Val Verde Unified School District Report

Special Education Review June 2, 2026 Val Verde Unified School District Michael H. Fine Chief Executive Officer June 2, 2026 Gordon Amerson, Ed.D., Superintendent Val Verde Unified School District 975 West Morgan St. Perris, CA 92571 Dear Superintendent Amerson: In December 2025, the Val Verde Unified School District and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) entered into an agreement for FCMAT to conduct a review of the district’s special education program. The agreement stated that FCMAT would perform the following: 1. Review the district’s implementation of student success teams, response to instruction and intervention, and multitiered system of supports, and make recommendations for improvement, if any. 2. Analyze special education teacher staffing ratios, class sizes and caseloads using statutory requirements for mandated services and statewide guidelines, and make recommendations for improvement, if any. 3. Review the efficiency of staffing allocations of special education paraeducators, per Education Code requirements and/or industry standards, and make recommendations for improvement, if any. Review the procedures for identifying the need for paraeducators, including considerations related to the least restrictive environment and the processes for monitoring the assignment of paraeducators and determining the need for continued support from year to year (including classroom and 1-to-1 paraeducators). 4. Analyze staffing and caseloads for related service providers, including but not limited to speech pathologists, psychologists, occupational/physical therapists, adapted physical education teachers and other staff who may be related service providers, and make recommendations for improvement, if any. 5. Determine whether the district overidentifies students for special education services compared to the statewide and countywide averages, and make recommendations for reducing overidentification, if needed. 6. Analyze whether the district provides a continuum of special education and related services for students in preschool through age 22, including their placement in the least restrictive environments, and make recommendations for improvement (which may include instructional models), if any. 7. Review the Special Education Department’s organizational structure and staffing in the district’s central office to determine whether its administration, clerical and administrative support, program specialists, teachers on special assignment and overall function are aligned with those of districts of comparable size and structure, and make recommendations for greater efficiencies, if any. Michael H. Fine • Chief Executive Officer 1300 17th Street – City Centre, Bakersfield, CA 93301-4533 • Tel. 661-636-4611 • Fax 661-636-4647 www.fcmat.org 8. Review the district's nonpublic school and nonpublic agency placement processes, costs and placements, and make recommendations for improvements and cost efficiencies, if any. 9. Review the district’s professional development/training program as it relates to special education, and make recommendations for improvement, if any. 10. Review the district’s unrestricted general fund contribution to special education and make recommendations for greater efficiency, if any. This report contains the study team’s findings and recommendations. FCMAT appreciates the opportunity to serve the Val Verde Unified School District and extends its thanks to all the staff for their assistance during fieldwork. Sincerely, Michael H. Fine Chief Executive Officer Table of Contents Table of Contents About FCMAT ...................................................................................................ii Introduction ......................................................................................................iv Background ...............................................................................................................iv Study and Report Guidelines ................................................................................iv Study Team ................................................................................................................iv Executive Summary ........................................................................................v Findings and Recommendations................................................................. 1 Background and Context — Transforming Education to Improve Outcomes for Students with Disabilities ............................................................1 Identification for Special Education ...............................................................................4 Factors Influencing Special Education Identification ......................................8 Service Options in the Least Restrictive Environment ..................................12 District Organization and Central Office Special Education Staffing .........15 Special Education Teacher Staffing ....................................................................18 Special Education Instructional Aide Staffing .................................................23 Related Service Provider Staffing and Caseloads .........................................28 Professional Learning Plan ..................................................................................34 Unrestricted General Fund Contribution to Special Education ..................36 Appendix ........................................................................................................42 Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District i About FCMAT About FCMAT Purpose and Services FCMAT was created by the California Legislature to help California’s transitional kindergarten through grade 14 (TK-14) local educational agencies (LEAs) avoid fiscal insolvency. Today, FCMAT helps LEAs identify, prevent and resolve financial, management, program, data, and oversight chal- lenges; provides professional learning; produces and provides software, checklists, manuals and other tools; and offers other related school business and data services. FCMAT may be asked to provide fiscal crisis or management assistance by a school district, charter school, community college, county superintendent of schools, the state superintendent of public instruction, or the Legislature. When FCMAT is asked for help with management assistance or a fiscal crisis, FCMAT management and staff work closely with the requesting LEA to meet their needs. Often this means conducting a formal study using a FCMAT study team that coordinates with the LEA for on-site fieldwork to evalu- ate specified operational areas and subsequently produces a written report with findings and rec- ommendations for improvement. For more immediate needs in a specific area, FCMAT offers short-term technical assistance from a FCMAT staff member with the required expertise. To help meet the need for qualified chief business officials (CBOs) in LEAs, FCMAT offers four differ- ent CBO training and mentoring programs that consist of 11 or 12 diverse two-day training sessions over the course of a full year. For agencies with professional learning needs, FCMAT offers workshops on specific topics. Popular topics include associated student body operations, use of FCMAT’s Projection-Pro online financial forecasting software, use of FCMAT’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Calculator, and data re- porting for the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS). FCMAT staff and management also frequently make presentations at various professional conferences. The California School Information Services (CSIS) service of FCMAT helps the California Department of Education (CDE) operate CALPADS; helps LEAs learn about CALPADS, resolve data issues and meet reporting requirements; and provides LEAs with training and leadership in data management. CSIS also developed and continues to host and improve the Standardized Account Code Structure (SACS) web-based financial reporting system for all California LEAs, and provides ed-data.org, which gives educators, policymakers, the Legislature, parents and the public quick access to timely and comprehensive data about TK-12 education in California. Since it was formed, FCMAT has provided LEAs with the types of help described above on more than 2,000 occasions. FCMAT’s administrative agent is the Kern County Superintendent of Schools. FCMAT is led by Michael H. Fine, Chief Executive Officer, and is funded by appropriations in the state budget and modest fees to requesting agencies. Workshop schedules, manuals, presentation slide decks, Projection-Pro software, LCFF calculators, past reports, an online help desk, and many other resources are available for download or use at no charge on FCMAT’s website. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District ii About FCMAT History FCMAT was created by Assembly Bill 1200 (Chapter 1213, Statutes of 1991) and Education Code 42127.8. Assembly Bill 107 (Chapter 282, Statutes of 1997) added Education Code 49080, which charged FCMAT with responsibility for CSIS and its statewide data management work, and Assem- bly Bill 1115 (Chapter 78, Statutes of 1999) codified CSIS’ mission. Assembly Bill 1200 created a statewide plan for county offices of education and school districts to work together locally to improve fiscal procedures and accountability standards. Assembly Bill 2756 (Chapter 52, Statutes of 2004) gave FCMAT specific responsibilities for districts that have received emergency state loans. In January 2006, Senate Bill 430 (Chapter 357, Statutes of 2005) amended Education Code 42127.8, and Assembly Bill 1366 (Chapter 360, Statutes of 2005) amended Education Codes 42127.8 and 84041. These new laws expanded FCMAT’s services to include charter schools and community col- leges, respectively. Assembly Bill 1840 (Chapter 426, Statutes of 2018) changed how fiscally insolvent districts are ad- ministered once an emergency appropriation has been made, shifting oversight responsibilities from the state to the local county superintendent to be more consistent with the principles of local con- trol, and giving FCMAT new responsibilities associated with the process. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District iii Introduction Introduction Background Located in Riverside County, the Val Verde Unified School District serves students in transitional kindergarten through grade 12 (TK-12) across 24 schools: one preschool, 12 elementary schools, four middle schools, four high schools, two virtual schools, and an adult school. According to DataQuest, 18,717 TK-12 students were enrolled in 2025-26. The district is a member and the administrative unit (AU) of the Riverside County Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA). The SELPA is responsible to ensure that a full range of special education programs and services are available to its students. In 2025-26, 14.92% of the district’s students were identified as requiring special education (DataQuest). In December 2025, the district and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) entered into an agreement for FCMAT to conduct a review of the district’s special education program. Study and Report Guidelines FCMAT visited the district on March 24 and 25, 2026, to conduct interviews with central office and school administrators, special education teachers, related service providers, special education paraed- ucators, and other staff. Following fieldwork, FCMAT reviewed and analyzed data and documents. This report is the result of those activities. FCMAT’s reports focus on systems and processes that may need improvement. Those that may be functioning well are generally not commented on in FCMAT’s reports. In writing its reports, FCMAT uses the Associated Press Stylebook and its own short internal style guide, which emphasize plain lan- guage, capitalize relatively few terms, and strive for conciseness, clarity and simplicity. FCMAT relies on publicly available, authoritative data sources and provides direct links to sources where appropriate; however, sources sometimes differ in the data they provide, or their data may be revised over time due to various factors. FCMAT always strives to use the most accurate data available at the time of reporting. Study Team The study team was composed of the following members: Carolynne Beno, Ed.D. Colleen Patterson, MBA, CMA FCMAT Chief Analyst FCMAT Consultant Leonel Martínez FCMAT Technical Writer All team members reviewed the draft report to confirm accuracy and achieve consensus on the final recommendations. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District iv Executive Summary Executive Summary Identification for Special Education According to DataQuest, the Val Verde Unified School District’s overall enrollment has decreased, but spe- cial education enrollment has increased over the past five years. During this period, the share of transitional kindergarten through grade 12 (TK-12) students enrolled in special education increased by 3.08 percentage points. In 2025-26, 14.92% of TK-12 students were identified as requiring special education (DataQuest), a rate lower than that of Riverside County or the state. In 2025-26, English learners were overrepresented in the special education population compared to the overall student population. According to district California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) reports, the district’s identification of students for special education under the disability category of autism increased by 257 students between 2019-20 and 2025-26, which is a 92.78% increase. The district’s identification of students for special education is influenced by many factors, including its implementation of student study teams (SSTs) and multitiered systems of support (MTSS), which is dis- cussed further in the “Factors Influencing Special Education Identification” section of this report. Special Education Staffing Central Office The district has 2.99 more full-time equivalent (FTE) administrator/program support positions and approx- imately the same number of administrative support positions facilitating the special education program compared to the surveyed school districts. Resource Specialist Program Teachers Districtwide, resource specialist program (RSP) staffing is 6.04 FTE above the level required to meet the Education Code (EC) 56362(c) caseload standard. However, students receiving RSP support are not evenly distributed into groups of 28 — the maximum caseload allowed by EC 56362(c) — across district schools, and the district is attempting to implement an inclusive model. Thus, having more staffing than is required to meet the EC 56362(c) standard may be necessary to meet student needs. In addition, as described in the “Service Options in the Least Restrictive Environment” section of this report, the district did not meet two of the three indicators measuring school-age least restrictive environ- ment (LRE) on its annual performance report. To address this, the district may need to increase resource specialist staffing beyond the 1-to-28 teacher-to-student ratio to ensure students have sufficient access to their LRE. In making this determination, the district needs to consider factors such as the specialized aca- demic instruction (SAI) minutes specified in students’ individual education programs (IEPs) and the percent- age of time they spend in general education. The industry standard for SAI-based programs supporting students in their LRE is 20 to 24 students per special education teacher. Learning Centers In 2025-26, the learning center special education teacher staffing is 1.00 to 7.00 FTE less than the industry standard caseload range of 20 to 24 students per special education teacher. