The Board shall set the agenda by establishing it as posted.  Changes to the posted agenda may only occur as permitted by Education and Government Code including the Brown Act or as described in Board Bylaws.  Permitted revisions to the posted agenda include the movement of items from consent to action or reordering the sequence of agenda items.

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.

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

The Board will hold a Closed Session to consider the following item:

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION  Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9:  1 case

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

The Board will hold a Closed Session to discuss the following item:

Government Code section 54957 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Title: (County Superintendent of Schools)

Report of Actions Taken in Closed Session

The superintendent may give a report on any activities related to her 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 August 1, 2018.

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

Background

A resolution recognizing September 15, 2018 as the start of National Hispanic Heritage Month; an opportunity to share the historical and present contributions of Hispanic Americans.

Student Impact

Resolution highlights the inequities Hispanic/Latino students face in our county in the areas of education, health, financial stability, housing, and the environment.

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

Steve Olmos, Ed.D., Chief Schools Officer

Background

Annually, Ms. Charmaine Warmenhoven, via the Silicon Valley Education Foundation, donates to the Inclusion Collaborative, Student Services Branch. Ms. Warmenhoven, via the SVEF has donated $99,238.96 for fiscal year 2018-19. This is the actual amount of the donation and a Consent Action Item is being submitted to the Board for approval. The donor requests the entire donation to be used in direct support of the Inclusion Collaborative.

Fiscal Implications

Student Impact

This donation provides funding to offer free support, information and referrals for including children of all ages with disabilities and other needs in the community via the Inclusion Collaborative Warm Line. Other support offered by the Warm Line include:

• Positive behavior support for parents and professionals

• Referrals to local resources, agencies, and services

• Developmental Screening for ages one month to 5 ½ years

• Answers to questions and technical assistance regarding inclusive practices

• Parent and educator resources (i.e. visual supports, social stories)

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

Megan K. Reilly, Chief Business Officer, Business Services Branch

Laurie Sauro, Director, Internal Business Services

Background

This report reflects budget revisions for the month of July 2018.  If an expenditure budget is increased, it is supported either by an increase in revenue, a decrease in carryover (use of carryover), a decrease in fund balance or any combination of the three.  If an expenditure budget is decreased, the result could be due to a decrease to estimated revenue, or an increase to credit it back to fund balance.

During the month of July 2018, we increased expenditure budgets by $1,377,210, decreased revenue by $157,940, decreased carryover by $374 and decreased fund balance by $1,534,776.

Requested Action

Approve the Budget Revisions for the Month of July 2018.

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

Khristel Johnson, Director, Charter Schools Department

Background

On July 5, 2018, the Charter Schools Office of the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE) received a material revision request to its charter petition from Legacy Academy Charter School (Legacy). Legacy is seeking approval to materially revise its charter to reduce its initial enrollment from 60 sixth grade students to 20-50 sixth - eighth grade students, to remove State Teachers' Retirement System (STRS) as its certificated retirement system, to update the charter to comply with new laws enacted since the charter was originally approved and various additional additions to comport with the above listed changes. Legacy is also seeking to extend its charter term for 5 years to begin in August 2018, thereby creating a 6 year initial term. Legacy Academy was initially approved for a 5 year term as a countywide charter on December 14, 2016, to serve students grades 6-8.

A Public Hearing on the requested material revision was held on July 18, 2018. On August 1, 2018, the Santa Clara County Board of Education (SSCBOE or County Board) held a decision hearing on the Material Revision Charter request for Legacy.  During that meeting, the SCCBOE tabled or postponed taking action on this matter to August 15, 2018, to provide Legacy the opportunity to clarify and provide evidence to SCCOE regarding issues contained in the Staff Findings.

The complete revised petition is available for review here.

Consideration for Board Decision

Pursuant to Education Code §47607(a)(1), the SCCBOE must consider whether to approve the material revision. Material revisions for countywide charters are governed by the standards and criteria in Education Code §47605 and 47605.6. Therefore, if the County Board should decide to deny the Legacy Academy Charter material revision, the Board must make “written factual findings, specific to the particular petition, setting for specific facts to support one or more of the following findings:

1. The charter school presents an unsound education 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 [required] signatures.
4. The petition does not contain the [required] affirmations.
5. The petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions [of the required elements.]
6. The petition does not contain a declaration of whether or not the charter school shall be deemed the exclusive public employer of the employees of the charter school for the purposes of the Educational Employees Relations Act (EERA).
7. Any other basis that the county board of education finds justifies the denial of the petition.

