa Clara County to form a county-wide data warehouse for all students, including related information from districts and agencies.
This contract allows Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE) to purchase and deploy the necessary software modules to connect districts using several different student information systems to the current SCCOE Versifit installation.
The amendment increases the existing 2015-17 contract with Versifit Technologies. The original amount of the contract was $966,247. This amendment adds $164,700 which brings the total value of the amended contract to $1,130,947. The term is extended to June 30, 2018.
Fiscal Implications
| Vendor | Description | Branch | Responsible Person | Contract Amount |
| Versifit Technologies, LLC | Amendment to integrate other districts into Santa Clara County Office of Education data warehouse for all students. | Technology Services | David Wu | $1,130,947 |
Administrator
Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools
Steve Olmos, Ed. D., Chief Schools Officer
Mary Ann Dewan, Ph. D., Deputy Superintendent
Mark Skvarna, Interim Chief Business Officer
Background
Per Board Policy BP 3312 (a), contract agreements estimated to exceed $250,000 shall be placed on the agenda of regular County Board meetings as individual information items.
The table below summarizes the contracts processed in the month of August 2016 for the Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) program for Non-Public Schools (NPS) for the 2016-2017 school year. In addition, a summary of the Non-Public Schools (NPS) contracts presented at the August 17 regular Board meeting is listed to provide a full account of the Non-Public Schools (NPS) contracts to date.
Each master contract between Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE) and the vendor provides special education and/or related services to individuals with disabilities under the authorization of Education Code Sections 56157, and 56365-56366.7. The contracts specify the rates to be charged for each of the services provided. Services are identified in the Individual Education Plans (IEPs).
An Individual Service Agreement (ISA) for Non-Public/Non-Sectarian School Agency (NPS/NSA) Services is part of the master contract as determined by SCCOE. ISAs are issued for those pupils enrolled with the approval of SCCOE.
The estimated contract amounts were determined based upon a review of past year services and anticipated charges for 2016-2017. The total estimates for all Non-Public Schools exceed $250,000. These agreements processed for the month of August are provided here. Attached is the template for the Master Contract for Non-Sectarian, Non-Public School and Agency Services for the 2016-2017 school year.
Fiscal Implications
| Vendor | Description | Branch | Responsible Person | Contract Amount |
| NEW/AMENDED CONTRACTS FOR SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 REGULAR BOARD MEETING | ||||
| Spectrum Center | 2016-17 Master contract for Non-Public, Non-Sectarian School/Agency Services | Student Services | Steve Olmos, Ed. D. | $1,100,000 |
| The Bay School | 2016-17 Master contract for Non-Public, Non-Sectarian School/Agency Services | Student Services | Steve Olmos, Ed. D. | $188,000 |
| Esther B. Clark, at the Childrens' Health Council | Amendment to the 2016-17 Master contract for Non-Public, Non-Sectarian School/Agency Services. The original amount of the contract was $80,000. This amendment adds $58,000, which brings the total value of the amended contract to $138,000. | Student Services | Steve Olmos, Ed. D. | $138,000 |
| Creative Learning Center | 2016-17 Master contract for Non-Public, Non-Sectarian School/Agency Services | Student Services | Steve Olmos, Ed. D. | $80,000 |
| Pine Hill School (Second Start) | 2016-17 Master contract for Non-Public, Non-Sectarian School/Agency Services | Student Services | Steve Olmos, Ed. D. | $44,500 |
| FOR REFERENCE ONLY - ITEMS BELOW REVIEWED ON AUGUST 17, 2016 REGULAR BOARD MEETING | ||||
| AchieveKids | 2016-17 Master contract for Non-Public, Non-Sectarian School/Agency Services | Student Services | Steve Olmos, Ed. D. | $1,600,000 |
| Pacific Autism Center for Education | 2016-17 Master contract for Non-Public, Non-Sectarian School/Agency Services | Student Services | Steve Olmos, Ed. D. | $900,000 |
| Morgan Autism Center | 2016-17 Master contract for Non-Public, Non-Sectarian School/Agency Services | Student Services | Steve Olmos, Ed. D. | $600,000 |
| Rebekah Children's Services | 2016-17 Master contract for Non-Public, Non-Sectarian School/Agency Services | Student Services | Steve Olmos, Ed. D. | $162,750 |
| Seneca Family Agencies | 2016-17 Master contract for Non-Public, Non-Sectarian School/Agency Services | Student Services | Steve Olmos, Ed. D. | $160,000 |
| Estimated Contract Total for Agreement | $4,973,250 |
Administrator
Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools
Steve Olmos, Ed.D., Chief Schools Officer
Background
The 2015-16 Budget Act provides funds for Educator Effectiveness. These funds are specifically to be used for professional development, coaching, and support services. The SCCOE has received $552,734. These funds must be spent on specific areas during the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 school years.