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District v Executive Summary Special Day Class Programs In 2025-26, the districtwide special day class (SDC) teacher staffing was appropriate given the industry standard range for the following district school age programs: mild-to-moderate support needs SDC, exten- sive support needs SDC and autism SDC. In 2025-26, the preschool SDC teacher staffing for the district’s autism and extensive supports needs SDCs is appropriate given the size of these programs. In 2025-26, the districtwide school age therapeutic SDC teacher staffing was 1.50 to 2.40 FTE higher than the industry standard range, and the preschool mild-to-moderate support needs SDC teacher staffing was 1.86 FTE higher than the industry standard range. Special Education Instructional Assistants In 2025-26, the districtwide instructional assistant staffing for its SDCs for students with extensive support needs and autism is higher than the industry standards. However, the district has just 39 instructional assis- tants who are assigned to provide 1-to-1 student support. While there is no established industry standard for special education instructional assistants providing 1-to-1 student support, in Val Verde Unified, 1.40% of the students in its special education program have a 1-to-1 instructional assistant. Of the last seven districts FCMAT studied, only one district had a percentage comparable to Val Verde Unified. The other six districts FCMAT studied had assigned an average of 4.32% of the students in their special education program a 1-to-1 instructional assistant. Staff reported that Val Verde Unified uses extra classroom instructional assistant support to meet student needs instead of assigning a 1-to-1 instructional assistant whenever possible. This is a positive practice because even though a parent/guardian or staff member’s request for a student to have 1-to-1 support may be well meaning, it can hinder the student’s independence and outcomes as described in the “1-to-1 Student Support” section of this report. But this practice is one reason the district’s instructional assis- tant staffing for its SDCs for students with extensive support needs and autism is higher than the industry standards. Related Service Providers In 2025-26, the district is staffed 1.00 FTE less than the industry standard range for credentialed school nurses. In addition, the district has approximately 2.00 FTE less than what is needed for speech and lan- guage pathologist (SLP) staffing to be below the maximum Education Code caseload size. Unrestricted General Fund Contribution to Special Education Since 2021-22, costs for salaries, benefits, nonpublic school (NPS) placements, and nonpublic agency (NPA) services have risen significantly, while special education income has not kept pace. In 2024-25, the dis- trict’s adjusted unrestricted general fund contribution to special education was $38,685,165, or 62.4% of total special education costs. In 2025-26, the district’s unrestricted general fund contribution is estimated to be 63.9% of adjusted special education costs. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District vi Findings and Recommendations Background and Context — Transforming Education to Improve Outcomes for Students with Disabilities Findings and Recommendations Background and Context — Transforming Education to Improve Outcomes for Students with Disabilities Over the past two decades, educational reform movements emphasizing accountability have highlighted achievement gaps among students based on factors such as race and ethnicity, family income, language ability, and disability. Although California has made some progress in reducing inequities in educational outcomes for these student groups, those with disabilities remain among the lowest-performing subgroups. In 2013, California convened a statewide special education task force dedicated to ending the persistent poor outcomes for California’s students with disabilities, including eligible infants, toddlers, preschool- ers, and students up to age 22 in kindergarten through grade 12. The task force’s purpose was to study the complex systems designed to serve students and provide recommendations to the State Board of Education, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, and the California Department of Education (CDE). The CDE’s project summary for the Statewide Special Education Task Force stated: California’s current policies, including funding, credentialing, and a range of service delivery options, tend to “bolt on” special education to general education. While there are certainly examples throughout the state of well-integrated models of supports, these are the excep- tions rather the norm. Our prevailing model has made it acceptable, and in some instances seem desirable, to isolate special education as a unique and separate system that parallels general education. The summary further explained that operating special education as a separate program contradicts current research, which shows: Inclusive practices, integrated systems, and coherence are essential to provide high-quality, cost-effective special education programs within (rather than apart from) a well-articulated system of education. In March 2015, the Statewide Special Education Task Force published One System: Reforming Education to Serve All Students, Report of California's Statewide Task Force on Special Education, its report on the state of special education in California. This report identified seven distinct and interconnected areas of focus to improve outcomes for students with disabilities: 1. Early learning. 2. Evidence-based school and classroom practices. 3. Educator preparation and professional learning. 4. Assessment. 5. Accountability. 6. Family and student engagement. 7. Special education financing. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 1 Findings and Recommendations Background and Context — Transforming Education to Improve Outcomes for Students with Disabilities Among the areas of focus and many recommendations in the 2015 report on one system was the predomi- nant theme that California’s special education system would improve if one coherent system were designed in which general education and special education work together to meet the needs of all students. The report explained: In a coherent system of education, all children and students with disabilities are considered general education students first; and all educators, regardless of which students they are assigned to serve, have a collective responsibility to see that all children receive the educa- tion and the supports they need to maximize their development and potential, allowing them to participate meaningfully in the nation’s economy and democracy. The CDE’s project summary also identified the need to transform the understanding of special education from the perception of it as: A place where students go to receive more or different services, to a viewpoint that includes special education services as one of many programs of support under the umbrella of general education. In 2020, the CDE commissioned WestEd, a nonprofit dedicated to fostering “success for every learner,” to analyze policy and systemic changes affecting students with disabilities since the 2015 report on one system. The 2021 WestEd report, California’s Progress Toward Achieving One System: Reforming Education to Serve All Students, explained that the 2015 report on one system was intended to create momentum and discourse in California’s efforts to reform special education. To evaluate these efforts, WestEd reviewed the seven focus areas outlined in the 2015 report on one system and provided additional recommendations in each area. WestEd concluded that “numerous improvements have been made to California’s general and special education landscapes.” Guided by the insights from the 2015 report on one system and the 2021 WestEd report, local educational agencies (LEAs) should focus on achieving coherence, fostering inclusive practices, and integrating student support systems. This approach is essential for building a comprehensive educational system that pro- motes positive outcomes for all students. LEAs need to recognize that students receiving special education services are general education students first and operate with the understanding that special education is one of the many support programs within general education, not a place where students go to receive more or different services. These tenets will inform the analysis of the district’s special education program and its staffing throughout this report. District Alignment with the 2015 Report on One System Consistent with the 2015 report on one system, the district’s organization supports interdepartmen- tal collaboration and communication. Staff described the district’s culture as family oriented and the departments as well-integrated. One staff member explained that they think of the district as people with specific roles, not separate departments. Most staff reported that the district’s central office col- laboratively develops systems that are implemented across district schools. The camaraderie among district staff and shared purpose to support student success was evident during all staff interviews. Congruent with the recommendations in the 2015 report on one system, the district is implementing a comprehensive multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) Strategic Plan, which is designed to create positive learning environments and support high levels of learning for all students, including students with disabil- ities. The 2015 report on one system recommends educators use Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to design accessible and inclusive learning experiences for all students and accommodate diverse learners. The academic supports outlined in the district’s MTSS include a focus on UDL. As described in the “District Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 2 Findings and Recommendations Background and Context — Transforming Education to Improve Outcomes for Students with Disabilities Implementation of MTSS” section of this report, the district’s MTSS supports students’ access to their least restrictive environment. Staff indicated that the district’s MTSS Strategic Plan is not a one-time initiative; instead, it is a system of academic, behavioral and social-emotional supports with associated processes that are continually revisited and refined. The district provides ongoing professional learning aligned with its MTSS Strategic Plan according to identified needs. Recommendations The district should: 1. Maintain its focus on continuous improvement to evaluate and refine its MTSS to facilitate positive outcomes for all students, including students with disabilities. 2. Continue to provide professional learning and support for educators addressing how to use UDL to design instruction and learning activities that engage, challenge and support all students, including students with disabilities. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 3 Findings and Recommendations Identification for Special Education Identification for Special Education Before examining the district’s special education staffing, it is critical to consider the population the program serves: the students receiving special education services. This section provides an overview of data and trends related to the district’s special education enrollment. District Enrollment Between 2020-21 and 2025-26, the district’s TK-12 census day (official count of enrolled students on the first Wednesday in October) enrollment decreased by 586 students, as shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1. Census Day Enrollment of District Students in Grades TK-12, 2020-21 – 2025-26 Figure 1. A graph showing that district TK-12 census day enrollment decreased by 586 students, from 19,303 students in 2020-21 to 18,717 stu- dents in 2025-26. Source: Enrollment Multi-Year Summary for Charter and Non-Charter Schools -Val Verde Unified School District (CDE). Between 2020-21 and 2025-26, the district’s census day TK-12 special education enrollment increased by 510 students, as shown in Figure 2 below. Figure 2. District Special Education Enrollment in Grades TK-12, 2020-21 – 2025-26 Figure 2. A graph showing that district TK-12 special education enrollment increased by 510 students, from 2,283 students in 2020-21 to 2,793 students in 2025-26. Source: Enrollment Multi-Year Summary for Charter and Non-Charter Schools - Val Verde Unified School District (CDE). Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 4 Findings and Recommendations Identification for Special Education In 2025-26, district students who identify as male are more likely to be identified for special education than those who identify as female. Although they represent 52% of all students, they account for 66.6% of students in special education, which mirrors the 2025-26 statewide average calculated from DataQuest. By contrast, students who identify as female make up 48% of all students but only 33.4% of those in special education. This disproportionate representation of males is influenced by factors such as referral bias – for example, students who identify as male are more often referred because of poor grades or behavior support needs – and differences in how teachers perceive behavior, because students who identify as male are more likely to draw negative attention in school. Consequently, it is important for LEAs to analyze special education referral rates by gender identification and provide professional learning as needed to help address any disparities. District Special Education Enrollment by Disability Category The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) defines 14 categories of disability under which a student may be eligible for special education. In 2025-26, approximately 90% of the district’s students enrolled in special education qualified under one of the four categories listed in Table 1 below. Table 1. Percentage of District Special Education Enrollment by Primary Disability Category, 2019-20 and 2025-26 Specific Speech and Other Health Learning Language Autism Impairments Disability Impairment 2019-20 9.35% 11.65% 46.46% 15.36% 2025-26 18.58% 12.84% 42.97% 15.94% Percentage Point Difference 9.23 1.19 -3.49 0.58 Source: CALPADS report 16.1 for 2019-20 and CALPADS report 16.12 for 2025-26. Note: Although IDEA defines 14 disability categories for special education eligibility, this table shows data only for the four most common in the district. From 2019-20 through 2025-26, the number of district students qualifying for special education under the disability category of autism increased from 277 to 534 – an increase of 92.78%, according to district CALPADS reports. This increase in the district’s identification rate for special education under the category of autism in 2025-26 aligns with the statewide trend. Disproportionality in Special Education Identification The National Association of School Psychologists defines special education disproportionality as “the extent to which membership in a given group affects the probability of being placed in a specific disability category.” In simpler terms, it refers to the over- or underidentification of certain student groups — such as English learners, students who identify as male, or students from specific racial or ethnic backgrounds — for special education. Racial and Ethnic Balance of Students In 2025-26, most of the district’s students identified as Hispanic, African American or White and their rep- resentation as a percentage of total students enrolled in special education approximated their representa- tion as a percentage of all district students. Table 2 compares the student groups (students who identify as Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 5 Findings and Recommendations Identification for Special Education African American, Hispanic or Latino, and White) that together accounted for approximately 96% of district enrollment. Table 2. Percentage of Students in Special Education, by Race and Ethnicity, Compared to Percentage of Total Student Population, 2025-26 African Hispanic or American Latino White Percentage of Total Enrollment 10.36% 80.64% 3.23% Percentage of Special Education Enrollment 13.61% 77.19% 4.87% Difference 3.25 3.45 1.64 Source: Enrollment by Ethnicity in 2025-26 - Val Verde Unified School District (CDE). Students Who Identify as African American In 2023-24, the district had an overrepresentation of students who are African American in special edu- cation under the disability category of emotional disturbance (now called emotional disability following legislative action). As a result, the district was required to develop and implement a Compliance and Improvement Monitoring for Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services Action Plan (CIM for CCEIS Action Plan). The purpose of this plan is to identify and address any factors that contribute to disproportionality. The district performed a root cause analysis to develop its CIM for CCEIS Action Plan and found a need for increased tiered behavioral supports, particularly at the Tier 3 level. To increase the availability and intensity of behavioral interventions, the district developed a school psychologist internship and practicum program that was modeled after the district’s therapist intern program. The school psychologist interns assist with the foundational elements of psychoeducational assessments, completing tasks such as stu- dent record reviews, observations and data collection. This allows other school psychologists to focus on classroomwide prevention and targeted early childhood support at the elementary schools by providing small group treatment and 1-on-1 support for students with behavioral or social challenges. At the second- ary schools, school psychologists provide social-emotional support focused on group dynamics and spe- cialized counseling to support adolescent development. The district’s school psychologist internship and practicum program was piloted in 2024-25 and is being implemented in 2025-26. At the time of FCMAT’s study, in 2025-26, 1,700 contacts have been made with students in need of social emotional and/or behav- ioral support. The district’s innovative school psychologist internship and practicum program supports student needs, addresses a root cause that led to the overrepresentation of students who are African American in special education under the disability category of emotional disturbance, and is a training ground for future school psychologists. English Learners in Special Education According to DataQuest, in 2025-26, English learners (ELs) represented 19.13% of all district TK-12 students and 29.14% of students in special education. English learners are commonly overidentified for special edu- cation services, and this may be the case in the district. WestEd’s brief, Resources and Strategies for Identifying and Supporting English Learners with Learning Disabilities, identified two main factors that can lead to inconsistent identification of EL students with learn- ing disabilities: • A lack of understanding about why EL students are not making adequate progress. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 6 Findings and Recommendations Identification for Special Education • Poorly designed and implemented referral processes. The cause of the district’s higher-than-expected identification of English learners for special education is not known. Therefore, the district may benefit from using the WestEd brief as a guide to investigate its high- er-than-expected identification of English learners in special education and provide professional learning as necessary. District Special Education Enrollment Compared to Countywide and Statewide Enrollment According to DataQuest, over a five-year period the percentage of district TK-12 students enrolled in spe- cial education increased by 3.08 percentage points, from 11.84% in 2020-21 to 14.92% in 2025-26. FCMAT compared the district’s total noncharter TK-12 enrollment and special education enrollment in 2025- 26 with noncharter countywide and statewide TK-12 figures, as shown in Table 3 below. Table 3. Comparison of Noncharter School TK-12 Total and Special Education Enrollment, 2025-26 Val Verde Riverside County California Grades TK-12 Total Noncharter School Enrollment 18,717 381,626 5,005,614 Grades TK-12 Special Education Noncharter School Enrollment 2,793 61,059 753,136 Percentage 14.92% 16.00% 15.05% Sources: Enrollment - Val Verde Unified School District (CDE), Non-Charter School Enrollment for Grades TK-12 - Riverside County (CDE), and Non-Charter School Enrollment for Grades TK-12 - State (CDE). The district identified a lower percentage of TK-12 students as requiring special education than both Riverside County and the state. However, since the percentage of district students identified as requiring special education grew by 3.09 percentage points between 2020-21 and 2025-26, the district needs to investigate the reasons for this. Possible reasons for the district’s higher identification rates are discussed in the “Factors Influencing Special Education Identification” section of this report. Recommendations The district should: 1. Annually monitor the percentage of students who qualify for special education and assess the proportionality of the special education population compared with overall enrollment, analyzed at least by gender, race, ethnicity, and English learner status. Provide training on proper identification practices as necessary. 2. Continue to implement its CIM for CCEIS Action Plan to reduce its overrepresentation of African American students identified for special education under the disability category of emotional disturbance. 3. Use WestEd’s brief Resources and Strategies for Identifying and Supporting English Learners with Learning Disabilities as a guide to investigate its higher-than-expected identification of ELs in special education and provide targeted professional learning as necessary. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 7 Findings and Recommendations Factors Influencing Special Education Identification Factors Influencing Special Education Identification Education Code (EC) 56303 states, “A pupil shall be referred for special educational instruction and services only after the resources of the regular education program have been considered and, where appropriate, utilized.” Identifying a student for special education before implementing general education interventions does not best serve the student. Students in special education can experience stigma, less access to the rigorous instruction given in the general education curriculum, limited interaction with their peers without disabilities, and lower expectations, which can limit their progress and outcomes. In addition, serving a student in special education through an IEP is costlier than serving one through interventions and general education supports. As mentioned in the “District Special Education Enrollment Compared to Countywide and Statewide Enrollment” section of this report, from 2020-21 through 2025-26, the percentage of district students in grades TK-12 enrolled in special education increased by 3.08 percentage points. The district’s special education identification rate approximates the state average for noncharter schools but is about 1.00 per- centage point below the county average for noncharter schools. The district’s increasing special education identification rate is influenced by its SST process and the MTSS, as outlined below. Student Success Team Process Before considering a special education assessment, students with learning differences and/or behavioral or social-emotional needs should be referred to an SST. This school-based team approach is designed to help students with a wide range of concerns related to their school performance and experience. SSTs are responsible for reviewing students’ strengths and weaknesses, identifying appropriate interventions, setting specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-based (SMART) goals, and monitoring students’ progress toward these goals. An SST is composed of the student (if appropriate), the parent or guardian, and various school personnel such as counselors, resource specialists, speech pathologists, school psy- chologists, classroom teachers, and administrators. All LEAs should have an SST process. The district has a districtwide SST process called the educational monitoring team (EMT) and uses common forms to document the reason for a referral, teacher observations, and a student’s educational history, learning profile, goals, and the targeted instructional intervention plan(s) and monitoring. Staff interviewed consistently reported that the district culture is to fully utilize its MTSS to maximize student support ser- vices in general education, as opposed to rushing to a special education assessment. However, many staff indicated there are differences in the implementation and effectiveness of the EMT process across district schools. Multitiered System of Support California’s MTSS focuses on aligning various initiatives, supports, and resources with content stan- dards to meet the needs of all students. This integrated, comprehensive framework aligns academic, behavioral, and social-emotional learning and implements continual improvement processes through- out the educational system. It serves as a method of organization and uses data collected through universal screening to support decision-making and problem-solving. MTSS includes both response to instruction and intervention (RtI²) and positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS). Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 8 Findings and Recommendations Factors Influencing Special Education Identification Response to Instruction and Intervention Response to instruction and intervention (RtI²) is a nationwide approach targeting individual students who are struggling academically. This approach mobilizes resources from the district, school and/or community to promote student success. It is data-driven and systematic, with tiered levels of intervention. The CDE coined the acronym RtI² to indicate a general education approach of high-quality, culturally responsive differentiated instruction and early intervention, prevention, and behavioral strategies. RtI² uses universal screening and data analysis of all students’ learning progress in the general education classroom. A comprehensive districtwide RtI² system not only prevents the inappropriate identification of students for special education but also ensures the delivery of services within students’ LREs. An RtI² system should define the following for tiers 1 and 2: • Type of intervention (e.g., literacy, mathematics, positive behavior supports). • Who is selected for the intervention. • Program, materials, and/or curriculum to be used. • When students will receive instruction. • Who will deliver the intervention. • How students will be grouped. • Time (i.e., duration and frequency). • Assessments to be used (e.g., for progress monitoring and entry or exit from the support). Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) concentrates on fostering the emotional and behav- ioral learning of students, which leads to an increase in engagement and a decrease in problematic behav- ior over time. PBIS helps districts adopt and structure evidence-based behavioral interventions. District Implementation of MTSS The district is implementing a comprehensive MTSS Strategic Plan structured to focus on instruction and intervention, collaborative problem solving, data assessment, educational partner engagement, and imple- mentation of evidence-based practices (methods, strategies, or interventions proven effective through rigorous research). The district’s MTSS Strategic Plan includes three clearly defined tiers of support addressing: • Academics – Academic supports focus on: o Students reading by third grade. The district is implementing supports such as read- ing interventions in kindergarten through grade two, reading tutors, and students regrouped to receive targeted support. Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which is a framework assisting educators in o designing accessible and inclusive learning experiences for all students and accom- modating diverse learners. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 9 Findings and Recommendations Factors Influencing Special Education Identification Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID), which is a program designed to o instill academic, social and organizational skills in students, fostering a pathway to college and career readiness. Student success in Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics o (STEAM). English language supports, which are strategies and resources to help bilingual stu- o dents succeed academically and socially. • Culture and Climate – Culture and climate supports focus on: Positive Behavior Intervention Systems (PBIS), which is a framework promoting posi- o tive behavior and social-emotional growth through a tiered support system. Mental wellness (social-emotional learning and mental health). The district imple- o ments instructional practices and activities that teach cognitive skills and coping strategies that support staff and student wellness. Restorative practices, which develop community in classrooms and at schools, o and help students manage conflict and tensions by repairing harm and restoring relationships. Child welfare and attendance services that cover compliance with education laws, o student admission and enrollment procedures, student discipline procedures, trans- fers to alternative programs, and school climate and safety. The district follows a continuous improvement process to analyze data to evaluate the effectiveness of certain interventions. For example, the district provided an individual treatment outcome report to evaluate its Tier 3 psychological services provided by its school psychologists. The report analyzed the progress students were making toward their therapeutic goals and was disaggregated by grade level, race/ethnicity, gender, and special group status (homeless, foster, special education program, 504 plan status). The report included trends, a summary of the impact, and possible future actions to strengthen outcomes. Staff reported that the district’s MTSS Strategic Plan and associated processes are periodically revis- ited and refined. The district provides ongoing professional learning aligned with its MTSS Strategic Plan according to identified needs. Overall, the district’s MTSS is structured to prevent the unnecessary identi- fication of students for special education services by providing robust opportunities for support and inter- vention to address a student’s academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs in the general education program. Staff identified one area for growth in the district’s MTSS: how the system supports students at school level transition points (elementary to middle school and middle to high school). Staff reported that they perceive an increase in referrals for special education assessments preceding and following these school transitions. Accordingly, the 2020 Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) brief, Students with Disabilities in the CORE Districts, used data from the CORE districts (Fresno, Garden Grove, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Santa Ana) and noted how students in these LEAs entered and exited special education and transitioned between special education disability categories. This PACE brief reported that the highest entry rates into special education occur between kindergarten and fourth grade, and there is an overall downward trend in special education entry rates from second through 12th grades. However, PACE found that “… the percentage of students entering special education were found to slightly increase at key transition points: (a) after the elementary to middle school and middle to high school transi- tions and (b) in 12th grade, when students are preparing to matriculate into postsecondary opportunities.” Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 10 Findings and Recommendations Factors Influencing Special Education Identification Staff in Val Verde Unified did not provide data documenting this, but many staff reported this occurs because they are concerned a student may not be able to meet the increased academic or executive func- tion demands at the different school level without the support of the special education program. According to the Cleveland Clinic, “Executive functions are mental processes that we use every day to solve prob- lems, make plans and manage emotions.” Staff explained that the elementary schools provide a list of students who are receiving RtI² support for the middle schools. However, staff reported that elementary schools monitor and record interventions differently because the documentation of these interventions has not been systematized. Consistent documentation of the RtI² process, including how long the student has been in RtI², would help the receiving school understand how to meet the needs of a new student who was receiving targeted (Tier 2) or intensive (Tier 3) interventions at their previous school. Recommendations The district should: 1. Assess whether additional standardization, guidance, and monitoring of its EMT process may be needed. 2. Continue to use a continuous improvement process to evaluate the effectiveness of its MTSS as a whole and of the supports and interventions offered. 3. Continue to provide ongoing professional learning aligned with its MTSS Strategic Plan according to identified needs. 4. Develop consistent record keeping procedures for students in the RtI process and ensure this information follows students transitioning between schools. 5. Determine whether there is a need for additional supports for students transitioning between school levels. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 11 Findings and Recommendations Service Options in the Least Restrictive Environment Service Options in the Least Restrictive Environment The IDEA establishes nationwide minimum standards for providing education services to children with disabilities, as well as related services for eligible infants, toddlers, preschoolers, children, and youth with disabilities up to the age of 22. It mandates that each state ensure the availability of a free appro- priate public education (FAPE) for any child with a disability who needs special education and related services, regardless of whether they have failed or been retained in a course or grade, and even if they are advancing from one grade level to another (Title 34, Section 300.101(c) of the Code of Federal Regulations (34 CFR 300.101(c))). The IDEA also requires that students with disabilities be educated in the LRE. To determine the appropriate setting for an individual student, the IEP team reviews the student’s strengths and needs and considers the educational benefit of placement in different educational settings. The CDE assesses LRE placement, and the results are published in indicators 5 and 6 of its Local Level Annual Performance Report. These reports, which are required by the IDEA, evaluate districts on 14 indicators for which the target is deemed to be either met or not met. Preschool Least Restrictive Environment In 2023-24 (the most recent report), the district’s Local Level Annual Performance Report indicated it met one of the three targets for indicator 6, which assesses the placement of preschool students in the LRE, expressed as a percentage of the total number of preschool students who receive special education ser- vices, as shown in Table 4 below. Table 4. District’s 2023-24 Performance on Indicator 6 – Preschool Students in the LRE According to the Local Level Annual Performance Report Item Indicator Rate Target Target Met? 6a Preschool LRE: Regular Program 24.05% ≥45.00% No 6b Preschool LRE: Separate Class 63.29% <27.00% No 6c Preschool LRE: Home 1.27% <3.50% Yes Source: Local Level Annual Performance Report 2023-24 (CDE) (most recent report). In an inclusive preschool system, students with disabilities are included in classrooms alongside stu- dents without disabilities, and the teacher(s) in these classrooms support the development of all students. Researchers such as Strain and Bovey (2011) and Phillips and Meloy (2012) have found that preschool age students with disabilities in inclusive learning environments gain more developmental benefits on intellec- tual, early literacy, and language measures than students with disabilities in segregated learning environ- ments. Furthermore, the CDE states, “High-quality inclusion in early education supports children’s develop- ment, relationships with peers, and a sense of belonging.” The district’s Local Level Annual Performance Report indicates it needs to develop a more inclusive pre- school system and increase the percentage of preschool students it serves in the regular program and decrease the percentage served in separate classes. Staff reported that most of the district’s preschool age students with disabilities are educated in separate special day classes (SDCs). However, the district has been working on increasing the amount of time students in these classes have access to general education through collaboration with the state preschool program, which is located on a school campus with the dis- Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 12 Findings and Recommendations Service Options in the Least Restrictive Environment trict’s preschool SDCs. As a result, students enrolled in preschool SDCs have daily inclusion time with their typically developing peers for recess and lunch. In addition, in 2025-26, two of the seven special education teachers are co-teaching for part of the school day with a state preschool teacher to facilitate mainstream- ing of students with disabilities in state preschool classes. The district’s current preschool service options for students with disabilities do not provide enough students with access to their LRE. Given that, and because an inclusive preschool program provides a foundation for successful inclusion of students with disabilities in the school-age years, the district needs to expand its inclusive preschool opportunities. One barrier staff identified is that certain pre- school teachers do not understand the benefits of preschool inclusion and/or need additional profes- sional learning addressing inclusive practices. Accordingly, the district has begun providing profes- sional learning to address this. The district may also benefit from exploring the resources available through Supporting Innovative Practices (SIP). SIP provides technical assistance in a three-tier system, within California’s Statewide System of Support, to educational communities in their pursuit of inclusive and equitable systems. School-Age Least Restrictive Environment In 2023-24 (most recent report), the district’s Local Level Annual Performance Report indicated it met one of the three targets for indicator 5, which assesses the placement of school-age students in the LRE, expressed as a percentage of the total number of school-age students who receive special education ser- vices, as shown in Table 5 below. Table 5. District’s 2023-24 Performance on Indicator 5 – School-Age Students in the LRE According to the Local Level Annual Performance Report Item Indicator Rate Target Target Met? 5a LRE Rate: In Regular Class More than 80% 57.68% ≥64.00% No 5b LRE Rate: In Regular Class Less than 40% 19.92% <15.00% No 5c LRE Rate: Separate Schools 1.88% <2.80% Yes Source: Local Level Annual Performance Report 2023-24 (CDE) (most recent report). The district offers a full continuum of special education options and services for school-age students. However, the district’s most recent Local Level Annual Performance Report indicates it needs to increase the percentage of school-age students it serves in the general education program and decrease the percentage of those served in separate classes. Access to general education settings and fostering inter- actions with neurotypical peers are essential for maximizing the performance and outcomes of students with disabilities. Therefore, the district needs to continue to prioritize the LRE and support its continuum of service options that facilitate access to general education settings for students. Recommendations The district should: 1. Monitor what percentage of the school day preschool and school-age students with IEPs spend in general education settings, with a focus on meeting or exceeding LRE targets in its Local Level Annual Performance Report. 2. Develop a more inclusive system to educate preschool students with disabilities to increase the percentage of preschool students it serves in the regular program and decrease the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 13 Findings and Recommendations Service Options in the Least Restrictive Environment percentage served in separate classes. Consider using the resources available through Supporting Innovative Practices (SIP). 3. Continue to provide professional learning for preschool teachers addressing inclusive practices. 4. Increase the number of school-age students with disabilities educated in general education settings for more than 80% of the school day, and decrease the percentage served in separate classes. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 14 Findings and Recommendations District Organization and Central Office Special Education Staffing District Organization and Central Office Special Education Staffing District Organization A school district’s organizational structure is crucial to the effectiveness of its special education program. An optimal structure fosters effective communication and collaboration across departments within the dis- trict’s central office and schools. This collaboration is essential to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities and implement evidence-based practices that support inclusive education. Special Education Program Support Staffing Administrator/Program Support Positions The Special Education Department has 14.00 FTE administrator/program support positions supporting its preschool and school-age special education programs, as shown in Table 6 below. Table 6. Administrator/Program Support Positions Supporting Special Education in 2025-26 Position Title Number of Positions Total FTE Director 1 1.00 Coordinator 1 1.00 Program Specialist 5 5.00 Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) 7 4.50 Total 14 11.50 Source: District-provided data. Note: Positions listed in this table do not provide direct service to students. 