Ronald L. Stewart Center
77 Santa Barbara Road, Pleasant Hill, California
December 12, 2011
Special Board Meeting
ROLL CALL: Pamela Mirabella, Area 1 Trustee; Daniel Gomes, Area 3 Trustee; Richard Asadoorian, Area 4 Trustee; and Cynthia Ruehlig, Area 5 Trustee
Absent: Ellen Elster, Area 2 Trustee (due to illness)
Others: Lindy Khan and Laura Dorsey Huerta, County Office staff; Mr. and Mrs. Martin, Student A-‐ 12/12/11 and sister; Sean Fitzhugh; Norma Packer; Gene Clare, Liberty Union High School District LUHSD); and Angela Hotchkiss and Bob Sanchez, Antioch Unified School District (AUSD). A partial list of attendees is on file at the County Office of Education.
Presiding: Cynthia Ruehlig, Board President
The special meeting of the County Board of Education was called to order at 6:00 p.m. with the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA REVIEW AND ADOPTION
The agenda was unanimously adopted as presented (M/S: Gomes/Mirabella; Elster absent).
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mrs. Martin addressed the Board regarding concerns she had about some confusion surrounding the meeting time. She stated that, with regard to her involvement in the hearing this evening, she had been instructed that she would only be able to speak strictly on interdistrict transfers and that the items regarding the AUSD would not be of interest to the Board; therefore, she only needed to address her issue on the interdistrict attendance transfer and that only Mr. Clare of LUHSD would be present this evening. She noted that she had wished to be totally prepared for the Board hearing, but because she had been directed by Dr. Khan to speak only to the interdistrict attendance transfer, she was not prepared to discuss the school that Student A-‐12/12/11 is leaving in the AUSD; however, she is now aware that two representatives from the AUSD are present this evening, and Dr. Khan informed her that this was a last-‐minute situation because the AUSD told Dr. Khan this morning that they were coming. She stated that she does not feel that she is prepared because she had been directed to streamline her comments regarding the interdistrict attendance transfer as it relates to the LUHSD. She expressed concern that, since the AUSD would be the last party to present their argument, she would not have an opportunity to provide a rebuttal even though she has a great deal of information regarding her position with the AUSD. She stated that she does not want a biased viewpoint on the part of the Board since the AUSD would be the last party to speak on this matter and that she feels that she was not adequately noticed, since she only learned of the attendance by the AUSD representatives just prior to this evening’s hearing. As a result, because she was not given adequate notice, she stated that she felt it would only be fair to reschedule the hearing regarding their son’s interdistrict attendance transfer appeal to a later Board meeting so that she could adequately prepare her presentation, be able to provide a rebuttal to the AUSD’s arguments, and receive proper notification.
CLOSED SESSION
Interdistrict Attendance Transfer Appeal (Student A-12/12/11)
The parents had requested that this appeal be heard in Open Session; therefore, the Board convened in open hearing at 6:06 p.m. to consider the interdistrict attendance transfer appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Martin for their son, Student A-‐12/12/11, from the Antioch Unified School District to the Liberty Union High School District. Present at the hearing were Hearing Facilitator Lindy Khan, Ed.D.; Mr. and Mrs. Martin, Student A-‐12/12/11 and his sister; Sean Fitzhugh, youth pastor; Student A-‐12/12/11’s grandmother; Norma Packer, a friend of the family; Gene Clare, Ass’t. Superintendent, LHUSD; Angela Hotchkiss, Director of Special Education, AUSD; Bob Sanchez, Director of Student Support Services, AUSD; Board Clerk
2
