[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6208254,"mediaKeyId","3749290-b5b298fcba253d3feb673f5a0440130f","parentId",3749290,"title","San Bernardino County Board adopts 2025–26 LCAP after discussion of state BOP changes and equity funds","audioSeconds",2796,"startMs",2590000,"endMs",5386000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3749290-b5b298fcba253d3feb673f5a0440130f&start=2590&end=5386","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3749290-b5b298fcba253d3feb673f5a0440130f/thumbnail_2590000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6208254/California/San-Bernardino-County-Board-adopts-202526-LCAP-after-discussion-of-state-BOP-changes-and-equity-funds","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208254-ff0ce5fa4372d665a6344240314fe6b4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184320&Signature=K3VstaMWCAaxRi6TIjUJi0yq0q5eermPSv7f0hEFiLWwhxBwLXQQFF6w~KK~gF13zq~oDuyTz~Bkmvzl1HgZVqLG72MiKQpJhEvqxLlHx4Tg0hUuw9X5~o-8QC9KsNSX997rWqR2AESj7iACYtCAAWRkRYZLLbaww1-t0RqRx0dlPyI6WwGmW80llc0TJbCJUPGlBgY3x2tVRotn6tX3cnMsWd0o7PLDYJeGo50ig~eiXNhFw078IwA5H4rSSJuIgMqRRUjs1vGuqSn3MAzS4JlGC-sRWQNYj2q4f7wDfbme6JRoJKltJ5j8791ubB0knShCwNx7KES9uVl8sa1mCA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","San Bernardino County Office of Education","date","2025-06-11T00:24:07.443Z","article","The San Bernardino County Board of Education voted to adopt the Student Services 2025–26 Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) at its June 18 meeting, after staff described an updated state Budget Overview for Parents (BOP) format and answered questions about how the county will use supplemental/concentration and other funds to support alternative education students.

The LCAP adoption followed a staff presentation from Student Services, led by Dr. Angela Brantley, and discussion of changes the California Department of Education had made to the county-office BOP showing LCFF funding and the proportion allocated directly to alternative education programs. Dr. Brantley described the county office plan as year two of a three-year LCAP and highlighted actions to support literacy (including Lindamood-Bell training), student support and dual-enrollment pathways to improve college-and-career indicators.

Board members pressed for clarity on several points, including the state’s timeline for the new BOP format, the calculation of the required minimum supplemental/concentration percentage (the plan cites a minimum of 9.048% and a planned allocation of about 11.443%), and whether the plan adds new services or largely carries forward existing actions. Staff explained the BOP change was intended to make LCFF allocations easier for parents to understand and that the 11.443% figure reflects the county’s chosen actions that are funded with LCFF, above the statutory minimum.

Members also discussed metrics and goals in the plan. School staff described how the county measures growth (pre/post STAR assessments) rather than State Dashboard proficiency for some community-school metrics, and defended an ambitious target that 80% of students demonstrate growth over the plan’s three-year term, while acknowledging the county’s transient and high-need student population can complicate year-to-year comparisons.

After public and board discussion, Member MacCachlan moved to approve the Student Services 2025–26 LCAP. The motion carried. One board member recorded a dissent on the LCAP adoption, saying the plan did not propose enough new services to raise students to state proficiency standards.

The LCAP packet attached to board materials includes the full BOP pages, metrics tables, actions tied to goals 1–3 (literacy, college-and-career readiness, equity multiplier actions) and a supplemental-concentration expenditure table.

The board vote completes the county office’s local approval step; the California Department of Education remains the approving authority for county-office LCAP submissions.