1.00 FTE of the TOSA positions does preschool assessments so it was not included in this analysis. In addition, 0.25 FTE of each of the other TOSA positions were excluded from this analysis because they provide direct services to students (assistive technology support and case management support for teachers who are on leave). Central Office Administrative Support Positions The Special Education Department has 7.50 FTE administrative support staff, as shown in Table 7 below. Table 7. Administrative Support Staff Positions Supporting Special Education in 2025-26 Position Title Number of Positions Total FTE Secretary IV 1 1.00 IT Data Specialist State Reporting Special Education 1 1.00 Clerk Typist III 2 1.50 Secretary II 1 1.00 Special Education Bilingual Clerk 3 3.00 Total 8 7.50 Source: District-provided data. Note: One of the clerk typist III positions supports general education mental health for 0.50 FTE, so that FTE was not included. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 15 Findings and Recommendations District Organization and Central Office Special Education Staffing Special Education Staffing Comparison FCMAT conducted an informal survey of unified school districts in California with student enrollment and undu- plicated pupil percentages (UPP) similar to those of the Val Verde Unified School District.1 The survey aimed to collect information on central office staffing within the school districts’ special education departments: • Central Office Administrator/Program Support Positions – Roles such as directors, assistant directors, coordinators, program specialists, and teachers on special assignment (TOSAs). These positions do not require an administrative credential. • Central Office Administrative Support Positions – Roles such as secretaries, administra- tive assistants, filing clerks, and data technicians. Table 8 below compares the Val Verde Unified Special Education Department central office staffing with data from the 11 unified school districts that participated in FCMAT’s survey. On average, these school districts have 8.51 FTE administrator/program support positions supporting special education in the central office, while Val Verde Unified School District reports a higher level of staffing of 11.50 FTE. For special edu- cation administrative support positions in the central office, the comparison school districts average 7.20 FTE, and Val Verde Unified School District reports approximately the same level of staffing of 7.50 FTE. Table 8. Administrator and Administrative Support Position Staffing Comparison 2025-26 2025-26 2024-25 2024-25 Administrator/ Administrative Census Day Census Program Support Support Position District County Enrollment Day UPP% Position FTE FTE ABC Unified Los Angeles 17,612 61.52% 5.00 6.00 Alvord Unified Riverside 16,466 86.51% 7.00 7.00 Antioch Unified Contra Costa 16,199 82.16% 10.00 4.00 Beaumont Unified Riverside 19,503 59.97% 8.00 4.00 Coachella Valley Unified Riverside 16,052 94.34% 9.00 16.00 Colton Joint Unified San Bernardino 18,414 86.99% 9.00 4.00 Compton Unified Los Angeles 19,430 91.74% 6.00 6.00 Fairfield-Suisun Unified Solano 20,359 67.51% 11.00 11.50 Hayward Unified Alameda 19,954 80.70% 8.00 6.00 Montebello Unified Los Angeles 19,195 89.47% 9.00 9.00 1 The term UPP refers to the percentage of students who are English learners, foster youth, or eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Each student is counted only once, regardless of how many categories they qualify for. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 16 Findings and Recommendations District Organization and Central Office Special Education Staffing 2025-26 2025-26 2024-25 2024-25 Administrator/ Administrative Census Day Census Program Support Support Position District County Enrollment Day UPP% Position FTE FTE Pajaro Valley Unified Santa Cruz 17,089 81.55% 11.65 5.75 Average FTE 8.51 7.20 Val Verde Unified School District Riverside 19,080 88.60% 11.50 7.50 Sources: Comparisons (Ed-Data) and FCMAT survey results. Notes: Val Verde Unified School District was excluded from the average FTE calculations. Teachers on special assignment were included in administrator/program support FTE if they are permanent positions and perform special educa- tion program support functions in the central office. Any variances in a school district’s actual FTE are due to FCMAT’s interpretation of the survey data. In 2025-26, Val Verde Unified has 2.99 FTE more administrator/program support positions and 0.30 FTE more administrative support positions facilitating the special education program compared to the surveyed school districts. Staffing should align with program complexity, compliance requirements, and student enrollment trends. Higher staffing levels in Val Verde Unified may be needed to support the more complex student programs it operates compared to what is typically observed across the state. Most districts send a larger percentage of their students with extensive support needs to regional programs and NPSs; Val Verde Unified does not and supports a higher percentage of these students in district programs. In addi- tion, Val Verde Unified has invested in additional leadership positions to provide new special education teachers with instructional support and assistance writing and holding IEPs to promote student receipt of a procedural and substantive FAPE. This may improve services for students and decrease the number of due process filings. However, if staffing exceeds program needs, resources may be diverted from direct student services. Recommendation The district should: 1. Annually monitor special education enrollment and program support needs to determine whether changes in the current number of administrator/program support and administrative support positions in the Special Education Department are needed. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 17 Findings and Recommendations Special Education Teacher Staffing Special Education Teacher Staffing FCMAT compared the district’s special education teacher staffing to statewide guidelines and/or industry standards. Resource Specialist Program Teachers The RSP provides targeted instructional support and services to students with special education needs. RSP teachers play a critical role in managing caseloads, developing IEPs, and collaborating with general education teachers to support student success. Education Code 56362(c) states: Caseloads for resource specialists shall be stated in the local policies developed pursuant to Section 56195.8 and in accordance with regulations established by the board. A resource specialist shall not have a caseload that exceeds 28 pupils. The contract between the district and the teachers’ association states, “Resource Specialist Program (RSP): Class size in a separate setting (i.e. Learning Strategies; does not include general education collaboration set- ting) should not exceed twenty-eight (28) students. No resource specialist unit member (including unit members in an elementary Learning Center model) shall have a caseload which exceeds twenty-eight (28) students.” In 2025-26, the district has 35.00 FTE RSP teachers. Based on caseload estimates provided by the district, these teachers manage the cases of 811 students, averaging 23.17 students per teacher, as shown in Table 9 below. Table 9. Resource Specialist Program Teacher Staffing, 2025-26 Total Total Average Teacher Student Teacher Education Code Staffing Needed to Staffing Above (+) or Below FTE Caseload Caseload Maximum Meet Standard (-) Standard 28 students per 35.00 811 23.17 teacher 28.96 FTE + 6.04 FTE Sources: District-provided data and EC 56362(c). In 2025-26, the districtwide resource specialist staffing is 6.04 FTE more than what is required to meet the EC 56362(c) caseload standard. Since the students who receive support from a resource specialist are not neatly distributed into groups of 28 across district schools, having more staffing than is required to meet the EC 56362(c) standard may be necessary. In addition, the standard outlined in EC 56362(c) is based on a maximum caseload, which is higher than the statewide caseload average observed in LEAs that serve students using an inclusive model. Although the definition of an inclusive model varies across California’s school districts, the intent of such a model is to enable students to attend their neighborhood schools, progress through the grade levels that match their chronological ages, and access general education classes and curricula to the greatest extent possible. As described in the “Service Options in the Least Restrictive Environment” section of this report, the district did not meet two of the three indicators that measure school age LRE on its annual performance report. Accordingly, increasing resource specialist staffing to exceed the 1-to-28 teacher-to-student ratio may be needed to provide sufficient services to increase students’ access to their LRE. To determine this, the district needs to consider factors such as the number of SAI minutes in a student’s IEP and the percent- age of time a student is in general education. The industry standard for SAI-based programs supporting students in their LRE is 20-24 students per special education teacher. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 18 Findings and Recommendations Special Education Teacher Staffing Learning Center Program Teachers Learning centers are flexible spaces where students can receive targeted instructional support in a self-contained setting and also access general education settings with push-in support from a special edu- cation teacher or instructional aide. The contract between the district and the teachers’ association states, “Resource Specialist Program (RSP): Class size in a separate setting (i.e. Learning Strategies; does not include general education collaboration setting) should not exceed twenty-eight (28) students. No resource specialist unit member (including unit members in an elementary Learning Center model) shall have a caseload which exceeds twenty-eight (28) students.” In 2025-26, the district has 29.00 FTE learning center teachers. Based on caseload estimates provided by the district, these teachers manage the cases of 717 students, averaging 24.72 students per teacher, as shown in Table 10 below. Table 10. Learning Center Teacher Staffing, 2025-26 Total Total Average Staffing Needed Teacher Student Teacher to Meet Industry Staffing Above (+) or Below (-) FTE Caseload Caseload Industry Standard Standard Industry Standard 35.85 FTE (20 stu- dents per teacher) 20-24 students per 29.88 (24 students -6.85 FTE (20 students per teacher) 29.00 717 24.72 teacher per teacher) -0.88 (24 students per teacher) Sources: District-provided data and industry standards. In 2025-26, the learning center staffing is 1.00 to 7.00 FTE less than the industry standard caseload range. Special Day Class Staffing – School-Age Programs The Education Code does not define class size or caseload maximums for SDC programs. The industry standard caseload ranges for SDC programs are shown in Table 11 below. Table 11. Industry Standard Class Size Numbers for Special Day Class Programs Program Type Industry Standard Caseload Range Transitional Kindergarten through Grade 12 – Mild/Moderate Support Needs Special Day Class – Noncategorical 12-15 students per 1 teacher Transitional Kindergarten through Grade 12 – Extensive Support Needs Special Day Class – Noncategorical 10-12 students per 1 teacher Transitional Kindergarten through Grade 12 – Special Day Class – Autism Focus 8-10 students per 1 teacher Therapeutic Special Day Class – Mental Health and Behavioral Transitional Kindergarten through Grade 12 – Support Needs 8-10 students per 1 teacher Sources: Industry standards. The contract between the district and the teachers’ association states, “Special Day Class (SDC): Class size should not exceed 18 students. No special day class unit member shall have a caseload which exceeds eighteen (18) students.” Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 19 Findings and Recommendations Special Education Teacher Staffing Mild-to-Moderate Special Day Class Programs In 2025-26, the district has 46.0 FTE SDC teachers of classes for students with mild-to-moderate support needs. Based on caseload estimates provided by the district, these teachers managed the cases of 629 students, averaging 13.67 students per teacher, as shown in Table 12 below. Table 12. Mild-to-Moderate Special Day Class Program Teacher Staffing, 2025-26 Industry Total Total Teacher Standard Staffing FTE Staffing FTE Teacher Student Caseload Caseload Needed to Meet Industry Above (+) or Below FTE Caseload Average Range Standard (-) Industry Standard 12-15 students 52.42 FTE (12 students per teacher) Within industry standard 46.00 629 13.67 per teacher 41.93 FTE (15 students per teacher) range Sources: District-provided data and industry standards. In 2025-26, the districtwide mild-to-moderate SDC teacher staffing is within the industry standard range. Extensive Support Needs Special Day Class Program In 2025-26, the district has 16.00 FTE SDC teachers for students with extensive support needs. Based on caseload estimates provided by the district, these teachers managed the cases of 164 students, averaging 10.25 students per teacher, as shown in Table 13 below. Table 13. Extensive Support Needs Special Day Class Program Teacher Staffing, 2025-26 Total Total Average Industry Staffing FTE Staffing FTE Teacher Student Caseload Per Standard Needed to Meet Above (+) or Below (-) FTE Caseload Teacher Caseload Range Industry Standard Industry Standard 16.40 FTE (10 stu- 10-12 students per dents per teacher) teacher – cross-cat- 13.67 FTE (12 stu- 16.00 164 10.25 egorical dents per teacher Within industry standard range Sources: District-provided data and industry standards. In 2025-26, the districtwide extensive support needs SDC teacher staffing is within the industry standard range. Therapeutic Special Day Class Program In 2025-26, the district has 6.00 FTE SDC teachers for its therapeutic SDC program (counseling enriched classes). Based on caseload estimates provided by the district, these teachers managed the cases of 36 students, averaging 6.00 students per teacher, as shown in Table 14 below. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 20 Findings and Recommendations Special Education Teacher Staffing Table 14. Therapeutic Special Day Class Program Teacher Staffing, 2025-26 Staffing FTE Total Total Average Industry Stan- Staffing FTE Above (+) or Be- Teacher Student Caseload dard Caseload Needed to Meet low (-) Industry FTE Caseload Per Teacher Range Industry Standard Standard 4.50 FTE (8 students +1.50 FTE (8 stu- per teacher) dents per teacher) 8-10 students per 3.60 FTE (10 stu- +2.40 FTE (10 stu- 6.00 36 6.00 teacher dents per teacher) dents per teacher) Sources: District-provided data and industry standards. In 2025-26, the districtwide therapeutic SDC teacher staffing is higher than the industry standard range. Two therapeutic SDCs at Citrus Hill High School each have three students enrolled. This lowers the dis- trictwide average caseload per teacher for this type of SDC. Staff reported that students will be returning from NPSs in 2026-27 and the therapeutic SDCs at Citrus Hill High School will have 10 to 12 students. Autism Special Day Class Program In 2025-26, the district has 14.00 FTE SDC teachers for its autism SDC program. Based on caseload esti- mates provided by the district, these teachers managed the cases of 128 students, averaging 9.14 students per teacher, as shown in Table 15 below. Table 15. Autism Special Day Class Program Teacher Staffing, 2025-26 Staffing FTE Total Total Average Staffing FTE Above (+) or Teacher Student Caseload Industry Standard Needed to Meet Below (-) Industry FTE Caseload Per Teacher Caseload Range Industry Standard Standard 16.00 FTE (8 students per teacher) 8-10 students per 12.80 FTE (10 students Within industry 14.00 128 9.14 teacher per teacher) standard range Sources: District-provided data and industry standards. In 2025-26, the districtwide autism SDC teacher staffing is within the industry standard range. Special Day Class Staffing – Preschool Programs The Education Code does not define class size or caseload maximums for preschool SDC programs. The industry standards for preschool program caseloads are shown in Table 16 below. Table 16. Industry Standards for Preschool Special Day Class Programs Program Type Industry Standard Caseload Size Preschool Special Day Class – Mild/Moderate Support Needs – Cross-Categorical 14 students per 1 teacher Preschool Special Day Class – Extensive Support Needs – Cross-Categorical 10 students per 1 teacher Preschool Special Day Class – Autism 9 students per 1 teacher Sources: Industry standards. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 21 Findings and Recommendations Special Education Teacher Staffing Preschool Special Day Class Program In 2025-26, the district has 9.00 FTE teachers for its preschool SDC program. Based on caseload estimates provided by the district, these teachers manage the cases of 84 students, as shown in Table 17 below. Table 17. Preschool Special Day Class Program Teacher Staffing, 2025-26 Staffing FTE Total Total Average Staffing FTE Above (+) or Teacher Student Caseload Industry Standard Needed to Meet Below (-) Industry School Level FTE Caseload Per Teacher Caseload Range Industry Standard Standard Preschool SDC Mild-to-Moderate 14 students per Support Needs 6.00 58 9.67 teacher 4.14 FTE +1.86 FTE Preschool SDC Extensive Support 10 students per Needs 2.00 21 10.50 teacher 2.10 FTE -0.10 FTE Appropriate given Preschool SDC 9 students per one class at this Autism 1.00 5 5.00 teacher 0.56 FTE support need level Sources: District-provided data and industry standards. In 2025-26, the preschool SDC teacher staffing for autism and extensive supports needs SDCs is appropri- ate given the size of these programs. In 2025-26, the preschool SDC teacher staffing for mild-to-moderate support needs program is 1.86 FTE higher than the industry standard. Recommendations The district should: 1. Annually compare RSP teacher staffing and caseloads to industry standards and ensure they are adequate to meet student needs. 2. Evaluate whether its learning center special education teacher staffing is adequate to meet student needs. 3. Annually monitor caseloads and student needs for its preschool and school-age SDC programs to determine if it needs to make staffing changes. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 22 Findings and Recommendations Special Education Instructional Aide Staffing Special Education Instructional Aide Staffing Special education instructional aides, also known as special education assistants or paraeducators, are trained professionals who work with students, typically under the direction of a classroom teacher. LEAs often employ special education instructional aides under different titles with distinct job descriptions to perform functions such as specialized academic instruction, specialized medical support, behavioral sup- port, and 1-to-1 student support or intensive individual service (IIS). The district employs instructional aides under several different job descriptions. Industry Standard SDC Instructional Aide Staffing Ratios The industry standard base staffing for SDCs is to assign one instructional aide for every teacher of stu- dents with mild-to-moderate and extensive support needs. For SDCs serving students with autism, the base staffing standard is two special education instructional aides for every teacher. In addition, the indus- try standard for staffing in excess of the SDC base staffing level is determined by an adult-to-student ratio, as shown in Table 18 below. Table 18. Industry Standard Instructional Aide Staffing and Adult-to-Student Ratios SDC Support Industry Standard Adult-to-Student Level SDC Focus Special Education Instructional Aide Staffing Ratio One to two six-hour special education instructional aides Mild-to-Moderate Cross-categorical for a class size of 12-15 1-to-7 One to two six-hour special education instructional aides Extensive Cross-categorical for a class size of 10-12 1-to-5 Two to four six-hour special education instructional aides All Autism for a class size of 8-10 1-to-3 Source: Industry standards. Note: Industry standard staffing for special education instructional assistants is determined by class size to meet an adult-to-student ratio, which includes the classroom teacher and special education instructional assistant(s). District SDC Program Instructional Aide Staffing FCMAT analyzed the district’s 2025-26 instructional aide staffing in its SDCs for students with extensive support needs and autism as shown in Table 19 below. The district’s instructional aide staffing in its learn- ing centers and its preschool and counseling enriched SDCs was not analyzed because FCMAT does not have an industry standard adult-to-student ratio for these types of SDCs. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 23 Findings and Recommendations Special Education Instructional Aide Staffing Table 19. SDC Instructional Assistant Allocation – District Compared to Industry Standards, 2025-26 Adult to Industry Standard Student Ratio Adult to Student No. of Special (Teacher and Ratio (Teacher Education Classroom and Classroom Classroom Support Classroom Support Support Instructional Assistant Support Instructional Instructional Staffing Above (+) or School and SDC Instructional Assistant(s) Assistant(s) to Below (-) Industry SDC Class Enrollment Assistant(s) to Students) Students) Standard Manuel L. Real Elementary - Life Skills 9 3 4-to-9 or 0.44 1-to-5 or 0.20 +2 above industry standard Manuel L. Real Elementary - Life Skills 8 3 4-to-8 or 0.50 1-to-5 or 0.20 +2 above industry standard Manuel L. Real Elementary - Life Skills 9 3 4-to-9 or 0.44 1-to-5 or 0.20 +2 above industry standard Mary McLeod Bethune Ele- mentary - Life Skills 10 4 5-to-10 or 0.50 1-to-5 or 0.20 +3 above industry standard Mary McLeod Bethune Ele- mentary - Life Skills 7 3 4-to-7 or 0.57 1-to-5 or 0.20 +2 above industry standard Mary McLeod Bethune Ele- mentary - Autism 11 4 5-to-11 or 0.45 1-to-3 or 0.33 +1 above industry standard Mary McLeod Bethune Ele- mentary - Autism 8 4 5-to-8 or 0.63 1-to-3 or 0.33 +2 above industry standard Mary McLeod Bethune Ele- mentary - Autism 10 4 5-to-10 or 0.50 1-to-3 or 0.33 +1 above industry standard Rainbow Ridge Elementary - Autism 9 4 5-to-9 or 0.56 1-to-3 or 0.33 +2 above industry standard Rainbow Ridge Elementary - Autism 9 4 5-to-9 or 0.56 1-to-3 or 0.33 +2 above industry standard Rainbow Ridge Elementary - Autism 10 4 5-to-10 or 0.50 1-to-3 or 0.33 +1 above industry standard Rainbow Ridge Elementary - Autism 10 3 4-to-10 or 0.40 1-to-3 or 0.33 Equal to industry standard Rainbow Ridge Elementary - Autism 10 4 5-to-10 or 0.50 1-to-3 or 0.33 +1 above industry standard March Middle School - Life Skills 11 3 4-to-11 or 0.36 1-to-5 or 0.20 +1 above industry standard Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 24 Findings and Recommendations Special Education Instructional Aide Staffing Adult to Industry Standard Student Ratio Adult to Student No. of Special (Teacher and Ratio (Teacher Education Classroom and Classroom Classroom Support Classroom Support Support Instructional Assistant Support Instructional Instructional Staffing Above (+) or School and SDC Instructional Assistant(s) Assistant(s) to Below (-) Industry SDC Class Enrollment Assistant(s) to Students) Students) Standard March Middle School - Life Skills 11 3 4-to-11 or 0.36 1-to-5 or 0.20 +1 above industry standard March Middle School - Life Skills 11 2 3-to-11 or 0.27 1-to-5 or 0.20 Equal to industry standard March Middle School - Autism 11 3 4-to-11 or 0.36 1-to-3 or 0.33 Equal to industry standard March Middle School - Autism 8 3 4-to-8 or 0.50 1-to-3 or 0.33 +1 above industry standard Citrus Hill High School - Life Skills 11 3 4-to-11 or 0.36 1-to-5 or 0.20 +1 above industry standard Citrus Hill High School - Life Skills 10 3 4-to-10 or 0.40 1-to-5 or 0.20 +2 above industry standard Citrus Hill High School - Life Skills 13 4 5-to-13 or 0.38 1-to-5 or 0.20 +2 above industry standard Citrus Hill High School - Life Skills 14 4 5-to-14 or 0.36 1-to-5 or 0.20 +2 above industry standard Rancho Verde High School - Autism 9 3 4-to-9 or 0.44 1-to-3 or 0.33 +1 above industry standard Rancho Verde High School - Autism 9 4 5-to-9 or 0.56 1-to-3 or 0.33 +2 above industry standard Val Verde Acad- emy - Bridges to Adulthood - Life Skills 7 2 3-to-7 or 0.43 1-to-5 or 0.20 +1 above industry standard Val Verde Acad- emy - Bridges to Adulthood – Life Skills 8 2 3-to-8 or 0.38 1-to-5 or 0.20 +1 above industry standard Val Verde Acad- emy - Bridges to Adulthood - Life Skills 10 2 3-to-10 or 0.30 1-to-5 or 0.20 +1 above industry standard Val Verde Acad- emy - Bridges to Adulthood - Life Skills 10 3 4-to-10 or 0.40 1-to-5 or 0.20 +2 above industry standard Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 25 Findings and Recommendations Special Education Instructional Aide Staffing Adult to Industry Standard Student Ratio Adult to Student No. of Special (Teacher and Ratio (Teacher Education Classroom and Classroom Classroom Support Classroom Support Support Instructional Assistant Support Instructional Instructional Staffing Above (+) or School and SDC Instructional Assistant(s) Assistant(s) to Below (-) Industry SDC Class Enrollment Assistant(s) to Students) Students) Standard Val Verde Acad- emy - Bridges to Adulthood - Autism 8 3 4-to-8 or 0.50 1-to-3 or 0.33 +1 above industry standard Val Verde Acad- emy - Bridges to Adulthood - Autism 8 3 4-to-8 or 0.50 1-to-3 or 0.33 +1 above industry standard Source: Industry standards and district-reported data. Notes: Only schools with SDCs were included in this table. The district’s instructional assistant staffing in its learning centers, and its preschool and counseling enriched SDCs were not analyzed because FCMAT does not have an industry standard adult-to-student ratio for these types of SDCs. In 2025-26, the districtwide instructional assistant staffing for its SDCs for students with extensive support needs and autism is higher than the industry standards. In the same year, if the district had staffed its SDC program for students with extensive support needs using the industry standard adult-to-student ratio, it may have been able to reduce by 25 instructional assistants. In 2025-26, if the district had staffed its SDC program for students with autism using the industry standard adult-to student ratio, it may have been able to reduce by 16 instructional assistants. However, the district has a lower percentage of its students with extensive support needs receiving 1-to-1 support from an instructional assistant than what is observed across the state as described in the “1-to-1 Student Support” section of this report. Instead of adding 1-to-1 support, the district endeavors to add extra classroom instructional assistant support to meet student needs. This is a positive practice because it focuses on student independence and supports student needs in a less restrictive manner. In addition, the district has a policy stating that staff toileting a student must do so in pairs, which increases the number of instructional assistants needed in an SDC. 1-to-1 Student Support Industry practice commonly refers to both the assessment process and the special education paraeducator role as special circumstance instructional assistance (SCIA). The district uses the Riverside County SELPA’s Related Services Independence Assistance (RSIA) assessment process to make decisions regarding assign- ment of 1-to-1 student support. This process clarifies decision-making procedures and recognizes that 1-to-1 instructional assistance is a significant program decision that should be based on a thorough, data-driven evaluation that includes considering all less-restrictive alternatives. The SELPA’s assessment aligns with industry standards because it focuses on personal independence, promotes individual decision-making, works to maximize existing supports, and is based on data-driven assessment. Staff reported the RSIA assessment is used consistently across district schools to determine whether there is a need for 1-to-1 stu- dent support. In 2025-26, the district has 39 instructional assistants who are assigned to provide 1-to-1 student support. While there is no established industry standard for special education instructional assistants providing 1-to-1 student support, in Val Verde Unified, 1.40% of the students in its special education program have a 1-to-1 instructional assistant. Of the last seven districts FCMAT studied, only one district had a percentage Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 26 Findings and Recommendations Special Education Instructional Aide Staffing comparable to Val Verde Unified. The other six districts FCMAT studied had assigned an average of 4.32% of the students in their special education program a 1-to-1 instructional assistant. Staff reported that Val Verde Unified uses extra classroom instructional assistant support to meet student needs instead of assigning a 1-to-1 instructional assistant whenever possible. This is a positive practice because even though a parent/guardian or staff member’s request for a student to have 1-to-1 support may be well meaning, according to the University of Colorado at Denver’s Paraprofessional Resources and Research Center, it can hinder the student’s education in the following ways: • The paraeducator may become the student’s primary service provider, and the teacher’s involvement and interactions with the student may be limited. The University of Colorado at Denver’s Paraprofessional Resources and Research Center cautions, “This practice is further exacerbated when paraeducators are not qualified and or trained. It is not in the best interest of the students with most complex needs to be taught by the least qualified staff member.” • The paraeducator’s constant presence may cause the student to become overly dependent on that adult to do things they could otherwise do independently. • The paraeducator may create social barriers between the student they are supporting and the student’s peers. Recommendations The district should: 1. Use the industry standard adult-to-student ratios to determine the assignment of special education instructional assistants to SDCs. However, since the district focuses on LRE and endeavors to assign extra classroom support to address individual student needs, adjust the industry standard adult-to-student ratios based on the student needs in each individual class. 