Huerta; and Board Members Mirabella, Gomes, Asadoorian, and Ruehlig. Dr. Khan explained the process that would be followed during the hearing and informed the parties that after they make their presentations, the Board members would then have an opportunity to follow up on any of the information that they have heard by asking questions of the family and of either of the districts; and she indicated that if questions should arise, the parties would have an opportunity to respond to them. She also informed all parties that after the Board members have asked their questions, the Board would then convene to closed deliberation. Mrs. Mirabella requested clarification and asked why the hearing documentation on page 2 states that the district of residence would not be available; and she asked Dr. Khan if it is legal for representatives from the district of residence to attend the hearing without notifying the Board prior to the hearing. Dr. Khan responded that she has been informed that it is legal since the district of residence has a vested interest in participating, and she clarified that the AUSD did express an interest in participating in the process; however, it had been too late for them to submit anything in writing to be included in the Board packet. She clarified further that it has been past precedent to allow the district of residence to participate in a hearing if it wished to do so. Dr. Khan continued with explaining the hearing process by noting that when the Board convenes to closed deliberation, all parties would be asked to step outside the room and that they would be invited to return to the hearing in open session immediately upon the conclusion of the Board’s deliberations in order to be informed of its decision; the Board’s decision would also be mailed to the parties in writing. She stated that the Board’s determination tonight would be limited to only three options: to remand the case back to the district, to deny the appeal, or grant the appeal. She reminded the parties that the Board members have reviewed the information in their packets and that they would only need to highlight the key points in their presentations. Dr. Khan asked if the parties had any questions before the hearing began. Mrs. Martin asked that the Board Clerk note her disagreement with having the Antioch USD representatives present during the hearing because she alleged that she was not properly noticed and that, with no opportunity to rebut Antioch USD’s arguments, she asked for her objection to be placed in the record.
Dr. Khan then invited Mrs. Martin or her designee to give a 10-‐minute presentation. Mrs. Martin’s arguments included the following: the LUHSD’s Interdistrict Approval Guidelines Comparison form indicates that, with regard to special education students, all new interdistrict requests are denied, which she believes indicates a biased approach and policy by the LUHSD towards admitting special education students; and in the 2010 FCMAT report’s Findings and Recommendations, it states that, “Antioch Unified School District had more problems providing accurate special education student data than any other member district in the SELPA,” and she expanded on other problems set forth in the report. At this point, Mrs. Martin produced a letter from Ms. Hotchkiss of the AUSD dated September 3, 2011, which discusses her bullying concerns, and she offered to provide it to the Board. She then continued with the following arguments: she is concerned that the denial of their request for an interdistrict transfer might be based on the fact that Student A-‐12/12/11 had an IEP or if it was based on some other criteria, since she was confused as a parent by Mr. Clare’s reason for denial (“request does not meet above criteria”), and she requested that the Board ask Mr. Clare to address her confusion on this matter; and information provided by LUHSD on decisions made by its board regarding interdistrict transfer requests was redacted so that she could not view the different policies that were cited for each denial. Mrs. Martin then requested that the Board overturn the denial by LUHSD principally for Student A-‐12/12/11’s safety, and she asked Mr. Fitzhugh to present on this topic. Mr. Fitzhugh stated that Student A-‐12/12/11 has shared with him several instances of severe bullying that he experienced, which caused him to shut down emotionally and impacted his ability to receive an education since he found it difficult to focus on his studies out of worry for his safety; additionally, Student A-‐12/12/11 shared with him that when he complained to the district, there was not adequate action taken to ensure that the bullying would stop. He described his own experiences with keeping large groups of teenagers secure, and he expressed concern for Student A-‐12/12/11’s continued attendance at a school where he is afraid for his physical well-‐being; instead, he would like Student A-‐12/12/11 to have an opportunity to learn without feeling threatened; further, from his own experiences with bullying, he has seen a pattern where bullies tend to continue to target certain students, and he worries that this will happen to Student A-‐ 12/12/11 if he remains at the same school.