Staff follow-up: board members requested an information item or correspondence showing the percentage of unduplicated students countywide (staff agreed to provide the specific percentage in board correspondence), confirmation of which sites generate the equity-multiplier funding, and a clearer explanation of the 9.048% minimum versus the 11.443% planned allocation.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","County Board Meeting June 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The San Bernardino County Board of Education voted to adopt the Student Services 2025–26 Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) at its June 18 meeting, following staff presentations about an updated state Budget Overview for Parents and the county’s use of supplemental funding.","taxTitle","San Bernardino County Office of Education, School Districts, California","taxId",56354,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6208240,"Board approves 5% monthly increase for members and 1.63% salary increase for superintendent after debate",261,10031000,10292000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3749290-b5b298fcba253d3feb673f5a0440130f&start=10031&end=10292","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3749290-b5b298fcba253d3feb673f5a0440130f/thumbnail_10031000.jpg","/articles/6208240/California/Board-approves-5-monthly-increase-for-members-and-163-salary-increase-for-superintendent-after-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208240-1d1e8fa3ebd51278e244a6dddb30872f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184320&Signature=TYWGd~3Yo2TZcJUPGSsjp~dciVYC0YWnzBZdZXEQUN4LMwyv2X8yabT02AEUVD~dLCgfjPP~lB5XLcTO~KNkRx0DhYkA-gbXdB5Qt~gLRmvlnsUWwBnHtxv4hP8ZM4TnmTPe0z8NcgyLHoZ49jwjF5yh31j0nkFJc5VO16GNjkASFC6ZD4IJWYe2HcDkfPbuxxt-eW4cETT7NS~vykrwtVDlJ1QClmpLEpVA-Q0c4-kk4EMbFSHc2kxnNyBvGuUPaLuxdZzGq~rNbRjhI5QVvzgzU7N4L781diJD9WPyF5mtmpx0~9~a3SEkuFGny4tswep0a5DI1reahW53vqdjSg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Bernardino County Board of Education voted on June 18 to increase board member compensation and to adjust the superintendent’s salary for 2024–25.

Board compensation: The board approved a 5% increase to the monthly stipend for board members, raising the amount to $601.99 per month (from $573.32). The motion was presented with background comparisons to other Class 2 county boards and passed without recorded opposition.

Superintendent salary: The board also approved a 1.63% cost-of-living adjustment to the superintendent’s base salary, increasing the annual base to $372,911 effective July 1, 2025. The salary item prompted more discussion: some board members raised concerns about responsiveness and the pace of follow-through on board requests. One board member announced she would not support the superintendent’s raise, citing dissatisfaction with communication and action on board priorities. The motion passed by majority vote.

Context and next steps: During discussion members referenced pending state legislation (discussed elsewhere in the meeting) that may change how boards set compensation. Staff warned that language and implementation details are still pending at the Legislature and said they would analyze implications if the law changes. The board asked staff to follow up with legislative analysis and to clarify processes in the event state law is amended.

Votes recorded: Board-member compensation motion carried unanimously; superintendent salary motion carried with one dissent recorded.","The San Bernardino County Board of Education approved a 5% increase to board member compensation and a 1.63% cost-of-living adjustment for the superintendent’s base salary amid discussion of legislative proposals and member concerns about responsiveness and transparency.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6208245,"Two public commenters allege special-education failures and retaliation at Etiwanda School District; request county action",152,2197000,2349000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3749290-b5b298fcba253d3feb673f5a0440130f&start=2197&end=2349","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3749290-b5b298fcba253d3feb673f5a0440130f/thumbnail_2197000.jpg","/articles/6208245/California/Two-public-commenters-allege-special-education-failures-and-retaliation-at-Etiwanda-School-District-request-county-action","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208245-31db209cb0918256b79460eb7e26a263/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184320&Signature=T2uh9paMVD3QMeyl7EGwpRgkXuqNPq60JNKronBw8blxHYf5q3VJybAkg~yXkeQ-S1umSVl8nUIWEuJWg8rHa31TMQLSY5--IwyfNxMvpqa~4TWwT56TlbFdaJwj6ujx6FFBgkIzDbhSJchfNhr6cQzJnLDeRHUmZHFGlQ4OSoAW7KAui2JMXo~zKCBHV8pv7Q4QIe7z2iOAChQxPGE6SzyDh3ekT4sFvPsoR-xCVkW6dK~-CxwsamVn2ZsAwLLnAaLqc-gzyq3HMReovhAR6Kag4Qsw~vEoN0ZCzkWMm5LkKeEPdSTPDfzbTzmLUwaB3xeJCFpH42o9dXrfglhzpA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the June 18 meeting, two members of the public used the matters-brought-by-citizens period to directly criticize special-education practice at Etiwanda School District and to ask the county superintendent’s office to intervene.

Des Alvarez told the board he believed the county superintendent’s office had not held Etiwanda accountable after an \"inappropriate\" psychoeducational evaluation of his son. Alvarez said the psychologist evaluated the child while the child was medicated and that he had informed the psychologist of a negative medication reaction; he called the resulting report inaccurate and ‘‘defamatory’’ and said that he had been denied records he requested from a SELPA office. Alvarez said the evaluation described behaviors that did not match his son’s school records and that he had removed his child from site-based school because of the report. He asked the county office to remove the report from his child’s record and to produce related SELPA records.

Antoinette Jensen said she had reported abuse by staff in her classroom at Etiwanda and experienced retaliation. Jensen said she filed a Williams complaint; she alleged the district admitted to no wrongdoing and that conditions persisted for young students in special education (no changing tables, unsanitary conditions, lack of staff). She raised concerns about conflicts of interest and asked the board to investigate.

