CSWD comments to the SCUSD Board of Education on the Local Plan for Special Education & Annual Budget & Service Plans


Post was submittted in writing to the SCUSD Board of Education on 6/24/21. Comments were submitted prior to the Distric's PowerPoint being posted.

Post was edited 6/27/21 in order to cite sources.

11.3 Public Hearing:  SCUSD SELPA Local Plan – Governance, Annual Budget Plan, Annual Service Plan (Christine Baeta, Dr. Sadie Hedegard, and Geovanni Linares)


This is the first year that the SELPA Director mentioned creating the committee required by CA Ed Code for Special Education Local Plan development. In past years when the question was asked about forming the committee, the administration danced around the question. 


As mentioned in our comment on item 9.3, the plan which is being presented to you has lacked CAC parent participation. 


This year's CAC meetings have given more time to presentations and updates by SCTA and introducing SCTA members than to the local planning process or discussions focused on improving the experiences of students. This is unacceptable.


There are several compliance issues with the Local Planning and Budget process for special education in SCUSD:


  1. Parent members of the CAC have not officially been invited to attend the committee to develop the Local Plan*. The Committee was mentioned at the last CAC meeting, but an invite did not go out yet to our knowledge.
  2. The CAC has not had 30 days to review the Local plan prior to its submission to the Superintedent, which is a requirement under the CA Ed code*.
  3. If the CAC did have a "schedule of regular consultations regarding policy and budget development*" , as required under the CA Ed code*, then the following would be shared with and open to participation of CAC members:
  • Schedule of meetings
  • Information garnered from consultation meetings
  • Written records of meeting discussions and input given to the SELPA/Board of Education

This information is unbeknownst to the general CAC membership.

In addition, CAC general members have not been allowed to join the Budget subcommittee as the current Executive members of the subcommittee have stated they want to limit it to two members (themselves). The subcommittee is also functioning as an adhoc; however, adhoc committees are short term** per the Ralph M. Brown Act, which the CAC is subject to. The CAC's Budget subcommittee has spanned multiple years. Due to the ongoing and substantive nature of this subcommittee, the Buget subcommittee would appropriately be a standing committee with meetings properly noticed and open to members of the CAC and the public. 



*Summary of California Education Codes related to Special Education Local Planning


**Ralph M. Brown Act/CAC Guidelines 2011