3
Dr. Khan then invited Mr. Clare to give his 10-‐minute presentation. Mr. Clare stated that he has spoken with the Martin family on numerous occasions and that he has found Student A-‐12/12/11 to be a fine young man. However, from the beginning of the family’s request for an interdistrict attendance transfer, he has explained to them that it is not about their individual child; rather, it is about the needs of the LUHSD, which is experiencing impaction in their schools because their community is still growing, with a projected 2.4% growth this year. Also, he noted that the cuts to education have left the district without the resources to address this growth. Mr. Clare shared with the Board that during the initial discussion with the Martins, he had no knowledge that their son had an IEP; however, he had explained to them that it would be doubtful that the transfer request would be approved and that he intended to recommend denial of their request; and he also explained the process for appealing their board’s decision. Later, when he was informed by the family that their son is a special education student, he explained to them that the special education programs are also impacted at this time. He stated that he understood that one of the Martins’ reasons for wanting an interdistrict transfer was that the school Student A-‐12/12/11 was attending in the AUSD was not safe; however, in speaking with Mr. Sanchez at the AUSD, he came to the conclusion that the alleged bullying could not be substantiated and that he felt that the safety issue would need to be at a very high level to prove that the student would be unsafe in any of the AUSD’s schools. He also informed the Board that the second reason stated by the family was that the LUHSD’s schools are safer and better based on test scores, and he stated in those instances when this reason was raised by the family that he would not comment on those assertions. He clarified that the LUHSD’s practice is that it does not take students outside of its district except if they are “Oakley orphans,” if they had attended an elementary school that is a feeder school of the LUHSD, and, in some cases, when they are special education students in good standing who are “Oakley orphans.” Mr. Clare summed up his presentation by reiterating that the LUHSD is currently impacted and is faced with a negative financial impact as a result of any students that are transferred into their district. Further, he noted that, based upon the reason given by the family of their perception that the LUHSD’s schools are safer and better, he is concerned that if this appeal is granted, it would send an inappropriate message to the public that an interdistrict transfer request could be granted for such reasons.
Dr. Khan then invited Mr. Sanchez to give his 10-‐minute presentation. Mr. Sanchez shared with the Board that he is here this evening not to dispute the fact that the AUSD approved the family’s request for an interdistrict attendance transfer but, rather, to dispute a number of allegations by the family regarding safety incidents that are contained in the packet of information that had been sent to the Board regarding this matter. He noted that the AUSD works very hard to create a safe environment for its students. He then provided some brief history on Student A-‐12/12/11’s enrollment in their district, and he stated that he had done some research after receiving the CCCOE Board packet to see if there were any allegations or any documentation of bullying in the AUSD’s student information system on Student A-‐12/12/11; and he noted that he was unable to find any information to substantiate the family’s claims. Mr. Sanchez clarified that there may have been some occasions where Student A-‐12/12/11 may have spoken to an administrator or a teacher but that he felt that if the bullying was ongoing and pervasive, there should have been some information listed in the student information system. Also, he noted that Student A-‐ 12/12/11 spent his entire eighth grade year in homeschooling. Mr. Sanchez offered to let Student A-‐12/12/11 attend Antioch High School, but the family would not consider that option and informed him that they wished to apply for an interdistrict attendance transfer. He shared with the Board that he had taken exception to one particular comment made by one of Student A-‐12/12/11’s parents, that they “didn’t know any district that could guarantee that my child won’t be killed.” He emphasized that if the district is unaware of bullying incidences, the situation cannot be resolved. Ms. Hotchkiss then described some of her experiences with the family with regard to Student A-‐12/12/11’s IEP. Additionally, in the letter of September 3 noted previously by Mrs. Martin, mention was made of bullying and fights; however, after immediately researching the allegations, she found no documentation; and, more importantly, she reported that there were seven certified mail attempts by her inviting the family to participate, collaborate, and partner with the AUSD, the Special Education Department, and her to resolve Student A-‐12/12/11’s situation. She noted that at one point comments were made that they wanted the opportunity for Student A-‐12/12/11 to attend a school where “the children look like him.” She described how she provided an independent evaluation of Student A-‐12/12/11 and provided a list of providers that the Contra Costa County SELPA had provided to her; however, the Martin family rejected this overture, stating that those entities were in collaboration with the AUSD and that they were not legitimate providers. Ms.
4
Hotchkiss stated that her goal and the goal of the Special Education Department and the AUSD has always been to provide the best education possible to all students, including Student A-‐12/12/11, and that the district definitely has programs and services to support him and his learning. Lastly, she stated that she has made those programs and services available to Student A-‐12/12/11, she is willing to work with him again to find an appropriate placement, and, as someone experienced with the AUSD and the LUHSD, she can assure the Board that they are both fine districts.
