Solano County Office of Education reports Williams settlement visit results; supervisors ask about facilities, credentials and remedies

County education officials presented the annual Williams settlement audit and visitation summary and answered supervisors' questions about selection criteria, facilities issues and remedies.

Lizette Estrella Henderson, Solano County Superintendent of Schools (presentation item announced by the clerk), and Dr. Taycee Rogers, director of assessment, research and evaluation, described the three selection criteria for a Williams visitation: eligibility for comprehensive supports and improvement (CSI), eligibility for additional targeted support and improvement (ATSI), and a state metric showing 15% or more of teachers misassigned or out of credential. Schools meeting any one criterion are placed on the county's visitation list, which is provided by the California Department of Education; the county conducts on-site visits and a facilities inspection using the statewide FIT tool provided by the Office of Public School Construction.

Dr. Rogers explained that the visits are a moment-in-time check for instructional material sufficiency (textbooks or digital equivalents), facility safety (cleanliness, exposed wiring, restroom status, sinks/fountains) and credentialing, and that the county cross-checks School Accountability Report Cards for accuracy. Supervisors asked whether absenteeism, truancy or internet access are part of the Williams review; staff said they are not. For internet or digital access, staff said they ask students (grades 6-12) verbally during the instructional materials check whether they have access to necessary course materials and record the response as of that moment.

On remedies, staff said that when issues are emergent the county requires on-site follow-up and that the California Department of Education may withhold apportionment to compel remedial action; staff said that districts are responsible for fixing identified problems and that the audit is a compliance and monitoring tool rather than a grant-making mechanism. Supervisors asked whether the visitation process opens other funding avenues for districts with limited capital; staff said the state fiscal office controls apportionments and there are not always additional resources specifically tied to facility repairs, emphasizing that the county will follow up in writing and submit a written report when the State releases credentialing data later in the month.

Board members thanked staff for the annual report and raised questions about aging school plants and bond/maintenance funding. Staff said the follow-up written report will be filed with the superintendent and made available to the board for further review.

Ending: staff invited supervisors to submit follow-up questions and said they will provide a written report when the State Department of Education releases credentialing percentages.