Review of Petition

Staff reviewed the Material Revision to the Petition using the criteria established in California Education Code 47605.6 and 47607 and found:

1. Unsound Educational Program

Staff found several indicators of an unsound educational program as proposed in the material revision, particularly in the areas of implementation and delivery of the curricula in light of the new reduction in enrollment.  While the original petition provided the 6th grade curricula and implementation, the new material revision is lacking the clarity and integration elements across all three grade levels as well as the delivery methods.

2. Demonstrably Unlikely to Implement the Program

Staff found several indicators that the Petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to implement the program as contained in the material revision, due to deficiencies in the descriptions of required elements, budget issues, issues regarding compliance with the law and other identified areas of concern which serve to establish that the petitioner is demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the revised program set forth in the material revision petition.

3. Affirmations of Each of the Conditions Required by Statute 47605.6(b)(4)

Staff found the requisite affirmations.

4. Reasonably Comprehensive Description of the Required Elements

Staff found that the material revision petition DID NOT contain a reasonably comprehensive description of all of the required elements as there were significant inconsistencies, omissions, legal concerns, and questions in the required elements, including but not limited to the educational program, methods by which pupil progress in meeting outcomes will be measured, location of each school facility, employee qualifications, health and safety, financial audit, retirement system, and admissions policies and procedures. Some of the key elements and issues are summarized below with greater detail in the Staff Report: Findings and Analysis dated August 15, 2018.

Educational Program

Staff found several indicators of an unsound educational program as proposed in the material revision, particularly in the areas of implementation and integration of curricula across all three grade levels.

Location of Each Facility

The material revision states that Legacy will be located at 484 E. Fernando Street, San Jose, CA. However, the material revision also includes a letter from the City of San Jose that the current location needs a special use permit in order to open. Legacy states it is “in process” of obtaining the necessary permits and that should it not be able to acquire the permits prior to its opening date, it will find a temporary site until the permits are issued. As per Education Code 47610(d), Legacy is required to comply with the California Building Standards Code before occupying any facility. Also, per Legacy’s own charter, Legacy will provide the necessary permits 30 days prior to opening or will not open. 30 days prior to opening was July 21, 2018.

Methods by Which Pupil Progress in Meeting Outcomes will be Measured

The Material Revision Charter does not include a reasonably comprehensive description of the methods by which pupil progress in meeting outcomes will be measured because, due to the reduction in students, statewide data will not be readily available as the sample size will be too small and no revisions were made to correlate with the change in educational program for internal assessments.

Employee Qualifications

Legacy has reduced its staffing requirements for year one and indicated that teachers now need multiple subject teaching credentials, however, in subsequent years there is inconsistency as to staffing requirements and issues with core and non-core classes.

Health and Safety

While there are no changes to the Petition in this area, several concerns regarding the facility and transportation arose. See above regarding the facility. Also, Legacy has stated on its website and includes funding in its budget for transporting students to and from school using a ride share service. While the drivers are fingerprinted and checked through the Department of Motor Vehicles by the ride service, there are no provisions as to how Legacy will also verify that the drivers are also fingerprinted, TB tested and verified as required by Ed Code to be in direct contact with students.

Financial Audit

Legacy adjusted the date the final audit is due. However, to comply with the SCCOE’s review process and education code 47605.6(m), Legacy shall deliver its final audit to the Controller, to SCCOE and the CDE by December 15 of each year.

Student Suspension/Expulsion Procedures

Legacy updated this section in an effort to comply with the new laws enacted as of January 1, 2018. However, Legacy did not properly implement the statutorily mandated requirements applicable to any and all types of involuntary removal, nor did Legacy incorporate SCCOE’s restrictions on involuntary removal from charter schools under its oversight.

Retirement System

Legacy updated this section to remove STRS as the retirement program for certificated employees. It maintains that Federal Social Security will be the program for non-certificated employees, but fails to establish a retirement program for certificated employees.

Dispute Resolution

Legacy updated this section to include the current MOU language. However, Legacy omitted its commitment and practices relative to compliance with Title IX and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, with which Legacy must comply.

Admissions Policies and Procedures

The Charter Schools Act has been updated effective January 1, 2018, however the Petition has not been updated to reflect the new law.

