County Education Office Criticized by Grand Jury

In a sharply critical report, the Orange County Grand Jury said Tuesday that the county’s Department of Education spends too much money on travel, has bad relations with many local school districts and offers some programs of questionable value.

The report recommended, among several conclusions, that a blue-ribbon commission be created to study whether the county superintendent of schools should be appointed rather than elected.

Orange County Schools Supt. Robert Peterson was attending an educators’ conference in San Diego on Tuesday and could not be reached for comment. Peterson, who has been superintendent since 1966 and oversees the department, was unopposed in the June 3 election for another four-year term.

Deputy Supt. Fred Koch, however, said the grand jury report was unduly influenced by professional consultants hired by the jury. Koch said the consulting firm, Programetrics Ltd. of Huntington Beach, “has people who’ve never been in the trenches.”

But Marilyn Brewer, a Yorba Linda businesswoman who chaired the grand jury’s education committee, said Tuesday that Programetrics comprises professors from Cal State Fullerton and Cal State Northridge “and they did a very thorough reporting job.”

Programetrics was paid $21,000 by the grand jury to study the Department of Education.

The education office has relatively few powers; most decisions affecting public education are made by the Legislature in Sacramento or by the 29 locally elected schools boards in Orange County.

Mostly, the department audits local school districts for the state and provides optional training programs for local school districts. It also handles some programs for handicapped children, schools for juvenile offenders and a career-occupation program.

The report issued Tuesday marked the second year in a row that the grand jury had suggested revamping the Department of Education. In its 1984-85 report, the jury accused the department of needlessly spending taxpayer money and duplicating services. That grand jury called upon the state to virtually eliminate the county department, leaving only a few minor services required by state law.

The 1985-86 grand jury did not call for such a sharp cutback in its report. But it questioned the value of many department activities.

Brewer, in an interview, said, “I would hesitate to say the grand jury accused the Department of Education of wasting money.”

However, the report clearly implied that taxpayer money could be saved if the Department of Education tightens procedures.

For example, the grand jury report said the education office budgeted a 53% increase for travel from the 1983-84 school year to the current school year--from $364,000 to $530,000. The report urges the department to give its staff a set amount of money per day for food, lodgings and incidentals while on trips rather than reimburse them for actual amounts spent.

“Employees are likely to be more economical with travel and conference expenditures if they are on a limited budget,” the report said.

Koch, in an interview, said he didn’t think the county education staff wastes money on travel. He said much of the staff travel is reimbursed by outside groups and agencies, and he said he didn’t think the grand jury report had considered such reimbursements.

Koch also said the report was misleading in saying that the Department of Education gives “misleading and overstated results” of educational performance and has bad relations with many of the 29 local districts.

He said the consulting firm apparently couldn’t distinguish between “tongue-in-cheek comments” made by local school officials and genuine criticism. Koch contended that officials of many of the local school districts were speaking, in his words, “tongue in cheek” in their allegedly critical comments about the department.

He noted that the department will spend about $50 million this school year, and, “of that amount, about 75% is for direct involvement with education.” Koch also said the department provides schooling for youths with criminal convictions and for some categories of handicapped children.

But the grand jury was critical of the department’s so-called “court schools” for children with delinquent backgrounds. In its report, the jury said the department does not adequately test the juveniles it teaches, nor follow through with recommendations to the students’ new school when they are released.

Koch contended Tuesday that the department frequently comes up for grand jury scrutiny and criticism “because it’s part of the instructions” new jurors get each year. He said the scrutiny is a matter of tradition, rather than a reflection of actual citizen concern.

But Brewer, the chairwoman of the current grand jury education committee, countered that grand jury probing of the department is justified.

“It (the county Department of Education) has no checks and balances,” she said. “Because it (the county Board of Education) has elected members, the county Board of Supervisors usually do not act on the grand jury recommendations about the Department of Education.

“But this year we are recommending that the county Board of Education members act on the recommendations. We think they can take a more active role.”