SCOE and Superintendent: undated joint final response

Response says

Wholly disagrees. Respondents argue the elected Superintendent is accountable to voters, cite salary-setting law and Board Bylaw 9500, and describe the compensation structure approved after a 2022 comparator study.

Audit analysis

The response clearly disputes the asserted evaluation duty and explains its legal/governance position with named authorities and a dated salary-setting process (pages 1–2). It does not establish a court ruling or independently verify compensation comparisons; its disagreement is not scored as a failure to engage.

Response says

Defers to the County Board and argues an evaluation policy for an elected Superintendent is not warranted.

Audit analysis

These respondents do not adopt a disposition on the separate Board’s behalf. Their legal objection is clear, but no separate Board response or policy decision is established.

Response says

Wholly disagrees. Respondents distinguish approximately 80 SCOE SDC students from about 720 students countywide, explain preliminary/clear credentials and other CTC authorizations, and supply teacher tables for multiple school years.

Audit analysis

Pages 2–5 give a specific legal and numerical rebuttal with checkable authorizations. The tables also acknowledge a permit obtained after one assignment began and a later reassignment followed by a permit. Those temporal exceptions are not fully reconciled with wholly disagree; coverage is partial, and the tables/2026–2027 pending authorizations are agency evidence, not independent certification of compliance.

Response says

Calls the recommendation implemented, says an additional audit was performed and all 2026–2027 teachers comply, and rejects a written plan as unwarranted.

Audit analysis

Pages 4–5 assert audit completion and expressly explain why no corrective plan is proposed. The table includes a temporary teaching certificate and a substitute permit with a pending intern application; no independent eligibility or timing determination is made. Implemented is the agency’s label, not verified satisfaction of every requirement.

Response says

Partially agrees with the importance of timely IEPs, acknowledges that isolated missed timelines may occur and disputes evidence of systemic failure; says specific cases and metrics were not identified.

Audit analysis

Agreement with a principle is not a clear admission of the finding’s factual claim. The response does not identify which actual delays it accepts or rejects, while rebutting a systemic characterization not expressly required by the finding. Its partial position/disputed scope is incomplete. Monitoring descriptions are specific but no case-level compliance data are supplied.

Response says

Calls tracking implemented through long-used SEIS and audits, but expressly will not require psychologists at every meeting.

Audit analysis

The response combines an implemented-system claim with an explicit refusal of universal attendance and legal explanation. No single unqualified disposition covers all requested parts. Continued review/training has no new completion deadline.

Response says

Wholly disagrees. Respondents cite 34 C.F.R. § 300.321, distinguish required team roles from universal psychologist attendance and describe collaborative IEP preparation.

Audit analysis

Pages 7–8 separately answer participant and authorship claims with a concrete legal explanation, and state no known specific meeting lacked a required psychologist. This addresses the finding without independently verifying attendance at every meeting or deciding the legal dispute.

Response says

Calls existing SEIS tracking implemented and cross-refers to R3 while limiting psychologists to meetings where required or appropriate.

Audit analysis

This repeats the mixed implemented/refused components of R3. Existing-system claims do not establish the complete written process or universal participant requirement requested by the jury.

Response says

Wholly disagrees. Respondents say pictured marks are water stains, describe December 2025 and June 2026 professional inspections and lower indoor spore counts, and deny mold-related prolonged exposure.

Audit analysis

Pages 8–10 identify a site, inspection dates, comparative samples, photographs (22–24), two corrected deficiencies and landlord-owned drainage. This is a traceable rebuttal to the alleged risk and delay, not independent proof that all sites were mold-free; full inspection reports are described rather than reproduced.

Response says

Says implemented and will be completed within 120 days; all 2026–2027 classrooms are being scheduled for professional inspection, with remediation limited to hazards within SCOE’s control.

Audit analysis

Pages 9–10 describe work still being scheduled and conditional correction, so this is not full completion despite the opening label. No verified start anchor for 120 days is available in this undated response; do not calculate a calendar deadline or assume pre-school-year completion. Board confirmation is not clearly committed, and landlord drainage remains outside claimed authority.

Response says

Wholly disagrees. Respondents deny an off-campus requirement and explain scheduled library periods and teacher choices, including a discontinued visit after concerns about damaged books.

Audit analysis

Pages 10–11 explain the specific disputed access claim rather than merely asserting compliance. The described incidents and site rules are not accompanied by access records; the response does not independently establish equal access for every class.

Response says

Will not implement a separate policy as unwarranted; promises continued coordination with host districts and attention to scheduling problems.

Audit analysis

The refusal and legal/operational reason are explicit. Voluntary coordination is an alternative, not adoption of the requested written policy.