Closure Procedures

Legacy attempted to update this element to include the current MOU language, however, there are mistakes and inconsistencies between the language added to the Material Revision Charter and the language retained from the current Charter.

Required Supplemental Information

Legacy's material revision has significant budgetary concerns, namely, the reduction in enrollment correlates to a reduction in state revenues and a higher reliance upon donations, which is now 52% of proposed revenues in year 1. Further, as Legacy now intends to open with all three grades, it will no longer be able to gain additional funding for its anticipated growth through the advanced apportionment funding, as was originally planned in its initial petition. Legacy will have a cash flow problem as it will only be funded on the previous year's ADA until the State "catches up" in March.

5. Exclusive Employer

No changes.

6. Requirements for Grade-Levels Served, Facility Location, and Students Served

While there are no changes to the grade levels being served as Legacy always intended to serve 6-8^thgrade, Legacy is now adjusting how those grades will be served across its initial growth process. Also, Legacy was notified that the proposed facility at 484 E San Fernando Street, does not have the appropriate permits for the school to open as required by Education Code 47610(d) and the California Buildings Code. Without the appropriate permits, Legacy cannot utilize its proposed facility.

7. Other Criteria in Statute

Legacy is requesting that it receive a five year term starting August 2018. However, Legacy was originally approved in December 2016 for a five year term. Per 47607, Charters may only be approved for up to 5 years. Legacy has been granted a five year term and it may not be extended even though Legacy delayed opening. Legacy’s request to extend its term must be denied.

8. Any Other Basis that the County Board of Education Finds Justifies the Denial

Based on the lack of verifiable students, the number of unfilled staffing positions, the issues with permits and occupancy requirements, the lack of verifiable donations and funding, as well as Legacy’s proposal to significantly to decrease its student enrollment to open the school, these items have direct impact on fiscal, operational, and educational viability. The Charter Staff has therefore concluded that the material revision is not educationally sound, sustainable or viable.

Requested Action

Staff reviewed the material revision request utilizing the criteria for approval set forth in Education Code Sections 47605.6 and 47607. Based upon its comprehensive review and analysis of the material revision, Staff finds several bases for denial of the request for the material revision to adjust the Legacy Academy Charter. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Board deny the request for the material revision to the Legacy Academy Charter School Petition.

Student Impact

The Charter School office provides oversight and monitoring for 22 County Board of Education authorized charter schools. Legacy Academy was authorized in 2016 and is anticipated to serve 225 students at capacity.

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

Khristel Johnson, Director, Charter Schools Department

Background

A Charter Schools Update is provided as a standing agenda item at each regular Board Meeting.

Renewal Petitions for 2018-19  

2018-19 Back-to-School

The 2018-19 school year is getting back into swing and the first day for students at our charter schools is as follows:

July 16 - Opportunity Youth Academy

August 8 - ACE Empower Academy Middle School

August 9 - University Prep Academy

August 15 - Rocketship Schools: Alma Academy, Brilliant Minds, Discovery Prep, Fuerza Community Prep, Los Suenos Academy, Mateo Sheedy Elementary, Rising Stars, Si Se Puede; Discovery Charter School I and Discovery Charter School II; Summit Public Schools Tahoma and Denali; Sunrise Middle School

August 20 - Alpha: Jose Hernandez Middle School; Downtown College Prep Alum Rock Middle and High; Legacy Academy (intended opening)

August 22 - Bullis Charter School

September 4 - Voices College-Bound Language Academy at Morgan Hill and Voices College-Bound Language Academy at Mount Pleasant

Student Impact

The Charter Schools Update provides information to the Board related to the charter schools authorized by the Santa Clara Board of Education (SCCBOE) and items related to the Santa Clara County Office of Education's (SCCOE) role in Oversight and Monitoring. The County Board of Education has twenty-two (22) authorized charter schools which serve approximately 10,000 students.

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

Megan K. Reilly, 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 June 2018 from $100,000 up to $250,000. Per AR 3310, there are several award processes. It is noted in the table below whether the contract was awarded through:

• Bid: A competitive process in which a public entity publishes bid specifications and bidders submit proposals. In the competitive bid process, a contract must be awarded to the lowest bidder.
• Request for Proposal (RFP): A public entity asks vendors to submit their own proposals as long as they meet certain general requirements. The contract award is based on expertise and established evaluation criteria in the RFP.
• Request for Quote (RFQ): Informal process under the bid threshold where a public entity asks vendors to submit their own proposals as long as they meet certain scope of work requirements. The contract award is based on price, expertise and overall proposal evaluation.
• Best Source Justification: A public entity selects services from a contractor that is deemed to be a "best source” as demonstrated by specific expertise; experience in providing such services; and the quality, cost, timeliness, and availability of such services.
• Sole Source Justification: A public entity contracts for goods or services with a contractor that is the only source of those items.