Dr. Khan then invited Board members to ask any questions they might have for any of the parties. Mrs. Mirabella stated that she had submitted some questions late in the day and that one of them dealt with a request for the letter of September 3, which was referenced in the packet material and offered earlier by Mrs. Martin, because it mentioned the alleged bullying. Ms. Hotchkiss noted that she would like to submit her copy of the letter, as well, because she wanted to ensure that it was the same one. Dr. Khan asked if all parties would agree to make copies of each letter available to the Board at this time, and the parties confirmed that they were in agreement. Copies were then provided to the Board. Mrs. Mirabella stated that the letter answers her question about why there is no IEP in the packet and that she feels it is important to have the IEP documented. She noted that she is also missing copies of police reports or other reports about bullying, which are considered important documentation for the Board when deciding this matter. Mrs. Mirabella asked Mrs. Martin if, during the appeal process, she had been requested to provide all pertinent documentation, and Mrs. Martin stated that she was not told to do so; rather, she alleged that she was specifically told only to concentrate on the interdistrict transfer request that was submitted to Mr. Clare; she was asked to separate both issues and not to submit any other documentation because it would be confusing to the Board; and it was suggested that she take her complaint to the SELPA group or another agency. Mrs. Martin stated that she has lots of documentation that would substantiate their consistent attempts to get an IEP established and that because the AUSD had no storage at the time, they shredded the IEP from the assessment performed three years ago in Idaho, and she described her IEP and testing experiences with the AUSD. Dr. Khan clarified for Mrs. Martin that Mrs. Mirabella was seeking copies of any police reports and other evidence attesting to the bullying, and she reminded Mrs. Martin that she had recommended that Mrs. Martin provide documentation to substantiate any reasons for which she was requesting the interdistrict transfer, which was the bullying; however, she had not asked Mrs. Martin to provide documentation on the special education process, because that had not been noted as a reason for the interdistrict transfer appeal. Mrs. Martin responded that she had understood that she was to simply rebut Mr. Clare’s statements. Mrs. Mirabella indicated that she believed her question had been answered. Mrs. Martin described how they had notified the principal and a site administrator about a bullying incident, who then agreed to take care of the matter; however, when she learned from Student A-‐12/12/11 towards the end of the school year that the bullying had continued, she arranged for Student A-‐ 12/12/11 to enter the AUSD’s homeschooling program. Mrs. Mirabella asked Mr. Clare for the enrollment figures for the ninth grade, which would document how impacted that grade is, and Mr. Clare responded that it is the largest and most impacted group of students within the district but that he did not have the actual figures with him. Mrs. Mirabella asked if Mr. Sanchez had any documentation on the alleged bullying, and he responded that he had found nothing in the student information system. Mrs. Martin pointed out that Mr. Sanchez is new to his position and was not serving in his position when the incidents occurred, and she insisted that the person formerly in the position had documented them. Mr. Asadoorian noted that usually students who are under the kind of pressure indicated in the packet tend to fall behind in their studies; however, Student A-‐ 12/12/11 maintains excellent grades. He then asked Student A-‐12/12/11 if he has direct knowledge that no one would bully him in the LUHSD, and Student A-‐12/12/11 stated that while he realizes that there is no guarantee that he would not be bullied there, he knows that certain students who attend the AUSD would no longer be bullying him and that he would be able to learn in a safe environment. Mr. Asadoorian pointed out to Student A-‐ 12/12/11 that there is no guarantee that he would not be bullied at the LUHSD, and Student A-‐12/12/11 responded that the records show that the AUSD has had constant fights and other problems and that his friends who have graduated from the LUHSD have all said that they liked the LUHSD better than their experiences at the AUSD. Mr. Asadoorian commented that he recently attended a Distinguished Schools celebration for Dozier-‐Libbey Medical High School in Antioch, and the AUSD doesn’t sound like a school district that is behind the times, has poor test scores and a rebellious student body, and he is unaware of any statistics that would indicate that the LUHSD is a better district than the AUSD. Mr. Gomes asked Ms. Hotchkiss if one of the Martins had