2. Continue to require its RSIA assessment to be used to determine whether a student needs 1-to-1 student support. Provide regular training and support for staff on the RSIA assessment. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 27 Findings and Recommendations Related Service Provider Staffing and Caseloads Related Service Provider Staffing and Caseloads Related services are the developmental, corrective and other services required to help a child with a dis- ability benefit from special education (34 CFR 300.34). These services are written into students’ IEPs and include but are not limited to physical therapy, speech and language therapy, and occupational therapy (OT). FCMAT analyzed staffing ratios for the district’s adaptive physical education (APE) teacher, OTs, creden- tialed school nurses, school psychologists, and SLPs. Staffing ratios for other related service providers were not analyzed because there is no established industry standard for them, or the SELPA provides those services. The industry standards for related service providers are shown in Table 20 below. Table 20. Industry Standard Provider-to-Student Ratios Industry Standard or Education Code Provider Type Provider-to-Student Ratio Psychologist 1-to-977 SLP (preschool) 1-to-40 SLP (ages 5-22) 1-to-55 APE Teacher 1-to-45-55 Physical Therapist 1-to-45-55 Occupational Therapist 1-to-45-55 Vision and Orientation and Mobility 1-to-10-30 Deaf and Hard of Hearing 1-to-15-25 Nurse 1-to-2,274 Sources: Industry standards, Education Code 56363.3, and Pupil Services Staff by Type (CDE). Adapted Physical Education Districts need to annually review APE teacher caseload projections, assessment loads, the number of schools each APE teacher supports, driving times between schools, direct and consultation service min- utes, how services are provided, and students’ needs to determine if they need to change the number of APE teachers. In 2025-26, the district has 3.00 FTE APE teachers who have a caseload of 37.00 students receiving direct services, as shown in Table 21 below. Table 21. Adapted Physical Education Teacher Staffing, 2025-26 Staffing Above (+) or 2025-26 Industry Standard FTE Needed to Below (-) Number Total Caseload Provider-to-Student Meet Industry Industry Provider of FTE Caseload Average Ratio Standard Standard 0.82 FTE (to meet +2.18 FTE (above 1-to-45) 1-to-45) APE 0.67 FTE (to meet +2.33 FTE (above Teacher 3.00 37.00 12.33 1-to-45-55 1-to-55) 1-to-55) Sources: District-provided data and industry standards. Note: Only students receiving direct services from the district’s APE teacher were included in the total caseload and related calculations. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 28 Findings and Recommendations Related Service Provider Staffing and Caseloads As shown in the table, the district is staffed 2.00 FTE above the industry standard staffing level range for APE teachers in 2025-26. The district’s current staffing is necessary due to its APE service delivery model; two of its APE teachers are the teacher of record for physical education classes at the middle and high schools. Credentialed School Nurses Districts need to annually review their enrollment, special education enrollment, duties performed by cre- dentialed school nurses and other health specialists, schoolwide needs, driving time between schools, and students’ needs to determine if changes to credentialed school nurse staffing are needed. In 2025-26, the district has 7.00 FTE credentialed school nurse positions, with an average caseload of 2,673.86 students, as shown in Table 22 below. Table 22. Credentialed School Nurse Staffing, 2025-26 2025-26 FTE Needed Staffing Census Industry Standard to Meet Above (+) or Number Day Caseload Provider-to-Student Industry Below (-) Provider of FTE Enrollment Average Ratio Standard Industry Standard Credentialed School Nurse 7.00 18,717 2,673.86 1-to-2,274 8.23 FTE -1.23 FTE Sources: Pupil Services Staff by Type (CDE), district-provided data, and DataQuest. As shown in the table, the district is staffed more than 1.00 FTE less than the industry standard staffing levels for credentialed school nurses. However, in addition to credentialed school nurses, the district has licensed vocational nurses (LVNs). The district’s LVN job description states: Under the supervision of the Director of Special Education and the district nurses the Licensed Vocational Nurse provides direct clinical care to meet the health needs of students; documents and maintains students’ health information required by federal/state/local agen- cies, and provides appropriate care and/referral for ill, medically fragile, and/or injured stu- dents, as required. Therefore, the district may be able to support school and student needs with its current credentialed school nurse and LVN staffing. Occupational Therapy Districts need to annually review OT caseload projections, assessment loads, the number of schools each OT serves, driving time between schools, direct and consultation service minutes, and students’ needs to determine the number of OTs needed. In 2025-26, the district has 3.00 FTE OT positions, each with an average caseload of 48.00 students receiving direct services, as shown in Table 23 below. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 29 Findings and Recommendations Related Service Provider Staffing and Caseloads Table 23. District Occupational Therapist Staffing, 2025-26 Industry Stan- Staffing 2025-26 dard Provid- FTE Needed to Above (+) or Below Number Total Caseload er-to-Student Meet Industry (-) Industry Provider of FTE Caseload Average Ratio Standard Standard 3.20 FTE (to meet 1-to-45) Occupational 2.62 FTE (to meet Within industry stan- Therapist 3.00 144 48.00 1-to-45-55 1-to-55) dard range Sources: District-provided data and industry standards. Notes: Only students receiving direct services from occupational therapists were included in the total caseload and related calculations. As shown in the table, the district is staffed within the industry standard range for OTs. Physical Therapy Districts need to annually review PT caseload projections, assessment loads, the number of schools each PT serves, driving time between schools, direct and consultation service minutes, and students’ needs to determine the number of PTs needed. In 2025-26, the district has a 0.75 FTE PT position, with a caseload of 21.00 students receiving direct ser- vices, as shown in Table 24 below. In addition, the district contracts with a nonpublic agency for an addi- tional part-time PT who works two days per week in the district to support student needs. Table 24. District Physical Therapist Staffing, 2025-26 Industry Stan- 2025-26 dard Provid- FTE Needed to Staffing Number Total Caseload er-to-Student Meet Industry Above (+) or Below (-) Provider of FTE Caseload Average Ratio Standard Industry Standard 0.47 FTE (to meet 1-to-45) Physical 0.38 FTE (to +0.28 FTE (to meet 1-to-45) Therapist 0.75 21 21.00 1-to-45-55 meet 1-to-55) +0.37 FTE (to meet 1-to-55) Sources: District-provided data and industry standards. Notes: Only students receiving direct services from occupational therapists were included in the total caseload and related calculations. Local educational agencies serve students with orthopedic impairments and other disabilities requiring PT as a related service through their own SDCs, regional SDCs, and NPSs. Compared to what is observed across the state, this district serves a higher percentage of students with these needs in their own SDCs and therefore likely needs additional PT staffing to support student needs. Given this, the district’s staffing for PTs appears appropriate. School Psychologists for School-Age Programs Districts need to annually review the following items to help determine how many FTE school psychologist positions are needed: • The number of initial psychoeducational assessments in the current school year. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 30 Findings and Recommendations Related Service Provider Staffing and Caseloads • The number of annual and triennial psychoeducational assessments expected next school year. • The number of early reassessments expected next school year. • Total student enrollment. • Special education enrollment. • Individual student and school needs. In 2025-26, the district has 19.00 FTE school psychologist positions serving school-age programs, each with an average caseload of 985.11 students, as shown in Table 25 below. The district also has 3.00 FTE school psychologists who perform preschool assessments and were not included in this analysis. In addi- tion, the district has a 1.00 FTE school psychologist on special assignment who does not perform psycho- educational assessments so was not included in this analysis. Table 25. School Psychologist Staffing for School-Age Programs Compared to Industry Standard, 2025-26 Staffing FTE Need- Above (+) Industry Standard ed to Meet or Below (-) Number 2025-26 Census Caseload Provider-to-Stu- Industry Industry Provider of FTE Day Enrollment Average dent Ratio Standard Standard School Psychol- ogist for School- Age Programs 19.00 18,717 985.11 1-to-977 19.16 FTE -0.16 FTE Sources: District-provided data, Pupil Services Staff by Type (CDE), and DataQuest. Note: Only the district’s 19.00 FTE school psychologists who serve school-age students were included in this staffing comparison. As shown in the table, the district is staffed approximately equal to the industry standard staffing levels for school psychologists for school-age programs. Speech and Language Pathologists Education Code 56441.7(a) establishes a maximum caseload of 40 students for SLPs serving preschool stu- dents. Education Code 56363.3 addresses SLPs serving school-age students. It states, “The average case- load for language, speech, and hearing specialists in special education local plan areas shall not exceed 55 cases, unless the local plan specifies a higher average caseload and the reasons for the greater average caseload.” For SLPs serving students in both programs, FCMAT uses a blended maximum caseload of 47.5 students. Districts need to annually review SLP caseload projections and students’ needs to determine if changes to SLP staffing are needed. Speech and Language Pathologists Serving Students in the Preschool Programs In 2025-26, the district has 4.00 FTE SLPs who provide speech and language therapy for preschool-age students. These SLPs have an average caseload of 32.00 students, as shown in Table 26 below. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 31 Findings and Recommendations Related Service Provider Staffing and Caseloads Table 26. Speech and Language Pathologist Staffing for SLPs Working with Preschool-Age Students, 2025-26 2025-26 FTE Needed Number Total Caseload Education Code to Meet Staffing Above (+) or Provider of FTE Caseload Average Maximum Standard Below (-) Standard SLPs for Pre- school-age Students 4.00 128 32.00 1-to-40 3.20 FTE +0.80 FTE Sources: District-provided data and EC 56441.7(a). Note: Only preschool-age students receiving services from an SLP were included in the caseload average for comparison with the EC 56441.7(a) standard. As shown in the table, the district is staffed 0.80 FTE above what is required to meet the standard for SLPs serving preschool-age students. However, the district does not have an SLP designated to perform initial speech and language assessment for preschool-age students. Instead, all four SLPs for preschool-age students perform initial assessments. At the time of this study, 47 students were going through their initial preschool assessment or will be added to the caseloads of these four SLPs for preschool-age students upon their third birthday when the district becomes responsible for providing their special education ser- vices. While all of the students undergoing their initial speech and language assessment may not qualify for services, if they do, the district will have a total caseload of 175 preschool-age students receiving speech and language services and will need 4.38 FTE SLPs to meet the EC 56441.7(a) standard of 40 students. Speech and Language Pathologists Serving Students in the Preschool and School-Age Programs Education Code 56441.7(a) establishes a maximum caseload of 40 students for SLPs serving preschool students, and Education Code 56363.3 establishes a maximum caseload of 55 students for SLPs serving students ages 5-22. For SLPs serving students in both programs, FCMAT uses a blended maximum case- load of 47.5 students. In 2025-26, at the time of FCMAT’s visit, the district has a 1.00 FTE SLP who works with preschool-age and school-age students. This SLP has a caseload of 52.00 students, as shown in Table 27 below. Table 27: Speech and Language Pathologist Staffing for SLPs Working with Preschool-Age and School-Age Students, 2025-26 2025-26 FTE Needed to Staffing Above (+) Number Total Caseload Industry Meet Industry or Below (-) Industry Provider of FTE Caseload Average Standard Standard Standard SLPs for Preschool-Age and School-Age Students 1.00 52.00 52.00 1-to-47.5 1.09 FTE -0.09 FTE Sources: District-provided data and EC 56441.7(a) and EC 56363.3 Note: Only preschool-age and school-age students receiving services from a SLP were included in the caseload average for comparison with the EC 56441.7(a) and EC 56363.3 standards. As shown in the table, the district is staffed just under the industry standard for SLPs serving both pre- school-age and school-age students. The district needs to review SLP caseload projections and students’ needs to determine if its SLP staffing for SLPs serving preschool-age and school-age students is adequate to meet students’ needs. