Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District wins unmodified audit opinion; staff outline LCAP results and ongoing textbook costs
Summary
Auditors reported an unmodified opinion on Marysville Joint Unified’s 2024 financial statements and federal ESSER testing; district staff presented LCAP midyear results showing orange performance in language arts and math and said textbook purchases this year exceeded $900,000 due to delayed state adoption cycles.
Heather Rubio, lead partner for Christie White & Associates, told trustees the district received an unmodified opinion on its 2024 financial statements and that auditors found no material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Rubio said federal testing of ESSER (education stabilization) funds also resulted in an unmodified opinion with no findings.
In a separate presentation, district staff explained the state dashboard and the midyear Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) update. Staff reported the district was in orange for language arts (about 50.8 points below standard) and orange for math (about 90.4 points below standard), with no red indicators overall. The graduation rate was reported at 86.1% (green). Staff said the district average color score was 2.6 (state average 2.7).
Amy Stratton outlined textbook and instructional‑materials procedures and the impact of delayed statewide adoption cycles: because the state fell behind on adoptions after the pandemic, the district has been purchasing math and ELA materials earlier than the normal eight‑year cycle. Stratton stated the district spent just over $900,000 this year on curriculum purchases and subscriptions; trustees asked whether those purchases are one‑time or ongoing and were told the purchases will continue until the state adoption cycle is complete and the district can revert to normal replacement timing.
Board members requested additional disaggregation on the college‑and‑career indicator and asked staff to provide more detail on which subindicators are driving the district’s lower ranking in the comparable‑district list.