Response says

Wholly disagrees. Respondents cite complaint/nondiscrimination policies, distinguish formal complaints from informal concerns and say they are unaware of unaddressed complaints while proposing stronger documentation.

Audit analysis

Pages 11–12 explain the disputed allegation and name SP/AR 1312.1 and 4030 plus an online policy source. Policy existence and a proposed documentation improvement do not verify every complaint was investigated or refute particular protected accounts; no case-level records are supplied.

Response says

Will not revise policies as unwarranted, citing recent policy revisions; commits to more formal complaint documentation.

Audit analysis

The response distinguishes following/documenting existing procedures from revising them. No completion date is adopted for the documentation improvement.

Response says

Wholly disagrees. Respondents distinguish student-fee protections under Education Code § 49011 from teacher stipends, describe annual purchasing procedures and an April 2026 $600 Amazon-list budget, and say supply support is documented.

Audit analysis

The response directly disputes the legal premise and answers the documentation issue with a dated purchasing example. The cited email and payment records are described, not attached; this is documentary engagement, not verification that all requested funds or supplies were delivered.

Response says

Will not perform the requested stipend audit, disputing the legal premise; instead will review denied supply requests and possible process improvements by December 31, 2026.

Audit analysis

Pages 13–14 clearly refuse the requested audit and specify a different dated review. That alternative is not a promise to distribute stipends or provide the requested two-year accounting.

Response says

Partially disagrees. Respondents list administrative credentials for 2024–2025 and 2025–2026, including an initial Certificate of Eligibility followed by a preliminary credential.

Audit analysis

Pages 14–15 address credentials with tables and CTC guidance but do not identify the accepted part of the partial position or answer the bargaining-unit/collective-bargaining consequences. The disputed scope is incomplete even though credential reasoning is traceable.

Response says

Calls the recommendation implemented and provides a 2026–2027 table of six administrators with clear administrative credentials.

Audit analysis

Implementation is the agency’s assertion supported by a credential table, not an independent audit or finding about collective-bargaining consequences.

Response says

Partially disagrees. Respondents accept voluntary withdrawal without Board approval, dispute federal funding and the 400–450 count, identify about 275 participants/25 budgeted paid placements, and argue specific WA1 participation and Board authorization are not legally required.

Audit analysis

Pages 15–17 explicitly separate accepted withdrawal from disputed funding, counts, authority and service requirements, citing state law/policy and CDE information. They question the meaning of student-impact analysis and assert continued mandatory services without supplying student outcome records. Clear engagement is not verification of equivalent transition services or a legal ruling.

Response says

Will not implement the SCOE-directed portion as unwarranted; describes staffing difficulties and continued mandatory transition services, and offers to review contrary legal authority.

Audit analysis

This is not a separate Board refusal, restoration plan, written accounting or 180-day reporting schedule. It preserves the respondents’ own limited scope and conditional legal-review alternative.

Response says

Wholly disagrees. Respondents distinguish local school-district staff from SCOE staff, deny routine insufficiency statements to their own teachers and say reserves/materials are adequate.

Audit analysis

The response addresses both readings of the finding and explains its position, but provides no reserve balance, denied-request inventory or contemporaneous staff communications. Coverage and explanation are not proof of budget sufficiency.

Response says

Defers to the County Board because the recommendation is directed there.

Audit analysis

No separate Board commitment or decision on commissioning an independent review is contained here. Do not substitute SCOE’s reserve-sufficiency claim for that decision.

Response says

Wholly disagrees. Respondents cite the SELPA Plan, distinguish an interview panel from an appointing authority, describe a declined offer and a candidate referred from another panel, and emphasize administrative experience.

Audit analysis

Pages 18–19 answer hiring process and expertise concerns with a specific account and named governing plan. They do not independently establish special-education depth or disprove confidential witness accounts; management confidence is not a demonstrated compliance outcome.

Response says

Defers to the County Board and argues hiring responsibility rests with the Superintendent.

Audit analysis

Pages 18–19 state an authority objection but no independent Board response or promised review. No implementation deadline is adopted by these respondents.

Response says

Wholly disagrees. Respondents acknowledge locks but deny a seclusion purpose/use, cite supervision and a May 2026 hazard assessment, and describe replacement with door sensors.

Audit analysis

Pages 19–21 give a clear legal/safety rationale and acknowledged hardware. The finding concerns capability to confine, not only intent or past isolation; the response does not fully reconcile that distinction, so coverage is partial. A described hazard review and replacement program are not independent legal or completion findings.

Response says

Calls removal implemented while also saying replacement has begun; rejects a separate SCOE restraint policy as unnecessary under existing law and host-district policies.

Audit analysis

Pages 20–21 combine a completion label, ongoing sensor replacement and refusal of a separate policy. Full removal/inspection coverage and the requested 30-day policy adoption/distribution are not established.