The county superintendent’s office did not take formal action during the meeting but was addressed directly by the speakers. The board did not make a motion; county staff note these were public comments and follow normal channels for complaints (complaint investigations and records requests) rather than immediate board intervention.

What the speakers said is recorded verbatim in the transcript. The board’s public-facing response at the meeting was limited to receiving the comments; staff did not announce any special investigation or formal next steps on the record during the meeting.

Follow-up: The county office’s normal process for special-education and Williams complaints is to accept a submitted complaint, review jurisdiction and records, and, where appropriate, investigate or coordinate with the SELPA/district. Complainants in this meeting specifically named Etiwanda School District, the Weston SELPA (as spelled in public comment) and an outside attorney; staff said publicly that an investigation pathway exists but did not describe open investigative steps at the meeting.","During public comment, two speakers accused Etiwanda School District and outside counsel of mishandling special-education evaluations and of retaliatory behavior; they asked the county superintendent’s office to investigate and to produce records.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6208249,"Board approves 2025–26 county budget and County Schools Service Fund; members press for budget detail on restricted balances",1810,5420000,7230000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3749290-b5b298fcba253d3feb673f5a0440130f&start=5420&end=7230","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3749290-b5b298fcba253d3feb673f5a0440130f/thumbnail_5420000.jpg","/articles/6208249/California/Board-approves-202526-county-budget-and-County-Schools-Service-Fund-members-press-for-budget-detail-on-restricted-balances","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208249-3fca5c4d73a40eea29b44b550e435b7f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184320&Signature=ESCMfbidXkPejW-D5QDkk34fYL6tvMk0jweJXjM5OmpuIdjwn9Kf11Z5v-p2lE0Tnhj~I2mjR8TqYetiSgpVDJiQNmHTU91f8EF~JkVaIV8n0vOXCXqRMbzhqNlsuyKHSW3psaQ0Km7Xx0pGnFAL4C5Kanse2V8zzSKoiYctOvRcZHeCIktYxESGvBW4eOEHMz-4MDx6kEcP98-kvL7z~~WccqtK6fECmrt6lRllsET8FtWFGpJ4rZM3dgZ~gjK5Vp0thHCqnfEnSYyPwMJuTg6vYoXNk7Si4ETBFh1bAD~3g60EMmmOMnaLOO866Vha-5FRQoTWiIM-xE25o73nJw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Bernardino County Board of Education approved the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools’ proposed budgets for 2025–26, including the general fund (proposed 2025–26 budget) and the County Schools Service Fund.

Staff described minimal changes since the May workshop, noting the state May Revision reduced the statewide Proposition 98 projection slightly and trimmed the LCFF COLA from 2.43% to 2.3%. Finance staff said restricted revenue increased largely because some employer-paid STRS contributions must be recorded on the county books (an accounting/GASB recognition) and that routine facility repair costs were shifted to restricted funding where appropriate. Estimated ending fund balances were reported as roughly $197 million total (about $51 million unrestricted and about $145 million restricted).

Board members sought and received clarifications about the accounting treatment (property tax flows and mandated transfers to special education), whether the restricted balances could be shown in more detail, and why the STRS on-behalf entries appear in the May-to-June reconciliation. Staff agreed to bring a more detailed breakdown of the restricted fund balance to the board in August.

The County Schools Service Fund budget was approved after discussion; one member said publicly she would not support the Service Fund budget data because she believed it was not sufficiently focused on direct student services. The Board also adopted several related items in the consent and action calendar, including adoption of the Education Protection Account resolution and the County Schools Service Fund budget.

Votes: Motions to adopt both the general fund budget and the County Schools Service Fund passed; one member recorded opposition to the County Schools Service Fund adoption and noted concerns about direct services.

Staff follow-up: Board asked for a detailed restricted-fund balance breakdown and for staff to clarify STRS/benefit accounting mechanics in board correspondence and for an August briefing.","The San Bernardino County Board of Education approved the district and county office budgets for 2025–26 after staff described May Revision impacts, restricted fund movements and projected ending fund balance. One board member registered formal dissent on the County Schools Service Fund budget, citing a desire for more direct student services.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

San Bernardino County Board adopts 2025–26 LCAP after discussion of state BOP changes and equity funds

Board approves 5% monthly increase for members and 1.63% salary increase for superintendent after debate

Two public commenters allege special-education failures and retaliation at Etiwanda School District; request county action

Board approves 2025–26 county budget and County Schools Service Fund; members press for budget detail on restricted balances