5
stated to her that they wanted Student A-‐12/12/11 to attend Heritage High because they want their son to attend a school where people look like Student A-‐12/12/11, and Ms. Hotchkiss stated that this was so and that the Martins requested that she get Student A-‐ 12/12/11 into the Lafayette School District because that is where all the children in their youth group lived. Mr. Gomes asked Ms. Hotchkiss who in the Martin family had stated this to her, and Ms. Hotchkiss indicated that Student A-‐12/12/11 had said it to her himself. Mr. Gomes asked Student A-‐12/12/11 if he had indeed stated this, and Student A-‐ 12/12/11 and his mother explained that the statement was taken out of context and that Student A-‐12/12/11 came from a very conservative area of Idaho with different cultural customs; therefore, Student A-‐12/12/11 had been referring to academics and social concerns, such as manner of dress; Mrs. Martin clarified further that Student A-‐12/12/11 simply wished to hang out with students with similar interests and did not mean for the statement to be construed that they are prejudiced. When Mr. Gomes followed up on this issue with Ms. Hotchkiss, she stated that she believed that, as a professional, she had understood the context of the remark; and when the family stated that they felt more comfortable in Lafayette, she had suggested that they could either buy a home there or pay for a private school. Mrs. Ruehlig then asked Student A-‐12/12/11 what was meant in his mother’s paperwork by the term “visual processing” and whether he requires something for his vision, and Student A-‐12/12/11 responded that he sometimes needs to wear glasses when his eyes get tired and needs more help and extra time to complete certain tasks. Mrs. Ruehlig asked if this issue has been resolved, and Student A-‐12/12/11 stated that, while he now has glasses, he still needs more time on tests. Mrs. Ruehlig asked if the AUSD is not able to accommodate his need to take longer time to read, and Student A-‐ 12/12/11 explained that the AUSD had failed to provide additional testing for other things that he felt he needed help with. Mrs. Ruehlig asked Ms. Hotchkiss if there was some testing requirement that was not provided to Student A-‐12/12/11, and Ms. Hotchkiss assured her that all necessary testing was done and that she has an assessment plan that was signed on February 16, 2011, in which the district had proposed to test in all areas of suspected disability and had agreed to all private, independent evaluations from the list of providers supplied by the Contra Costa County SELPA. She also described the many services and special accommodations that would be available to Student A-‐12/12/11 at either comprehensive high school in the AUSD for his specific needs. Mr. Gomes asked Mrs. Martin why she would not want to send her son to the AUSD when they are willing to provide so many services, and Mrs. Martin responded that her son went from “proficient” level in the STAR testing in Idaho to “below proficient” after he had been at the middle school in AUSD for seven months; also, Student A-‐12/12/11’s test scores rose 28 points after his homeschooling. Mrs. Martin also informed the Board that she has a 33-‐page police report involving incidents at Deer Valley High School and that she is worried that the same students who bullied Student A-‐12/12/11 in middle school would now bully him in high school. Mrs. Ruehlig asked Mr. Sanchez if Student A-‐12/12/11 was at one time attending Prospects High School, and Mr. Sanchez clarified that the homeschooling program is offered through Prospects High School. Mrs. Ruehlig asked how many high schools are in the AUSD, and Mr. Sanchez responded that the high schools are Antioch High School, Deer Valley High School, Dozier-‐Libbey Medical High School (which is a lottery-‐based high school), the alternative education program, the independent study program through Prospects High School, and two continuation schools. Mr. Asadoorian and Mr. Gomes discussed with Student A-‐12/12/11 why it might be that other students pick on him and how he might handle future bullying. Mrs. Ruehlig asked Student A-‐ 12/12/11 if he has friends in Antioch, and Student A-‐12/12/11 stated that they either attend his church or are all homeschooled. Mrs. Mirabella asked Student A-‐12/12/11 what actions he took to report the bullying incidents to school personnel, and Student A-‐ 12/12/11 responded that he told his special resources teacher, who tried but was unsuccessful in stopping the bullying, as