Fiscal Implications

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

Megan K. Reilly, 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.

CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:  Flexible spending account benefit services and administration.

Per AR 3310, there are several award processes. It is noted in the table below whether the contract was awarded through:

• Bid: A competitive process in which a public entity publishes bid specifications and bidders submit proposals. In the competitive bid process a contract must be awarded to the lowest bidder.
• Request for Proposal (RFP): A public entity asks vendors to submit their own proposals as long as they meet certain general requirements. The contract award is based on expertise and established evaluation criteria in the RFP.
• Request for Quote (RFQ): Informal process under the bid threshold where a public entity asks vendors to submit their own proposals as long as they meet certain scope of work requirements. The contract award is based on price, expertise and overall proposal evaluation.
• Best Source Justification: A public entity selects services from a contractor that is deemed to be a "best source” as demonstrated by specific expertise; experience in providing such services; and the quality, cost, timeliness, and availability of such services.
• Sole Source Justification: A public entity contracts for goods or services with a contractor that is the only source of those items.

Fiscal Implications

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

Megan K. Reilly, 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.

CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:  Curriculum license fee renewal.

Per AR 3310, there are several award processes. It is noted in the table below whether the contract was awarded through:

• Bid: A competitive process in which a public entity publishes bid specifications and bidders submit proposals. In the competitive bid process a contract must be awarded to the lowest bidder.
• Request for Proposal (RFP): A public entity asks vendors to submit their own proposals as long as they meet certain general requirements. The contract award is based on expertise and established evaluation criteria in the RFP.
• Request for Quote (RFQ): Informal process under the bid threshold where a public entity asks vendors to submit their own proposals as long as they meet certain scope of work requirements. The contract award is based on price, expertise and overall proposal evaluation.
• Best Source Justification: A public entity selects services from a contractor that is deemed to be a "best source” as demonstrated by specific expertise; experience in providing such services; and the quality, cost, timeliness, and availability of such services.
• Sole Source Justification: A public entity contracts for goods or services with a contractor that is the only source of those items.

Fiscal Implications

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

Megan K. Reilly, 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.

CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:  Non-public school for Special Education students (fully reimbursed by the district).

Per AR 3310, there are several award processes. It is noted in the table below whether the contract was awarded through:

• Bid: A competitive process in which a public entity publishes bid specifications and bidders submit proposals. In the competitive bid process a contract must be awarded to the lowest bidder.
• Request for Proposal (RFP): A public entity asks vendors to submit their own proposals as long as they meet certain general requirements. The contract award is based on expertise and established evaluation criteria in the RFP.
• Request for Quote (RFQ): Informal process under the bid threshold where a public entity asks vendors to submit their own proposals as long as they meet certain scope of work requirements. The contract award is based on price, expertise and overall proposal evaluation.
• Best Source Justification: A public entity selects services from a contractor that is deemed to be a "best source” as demonstrated by specific expertise; experience in providing such services; and the quality, cost, timeliness, and availability of such services.
• Sole Source Justification: A public entity contracts for goods or services with a contractor that is the only source of those items.

Fiscal Implications

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

Megan K. Reilly, 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.

CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:  Construction/Head Start roof repair.

Per AR 3310, there are several award processes. It is noted in the table below whether the contract was awarded through:

• Bid: A competitive process in which a public entity publishes bid specifications and bidders submit proposals. In the competitive bid process a contract must be awarded to the lowest bidder.
• Request for Proposal (RFP): A public entity asks vendors to submit their own proposals as long as they meet certain general requirements. The contract award is based on expertise and established evaluation criteria in the RFP.
• Request for Quote (RFQ): Informal process under the bid threshold where a public entity asks vendors to submit their own proposals as long as they meet certain scope of work requirements. The contract award is based on price, expertise and overall proposal evaluation.
• Best Source Justification: A public entity selects services from a contractor that is deemed to be a "best source” as demonstrated by specific expertise; experience in providing such services; and the quality, cost, timeliness, and availability of such services.
• Sole Source Justification: A public entity contracts for goods or services with a contractor that is the only source of those items.

