San Bernardino County presents revised Student Services LCAP; students, parents testify at public hearing

County Superintendent Ted Alejandre and Student Services staff presented the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools’ draft Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) for 2025–26 and opened a public hearing on the document at the board’s May 12 meeting.

The Student Services branch said the LCAP will return to the board in June for formal adoption after staff continue to incorporate feedback from educational partners. “This is the time of the year where we will be presenting the local control and accountability plan,” Superintendent Ted Alejandre told the board before turning the presentation over to Student Services staff.

The draft LCAP focuses on six priority themes that student services said were carried over from the 2023–24 plan: professional development, high-quality instruction, implementation of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), expanded support staff, increased family engagement, and data-informed instruction. Dr. Scott Wyatt, Area Director for Alternative Education, said the county’s alternative education programs serve students across a large geographic area and include community schools, an Independent Learning Academy (ILA), and juvenile court schools.

Student Services presented program data from April 18, 2025, showing a Student Services population of 5,904 students, with 1,351 cumulative enrollments in Alternative Education for the year. Staff said 64% of Student Services students identify as Hispanic, 23% as African American, 8.1% white, 16% are English learners, 9% foster youth or homeless, and 91% are socioeconomically disadvantaged. Dr. Angela Brantley, Student Services program manager, told the board that average days of enrollment vary by program: community school students averaged 82 days of enrollment and juvenile court students averaged 32 days, out of a typical 180-day school year.

Committee engagement and measures: Student Services described a year-long educational partner engagement process and LCAP feedback events that included student, parent and staff surveys and three in-person public meetings, plus leadership team meetings. Staff said they will monitor the number of family engagement opportunities and collect participant feedback after each session to measure “value,” and that they will use ClassLink and other tools to quantify student engagement with supplemental ELA and math materials.

Students and parents speak: Five students enrolled in county Student Services programs spoke to the board about their experiences. Mary Smith Wilson, a ninth‑grade student at Tri City Community School, described credit accrual and reading-level gains. Dario, a Chaffey West student, said counseling and counseling-led supports improved his attendance and grades. Asa LaDame, an 11th grader at Bob Murphy Community School, credited particular teachers and counselors for helping manage anxiety and improving academic performance. Christopher Moffitt, a 12th‑grade ILA student, described attending dual‑enrollment and career-prep field trips and said he was selected for a $1,000 scholarship. Dario’s mother, identified in the record as Juarez, thanked the staff for what she described as a second chance for her son.

Board members pressed staff on specific technical and budget questions raised in public and in written correspondence. Member Veil Leon asked how Student Services determines who is “eligible” for individual, group and family counseling; Dr. Olga Sosa, program manager for clinical services, explained that consent rules and student age affect eligibility and that services are offered to all students but require consent for students above certain ages. Board members also asked about transportation funding, graduation cohorts and literacy interventions; staff said the LCAP process will continue to refine metrics and that a range of literacy strategies and professional development remain in use, though staff said some traditional curricula (for example, multi‑hour elementary curricula) may not be appropriate for the county’s transient alternative‑education cohorts.

Two metrics were adjusted specifically before returning to the board: a parent engagement metric (Action 2.6) was changed to track the number of family offerings plus the value of each session through post‑meeting feedback; and metric 3.2, tracking student engagement with supplemental instructional materials in ELA and math, was revised to be measurable through ClassLink activity monitoring.

Nut Graf: The Student Services LCAP presented May 12 consolidates alternative education and special education program priorities into a three‑year plan but will come back to the board in June for adoption after staff incorporate partner input and refine two primary metrics: family engagement and measurable use of supplemental ELA/Math materials.

Board follow-up and next steps: Staff said they will provide additional clarifications requested by board members, including numbers of teachers trained in specified literacy approaches, more detail on transportation funding and the timeline for assessment and intake in juvenile court schools (staff said juvenile court intake targets assessment within 48 hours). The public hearing on the LCAP was opened and then closed when no additional speakers remained for that hearing item; staff stated the plan will be revised as needed and returned for a formal adoption vote in June.

Ending: Student Services staff emphasized the LCAP is in year two of a three‑year implementation cycle; the board will receive a finalized adoption packet in June that includes the executive summary, full plan narrative, goals and the expenditure tables showing how the plan’s actions are funded.