As requested by the Board, Student Services will present on department Professional Development (PD) plans, how teachers were included in the planning process, and how professional development will be evaluated.
Administrator
Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools
Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent
Background
At a special meeting on December 14, 2015 the County Board of Education requested a standing item regarding charter schools on every regular board meeting agenda to provide the board with information about issues and follow up to questions that have been raised by members of the board.
Staff will update the board about the planning of a quarterly charter schools study session for October 2016 and affirm next steps for the potential development of a charter schools forum.
Other Updates:
1. Charter School Closures
As of September 9, 2016, Silicon Valley Flex, which closed on July 25, 2016, has received student cumulative record requests for more than 65% of their students. Magnolia Science Academy-Santa Clara, which closed on August 31, 2016, has received student cumulative record requests for 50% of their students. Leadership Public Schools - San Jose, which closed on June 30, 2016, has received student cumulative record requests for more than 90% of their students. The closure process is moving forward as expected and charter staff is diligently monitoring progress.
2. Upcoming Charter Petition Renewals/Submission
Charter School staff are preparing for the upcoming charter school renewals:
Rocketship: Rocketship Alma, Brilliant Minds, and Si Se Puede
Alpha Jose Hernandez
Legacy Academy has contacted staff and is planning for a resubmission of their petition for a county-wide middle school.
3. Charter School LCAPs and Budgets
All charter schools have submitted their Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAP) and budgets. Unlike school districts, charter school LCAPs do not require approval of the SCCOE. However, staff has reviewed the LCAPs and budgets and provided feedback to the charter schools.
Administrator
Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools
Steve Olmos, Ed.D., Chief Schools Officer
Associated Goal
Goal 4: Improve organizational effectiveness and efficiency
Background
As per the Head Start Act, all Head Start agencies are required to provide program information to the Board of Education. Attached are the following reports:
Provides information on progress of services provided to children and families to meet required timelines as per specific indicators and thresholds
Provides the status of program budget and financial oversight
Indicates the progress of required matching contribution required by grant ($5,459,138)
Serves as an oversight check of program expenses
Serves as an oversight check of program expense
Summarizes the year to date enrollment activity in the Head Start Program to comply with enrollment requirements (fill vacancies within 30 days to maintain full enrollment)
Policy Subcommittee Chairperson
Michael Chang, Vice President of the Santa Clara County Board Education
Administrator
Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools
Dr. Mary Ann Dewan, Deputy Superintendent
Background
On September 7, 2016, the Policy Development Subcommittee met and approved the revisions of Board Policy 3510 Green School Operations and Board Bylaw 9322 Agendas and Meeting Materials. These policies are being brought for First Reading and then for approval (Second Reading) on October 5, 2016.
BP 3510 Green School Operations
Per the request of Board Member Darcie Green via a community request, a revision of the policy on green school operations to include textile recycling as part of ongoing efforts to reduce the impact of SCCOE operations on the environment.
BB 9322 Agendas and Meeting Materials
Revision and update agenda item review process and add flowchart of process.
Fiscal Implications
There are no fiscal implications
At this time, members of the public may address the Board on any issue within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board that is not listed on this agenda. Members of the public may also address the Board on an agenda item before or during the Board's consideration of the item. No action can be taken on an item not on the agenda at this time, but may be referred to the administration or put on a future agenda. In accordance with Board Bylaw 9323, individual remarks will be limited to 3 minutes each, unless otherwise stipulated.
The Board will hold a Closed Session to discuss the following item:
Public Employee Performance Evaluation, Title: County Superintendent of Schools (Gov't Code Section 54957(b)(1))
Report of actions taken in Closed Session
The next Santa Clara County Board of Education meeting is schedule for October 5, 2016. For Board agendas and meeting minutes, please see our web site at www.sccoe.org under the County Board of Education page.