well as several other teachers. Mrs. Mirabella asked if the incidents had been documented, and Student A-‐12/12/11 stated that he did not believe that the teacher documented the incidents but that office personnel eventually documented the bullying once he realized that the teacher had not successfully resolved the matter. Mrs. Mirabella asked Student A-‐12/12/11 how his previous education in Idaho differed from the education he received in Antioch, and Student A-‐12/12/11 responded that Idaho schools provided a cleaner environment, were stricter, did not permit students to bully one another without consequences, taught accurately, made sure that the students understood what they were supposed to be learning, and made sure that they kept up their STAR testing scores. Mrs. Mirabella asked specifically about differences in his educational program with regard to the special services he received, and Student A-‐ 12/12/11 described these services. Mrs. Ruehlig asked Mr. Sanchez if the AUSD has a bullying policy and if the Martins had been provided with a copy of it, and Mr. Sanchez assured her that the
6
AUSD’s bullying policy is in the parent handbook that is distributed to all parents. Mrs. Ruehlig asked if the policy specifies what the student and the parents should do when bullying is experienced by the student, and Mr. Sanchez responded that all bullying must be reported to the administration and that there is a section that describes the consequences of bullying for the perpetrator. Mrs. Ruehlig asked if all reports of bullying are kept in the student’s file or in a separate file, and Mr. Sanchez replied that they should be placed into the student information system under the discipline file. Mrs. Ruehlig asked if, during his search for documentation on the alleged bullying, Mr. Sanchez had asked Student A-‐12/12/11 for the names of bullies, and Mr. Sanchez stated that his research occurred after the fact; however, Ms. Hotchkiss stated that she had asked that question when the Martins met with her, since she had begun the process before Mr. Sanchez moved into his new position. She noted that she had investigated the matters thoroughly with the administration, as well as with the AUSD Executive Director of Educational Services at the secondary level, and that she found absolutely no information entered into any student information system or backup documentation of any kind. Mrs. Ruehlig asked Ms. Hotchkiss if she had specifically asked Student A-‐12/12/11 for names of bullies, and Ms. Hotchkiss stated that, even though she spoke with Student A-‐12/12/11 at great length on several occasions to investigate which students were involved in the bullying, Student A-‐12/12/11 did not provide any names; rather, he gave blanket comments such as, “the cafeteria was locked down for a fight.” Mr. Gomes asked Mr. Martin what the family would do if the Board votes to deny their appeal, and Mr. Martin stated that they do not know the answer to that but that he feels it is interesting that everyone can shirk the responsibility for something that should be an easy problem to take care of. The Board members asked him which persons were doing this, and Mr. Martin clarified that he just feels the school districts involved do not care or feel it is their problem. Mrs. Ruehlig asked the Martins on which portion of the Board’s regulation they are basing their appeal, and Mrs. Martin referred her to the specific arguments made in her paperwork where she responded to each basis listed in the Board’s regulation. Dr. Khan directed Mrs. Ruehlig to review the information on pages 9-‐11, which represent the arguments that the family wished the Board to consider.
The Board recessed to closed deliberation at 7:15 p.m. The Board reconvened to open session at 7:25 p.m. Hearing Facilitator Lindy Khan, Ed.D., announced that the Contra Costa County Board of Education voted 4-‐0 (Elster absent) to deny the interdistrict attendance transfer appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Martin based upon CCCOE Board of Education Administrative Regulation 5200(E)(3.2) (attendance of the student from out of the district would increase a district’s maximum class size or negatively affect the existing collective bargaining contract).
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 7:26 p.m.
Joseph A. Ovick, Ed.D., Ex Officio Secretary County Board of Education
Copies of all resolutions adopted by the Board are on file in the Office of the Superintendent, Ex Officio Secretary of the Board of Education.
These unadopted minutes are summaries and excerpts from the special Board meeting of December 12, 2011, and are subject to amendments and/or correction prior to the approval of the County Board of Education.
