School board reviews request calling for an independent consultant to review practices
SMMUSD HDQTRS Trying to act on a promise made to the City Council earlier this year, the Board of Education reviewed a request for proposals last Thursday to hire an independent consultant to assess a controversial special education program.
The council requested the school board to conduct a comprehensive assessment of its program after several parents of special education children raised concerns over so-called secret deals that they said barred them from speaking to a third party regarding the services their children received.
The draft RFP would ask the consultant to review several elements of the special education program, including financial, programming, policies and the very settlement agreements wherein the confidentiality agreements are said to exist.
The board in July temporarily pulled the plug on the practice of confidentiality agreements until the review is completed.
An estimated cost for the consultant has not been determined, according to Chief Financial Officer Stephen Hodgson. The review is expected to be completed prior to the release of a final report due March of 2008.
Earlier in the week, the Special Education District Advisory Committee reviewed the draft RFP and submitted suggestions, including broadening the scope of services, which it felt were too narrow and would result in “yes” or “no” answers. The committee also suggested that the consultant should expand its scope of the settlement agreements, asking questions such as whether other districts conduct settlement agreements in a way that the services received are not written into the student’s Individualized Education Plan, which outlines the services the child receives during the school year. Some SEDAC members in the past have alleged that the secret deals do not leave a paper trail of the special education services that were received because they were not written into the IEP.
The school board seemed to generally agree that the scope of services should be broadened, some raising concerns that the SEDAC recommendations should not be brushed aside and should be implemented into the draft. Many board members said there doesn’t seem to be a huge gap between what is listed in the RFP and the wishes of the advisory committee.
Board members received a copy of the recommendations shortly before the board meeting.
“I hope it’s not put on the wayside and are looked into,” said Board Member Maria Leon-Vazquez.
Craig Hamilton, a member of the district’s Financial Oversight Committee, pointed out that the RFP is stretched out into various areas of expertise and suggested that whomever is chosen be given the option of bringing in a consultant with a different background. For example, if a firm with a strong financial background is chosen, it would have the ability to secure another firm with expertise in program policy matters.
“We have eight potential providers,” Hamilton said. “The question is whether we can get that in any one entity.”
One of the eight providers being considered is the Financial Crisis & Management Assistance Team, which conducted an assessment of the school district’s finances earlier this year. Superintendent Dianne Talarico said FCMAT would determine what the district’s needs are before bringing in a team of experts. One of the suggestions of SEDAC in its review of the RFP was that the consultant disclose whether they were ever employed by the district in the past.
The draft RFP is expected to return to the school board for another look at its Oct. 4 meeting.
“I think it needs to be an open process and I think that’s what we’re doing,” Board Member Barry Snell said on Friday.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 1, 2007. Read the original PDF.