Fiscal Implications

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

Megan K. Reilly, 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.

CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:  Contracted Special Education Speech Language Pathologists, Occupational Therapists and Psychologists.

Per AR 3310, there are several award processes. It is noted in the table below whether the contract was awarded through:

• Bid: A competitive process in which a public entity publishes bid specifications and bidders submit proposals. In the competitive bid process a contract must be awarded to the lowest bidder.
• Request for Proposal (RFP): A public entity asks vendors to submit their own proposals as long as they meet certain general requirements. The contract award is based on expertise and established evaluation criteria in the RFP.
• Request for Quote (RFQ): Informal process under the bid threshold where a public entity asks vendors to submit their own proposals as long as they meet certain scope of work requirements. The contract award is based on price, expertise and overall proposal evaluation.
• Best Source Justification: A public entity selects services from a contractor that is deemed to be a "best source” as demonstrated by specific expertise; experience in providing such services; and the quality, cost, timeliness, and availability of such services.
• Sole Source Justification: A public entity contracts for goods or services with a contractor that is the only source of those items.

Fiscal Implications

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

Megan K. Reilly, 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.

CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:  Meal services for SCCOE programs.

Per AR 3310, there are several award processes. It is noted in the table below whether the contract was awarded through:

• Bid: A competitive process in which a public entity publishes bid specifications and bidders submit proposals. In the competitive bid process a contract must be awarded to the lowest bidder.
• Request for Proposal (RFP): A public entity asks vendors to submit their own proposals as long as they meet certain general requirements. The contract award is based on expertise and established evaluation criteria in the RFP.
• Request for Quote (RFQ): Informal process under the bid threshold where a public entity asks vendors to submit their own proposals as long as they meet certain scope of work requirements. The contract award is based on price, expertise and overall proposal evaluation.
• Best Source Justification: A public entity selects services from a contractor that is deemed to be a "best source” as demonstrated by specific expertise; experience in providing such services; and the quality, cost, timeliness, and availability of such services.
• Sole Source Justification: A public entity contracts for goods or services with a contractor that is the only source of those items.

Fiscal Implications

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

Megan K. Reilly, 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.

CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:  Platform for employee wellness education, challenges and rewards.

Per AR 3310, there are several award processes. It is noted in the table below whether the contract was awarded through:

• Bid: A competitive process in which a public entity publishes bid specifications and bidders submit proposals. In the competitive bid process a contract must be awarded to the lowest bidder.
• Request for Proposal (RFP): A public entity asks vendors to submit their own proposals as long as they meet certain general requirements. The contract award is based on expertise and established evaluation criteria in the RFP.
• Request for Quote (RFQ): Informal process under the bid threshold where a public entity asks vendors to submit their own proposals as long as they meet certain scope of work requirements. The contract award is based on price, expertise and overall proposal evaluation.
• Best Source Justification: A public entity selects services from a contractor that is deemed to be a "best source” as demonstrated by specific expertise; experience in providing such services; and the quality, cost, timeliness, and availability of such services.
• Sole Source Justification: A public entity contracts for goods or services with a contractor that is the only source of those items.

Fiscal Implications

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

Background

On August 1, 2018 the Policy Subcommittee met and approved the revisions for the following policies:

BP 1312.3 Uniform Complaint Procedures

Policy updated to reflect new law AB 699 which includes immigration status as a prohibited basis for discrimination and AB 365 which authorizes the use of UCP for alleged noncompliance with certain educational rights of children of military families.

BP 5146 Married/Pregnant/Parenting Students

Reinstate and update policy according to Federal Program Monitoring guidelines.

BP 6146.1 High School Graduation Requirements

AB 830 repealed Education Code 60850-60859, thereby eliminating the California High School Exit Exam as a requirement for high school graduation; policy updated to reflect this and to add homeless students in list of exemptions.

The following policies and regulations have been updated using recommendations from the California Attorney General’s Guidance and Model Policies to Assist California’s K-12 Schools in Responding to Immigration Issues (Attorney General publication included in attachments) and guidance from CSBA. Specifically, revisions/updates are in accordance with AB 699 which include immigration status as a prohibited basis for discrimination.

