The San Jose Unified School District board of directors on Wednesday night rejected key findings from a Santa Clara County civil jury that attacked the South Bay's largest school district on a wide range of issues, from student safety to access to board meetings.
In a five-hour meeting marked by long discussions, tensions and, at times, scathing criticism of the grand jury itself, saying it was too old and too white, the board unanimously approved a response that rejected almost all the regulator's findings.
“I'm concerned about … the racial makeup of this grand jury,” said Chairwoman Wendi Mahaney-Gurahoo. “It doesn't represent the people we serve. I'm concerned that it's mostly white people telling us, 'We don't like what you're doing.' And I'm a white person.”
The Santa Clara County Superior Court, which convenes a civil grand jury every year to analyze complaints about problems with public facilities, said the grand jury's findings were its own. The foreman of the civil grand jury that issued the report didn’t reply to a request for comment.
The district had 90 days to reply from the June 10 release of the grand jury's civil report, but urged board members to approve the response Wednesday night to resolve the difficulty before school starts in two weeks.
The civil court grand jury tossed the 42-page report last month, which raised concerns about unusually high turnover amongst school administrators, a scarcity of student health centers, problems with school safety and investigations of staff, and a general lack of transparency. The report also faulted the district's school board for failing to make sure district accountability and supply leadership.
District 24-page written response alternated between acknowledging its “dark” history of the past 40 years – a court order to desegregate schools, bankruptcy, labor disputes, and the arrest of the previous superintendent for stealing money and forgery – and stating the numerous progress already made in lots of areas where the civil jury system needs improvement.
Renata Sanchez, president of the San Jose Unified State College Teachers Association, reiterated the progress the district has already made in public comment at Wednesday's meeting.
“There are no findings in this report that I have not already discussed with district leaders,” she said. “…The findings already address areas that have been identified as growth areas for the district…We still have a lot of room to grow, but we have laid some groundwork.”
The district's response said the grand jury's findings were baseless, misleading and narrow-minded. The district said the 80 civil jury interviews weren’t representative of the district's community, limited in scope and heavily concentrated in two of the district's 41 schools.
“The San Jose Unified School District is disappointed that the Civil Grand Jury report consists largely of opinions that are not supported by specific and accurate examples, properly interpreted data, or thorough research,” the district said in its response.
District leaders and board members expressed respect for the civil grand jury and its work, but additionally questioned the variety of its members and investigative methods.
According to the 2023 Civil Grand Jury DemographicsOf the 58 potential jurors, 78% were white and 59% were 65 years of age or older.
Trustee Carla Collins said her interview with the civil jury left her feeling “troubled” about democracy and the biased view of the investigation.
“I left feeling … concerned that this was asking for trouble if an important checks and balances system in our country was being used in this way,” Collins said. “What I experienced was a small, silent group led by some obviously disgruntled, empowered members.”
Parents' reactions were mixed: some echoed the district's criticism of the civil jury, while others expressed disappointment on the district's decision to reject the report's findings.
“I was really disappointed and concerned that most of the response to the report was just denial and defensiveness,” said Trudi McCanna, a Willow Glen mother. “If we can't admit we have problems, we can't address them.”
The board was unable to succeed in agreement in two areas: school safety and public access to board meetings. The district's response acknowledged that further evaluation must be done on safety planning and emergency responsibilities, but additionally criticized the grand jury for not interviewing two key district safety officials.
The Board also discussed the civil jury's findings regarding public access to Board meetings, ultimately adding that it could explore options to potentially live stream or video record meetings in the longer term.
Currently, Silicon Valley's largest district doesn’t videotape meetings or publish presentations used at board meetings. Community members can access audio recordings and meeting agendas online, but must request supporting documents or attend meetings in person to participate.
District Superintendent Nancy Albarrán, who said she enjoys watching other school districts' public board meetings, said the district's decision to not live stream or record the meetings could also be unpopular but stems from a desire to get monetary savings, protect community members' privacy and avoid disruption.
Albarrán went on to say that in a big district like San Jose Unified, where there may be “a lot of diversity of opinion,” the boardroom isn’t the very best place for discussions. She said livestreaming or recording board meetings would disrupt the best way the board operates since it introduces “unpredictable elements.”
However, community members argued that the district's refusal to record and live stream meetings excluded those that couldn’t attend in person and led to misunderstanding or confusion.
The county acknowledged that the civil jury's report was limited because members only had access to publicly available data and documents, but Trustee Teresa Castellanos argued that was the entire problem.
“The community doesn't know what we're doing,” she said. “This gave us an excellent opportunity to comment on our actions, but we shouldn't have to comment on our actions in front of a civil jury. We should be doing this on a regular basis and communicating on a regular basis.”
Originally published:
image credit : www.mercurynews.com