BP 0410 – Nondiscrimination in SCCOE Programs and Activities

BP 5022 – Student and Family Privacy Rights

BP 5125 – Student Records

E 5125.1 – Release of Directory Information

BP 5131.2 – Anti-Bullying Policy

BP 5145.13 – Response to Immigration Enforcement

BP 5145.3 – Nondiscrimination/Harassment

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

Steve Olmos, Ed.D., Chief Schools Officer

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:

• Program Information Report 2017-18 (PIR) –June 2018
  Provides information on progress of services provided to children and families to meet required timelines as per specific indicators and thresholds
   

• Financial Report – HS Basic/EHS Basic Total Grant Award –June 2018

  Provides the status of program budget and financial oversight
   

• In-Kind Contribution Required –June 2018
  Indicates the progress of required matching contribution required by grant ($6,676,866)
   

• Administration Cost Limitation –June 2018

  Limits the amounts of funds charged as development and administrative costs to 15%
   

• Purchase Card Summary –June 2018

  Serves as an oversight check of program expenses
   

• California Child Food Program Summary Reports (USDA) –June 2018

  Serves as an oversight check of program expense

• Enrollment Report –June 2018
  Summarizes the year to date enrollment activity in the Head Start Program to comply with enrollment requirements

Student Impact

The Head Start/Early Head Start Program is federally funded to serve 1,946 children, ages 0-5, from very low-income families to promote their school readiness by enhancing their cognitive, social, and emotional development. These services are provided in Santa Clara and San Benito Counties.

Administrator

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., County Superintendent of Schools

Background

Education Code 1302(a) requires any salary increase of $10,000 or more to be presented to the County Board of Education at a regularly scheduled meeting. A recent promotion will result in excess of the $10,000 limit for one (1) employee.

Fiscal Implications

The following chart outlines the employee name, prior position title, new position title, reason for the salary increase, prior annual salary, new annual salary and the salary increase for each employee. This employee is slated to receive a salary increase of $10,000 or more.

LEGEND:

A:  Interim promotion (temporary only)

B:  Increase in calendar

C:  Promotion

D:  Position reinstatement

E:  Promotion and increase in calendar

F:  Position change and increase in calendar

G:  Increase in FTE

H:  Position reclassification

Student Impact

The Human Resources Branch ensures our students receive quality instruction through the selection, assignment and support of qualified leaders, teachers and staff.

1. Budget Study Committee:  Nov 29 (County Superintendent of Schools)
2. California County Boards of Education (CCBE) Board of Directors:  Sept 14-16 (Trustee Kamei)
3. California School Boards Association (CSBA) Delegate:  Nov 28-29 (Trustee Kamei)
4. Head Start Policy Council:  September 18 (Trustee Mah)
5. Joint Committee on Child Care (JCCC):  September 13 (Trustees Di Salvo and Rossi)
6. Joint Legislative Advisory Committee (JLAC): Sept 19 (Trustee Mah)
7. Policy Subcommittee:  Sept 5 (Trustee Song)
8. Santa Clara County School Boards Association (SCCSBA):  Sept 26  (Trustee Song)
9. Warmenhoven Inclusion Collaborative:  Sept 20  (Trustee Kamei)

1. Food instability for children in Santa Clara County, Summer 2018 (Trustee Mah)
2. Discussion on chronic absenteeism, Fall 2018 (Trustee Mah)
3. Summit Learning Platform, Fall 2018 (Trustee Di Salvo)
4. Data Trust Project, Fall 2018 (Trustee Mah)
5. Equity for API students in higher education (Vice President Song)
6. Discussion regarding the Attorney General's Opinion of County Board of Education involvement in personnel matters in Closed Session (Trustee Di Salvo)
7. History of SJ/SV 2020 (Trustee Di Salvo)
8. Discussion on developing a template as a model document for easily understood data on funding and achievement, the flow of LCCF funds, and availability of achievement LCAP outcomes data provided by CDE. (Trustee Di Salvo)
9. Discussion on California Voting Rights Act and at-large elections for seats on 31 school district boards (Trustee Di Salvo)
10. Report on how Redevelopment Agency (RDA) funds are being spent to help local school districts (Vice President Song)
11. Report and discussion of Educare of California at Silicon Valley (Vice President Song)

The next Santa Clara County Board of Education meeting is scheduled for August 30, 2018.  This will be a special board meeting. For Board agendas and meeting minutes, please see our website at www.sccoe.org under the County Board of Education page.