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 32 Findings and Recommendations Related Service Provider Staffing and Caseloads Speech and Language Pathologists Serving School-Age Students In 2025-26, the district has 22.00 FTE SLPs working exclusively with school-age students who each manage an average caseload of 59.64 students, as shown in Table 28 below. Table 28. School-Age Speech and Language Pathologist Staffing, 2025-26 Staffing Education Code FTE Needed to Above (+) or Number 2025-26 To- Caseload Standard Provid- Meet Education Below (-) Education Provider of FTE tal Caseload Average er-to-Student Ratio Code Standard Code Standard SLPs – School-Age 22.00 1,312 59.64 1-to-55 23.85 -1.85 FTE Sources: District-provided data and EC 56363.3. As shown in the table, if considering the district’s staffing and caseload numbers (not SELPA-wide), the district is staffed approximately 2.00 FTE less than the Education Code standard staffing level for SLPs for school-age programs. Recommendations The district should: 1. Annually review staffing for all related service providers to determine whether it is aligned with the industry standards and meets student needs. 2. Determine whether its current credentialed school nurse staffing is adequate to meet student needs. 3. Increase its SLP staffing to comply with the Education Code staffing standards and meet student needs. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 33 Findings and Recommendations Professional Learning Plan Professional Learning Plan The district’s board of trustees established four 2025-26 board goals to guide the district’s work. These goals are aligned with the district’s local control accountability plan (LCAP) and the district’s MTSS Strategic Plan, as shown below. Figure 3. 2025-26 Board Goals 2025-2026 Source: Val Verde Unified School District website. Certain staff reported that extensive, ongoing professional learning has been provided on the district’s MTSS as a whole, and now more extensive work in certain targeted areas is needed to increase the impact this framework is having on students’ success. The Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) recently published a practice brief titled, “How Districts Scale Instructional Improvement That Lasts.” This brief states, “Senior leaders must exercise their authority to deprioritize some things so that the organization can align around a few ongoing, critical goals. ‘When everything is a priority, nothing is a priority’ is a common saying, and its intuitive truth is easy to see.” This PACE brief identifies common pitfalls and highlights the importance of district systems and the pivotal role district leaders need to play in successfully implement- ing improvement initiatives across district schools. Accordingly, the district’s professional learning priorities need to be aligned with these four board goals. Training for Teachers A district’s professional learning plan for instructional staff should consider the needs of students with dis- abilities and align with evidence-based practices, such as an MTSS, as outlined in the 2015 report on one system. This alignment is essential to improve support for all students, including those with disabilities. As described in the “District Alignment with the 2015 Report on One System” section of this report, the district is implementing a comprehensive MTSS Strategic Plan which is designed to create positive learning environments and support high levels of learning for all students, including students with disabilities. The 2015 report on one system recommends educators use UDL to design accessible and inclusive learning experiences for all students and accommodate diverse learners. The academic supports outlined in the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 34 Findings and Recommendations Professional Learning Plan district’s MTSS include a focus on UDL. As described in the “District Implementation of MTSS” section of this report, the district’s MTSS supports students’ access to their least restrictive environment. Staff indi- cated that the district’s MTSS Strategic Plan is not a one-time initiative; instead, it is a system of academic, behavioral and social-emotional supports with associated processes that are continually revisited and refined. The district provides ongoing professional learning aligned with its MTSS Strategic Plan according to identified needs. The district needs to continue this work. Training for Special Education Instructional Assistants The best practice is for special education instructional assistants to receive nonviolent crisis interven- tion training according to recertification requirements and regular training on student support strategies throughout the school year. Staff reported that nonviolent crisis intervention training is offered to special education instructional assistants on certain Saturdays during the school year; it is optional and instruc- tional assistants who attend are paid. Staff indicated that since nonviolent crisis intervention training is not required or offered during the regular workday, many special education instructional assistants are not certified. Staff reported that special education instructional assistants participate in mandated training and have additional training (depending on which program they support) during nonstudent workdays or on early release days. Despite this, most staff members indicated that special education instructional assis- tants would benefit from additional training addressing: • Disability awareness. • Behavior intervention training. • Differentiation strategies. • Providing accommodations and modifications. • Inclusive practices. Recommendations The district should: 1. Continue to provide professional learning aligned with its MTSS for instructional staff according to identified needs. 2. Continue to provide professional learning for instructional assistants. Consider prioritizing training addressing disability awareness, behavior intervention training, differentiation strategies, providing accommodations and modifications, and inclusive practices. 3. Develop a plan for more of its special education instructional assistants to receive nonviolent crisis intervention training. Prioritize special education instructional assistants working in the autism and social-emotional support SDC programs. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 35 Findings and Recommendations Unrestricted General Fund Contribution to Special Education Unrestricted General Fund Contribution to Special Education Fiscal Background California’s special education funding structure was established by and is commonly referred to as Assembly Bill (AB) 602 (Chapter 854, Statutes of 1997), which became effective during the 1998-99 fiscal year. Under AB 602, special education funding is based on the average daily attendance (ADA) of all students in a school district, regardless of the number of students served in special education programs or the cost to serve them. California distributes special education funds to SELPAs based on their member districts’ total ADA counts. In addition to AB 602 state funding, districts receive a small amount of federal funds. These funds are designed to supplement the general education program, not to support a stand-alone program. The combined state and federal funds are insufficient to pay for even the most efficient special education programs. Districts make contributions to special education from local resources generated by all students, including those in special education. These contributions are the amount of funding districts must transfer from their unrestricted general funds to pay for the portion of special education costs that exceeds program revenues. Federal law requires districts to spend at least the same amount of state and local funds on special edu- cation services in each successive year. This is commonly referred to as the maintenance of effort (MOE). This requirement has limited exemptions, and if a district is considering reductions to its total general fund contribution to special education, it is required to follow the guidelines in the IDEA (20 USC 1413 (a)(2)(B)), which lists the following circumstances as exceptions that allow a district to reduce the amount of state and local funds it spends on special education: i. Voluntary departure, by retirement or otherwise, or departure for just cause, of special edu- cation or related services personnel; ii. A decrease in the enrollment of children with disabilities; iii. The termination of the obligation of the agency to provide a program of special education to a particular child with a disability that is an exceptionally costly program, as determined by the state educational agency, because the child: a. Has left the jurisdiction of the agency; b. Has reached the age at which the obligation of the agency to provide free and appro- priate public education to the child has terminated; or c. No longer needs the program of special education; or iv. The termination of costly expenditures for long-term purchases, such as the acquisition of equipment or the construction of school facilities. The year-end expenditures charged to special education goal codes in the SACS, which is the state’s finan- cial reporting format, and allocated expenses in the Program Cost Report are used to calculate special edu- cation MOE. Districts need to monitor their MOE throughout the year and analyze forecasts of MOE calcu- lations at first and second interim financial reporting periods. Districts should be mindful of what expenses are charged to special education SACS goal codes, including for non-special education SACS resource codes, because those may increase the MOE. This district is the AU of the Riverside County SELPA and Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 36 Findings and Recommendations Unrestricted General Fund Contribution to Special Education must be mindful to code SELPA expenses in accordance with the California School Accounting Manual (CSAM), so that SELPA expenses do not accrue to the district MOE. As described in the following “Building Comparable Data” section of this report, certain SELPA AU revenues and expenses were exported into the district’s official data file submitted to the CDE. In addition, districts should monitor reductions in expenditures to determine if any meet one of the exceptions that may allow the district to reduce the amount of state and local funds it spends on special education. Building Comparable Data Resource codes in the SACS are used to identify revenues and expenditures that have specific accounting or reporting requirements or that are legally restricted. Special education SACS resource codes are used to record special education spending and therefore contain vital information about a district’s unrestricted general fund contribution to its special education program. The special education financial reporting methods used by districts, county offices of education and SELPAs can vary. For example, Val Verde Unified School District includes special education transportation expenses and legal expenses, while other districts may exclude these expenses. There are also differences in how special education funds are allocated by SELPAs and what expenses are paid by the SELPA to support district students. Because of these differences, it is not always possible to accurately compare a district’s unrestricted general fund contribution to those of other districts. However, a district should evaluate a contribution that is excessive compared to other districts or that is increasing disproportionately compared to other costs. To calculate an unrestricted general fund contribution amount that can be compared year to year and includes expenditures most districts classify as special education, FCMAT made the following adjustments to the district’s SACS data: • One-Time Funds Adjustments: To improve multiyear continuity, FCMAT used only ongo- ing special education income. FCMAT removed one-time funding posted in SACS totaling $2,401,594 in 2021-22, $334,955 in 2022-23, and $57,516 in 2023-24. It appears that spe- cial education expenditures charged to these one-time state and federal income sources were ongoing and were budgeted by the district as such beginning in 2022-23. There were no adjustments for one-time funding needed for 2024-25. • Journal Entries Corrected after the January 30, 2026 Second Interim Cutoff Date: Four journal entries were made between January 1, 2026, and January 28, 2026, which caused the 2025-26 budget for books and supplies at the second interim reporting period to have a balance of -$70,579. These entries were reversed by the district between March 4, 2026, and March 12, 2026, adding back $624,531. FCMAT updated the 2025-26 second interim district budget data to reflect this correction. • SELPA Administrative Unit Income and Expenses: Val Verde Unified functions as the SELPA AU. Certain SELPA AU revenues and expenses were exported into the district’s offi- cial data file submitted to the CDE. The CSAM defines how AUs should code income and expenses. This includes SACS resource, function, goal, and object codes, which differen- tiate the data so that a SELPA's administrative activities are distinguished from the dis- trict's administrative activities in the SACS file. Details to support the SELPA’s income and expenses were provided by the district and compared with the official SACS data file. • Special Education Transportation Adjustments: Reimbursements to parents paid in lieu of district provided transportation were charged to the administration function code 2100, Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 37 Findings and Recommendations Unrestricted General Fund Contribution to Special Education instead of transportation function code 3600. These expenses were added back to the transportation costs as follows: $9,882 in 2021-22, $10,612 in 2022-23, $9,325 in 2023-24, $14,938 in 2024-25 and $18,000 in 2025-26 (budgeted). • Indirect Cost Adjustments: Although the district charges few indirect costs, full indirect costs have been charged to all special education programs using the CDE’s approved rates for all the comparison years. The best practice is to charge the full indirect rate to all programs, including those without special education SACS resource codes, so that the true cost of the special education program can be determined. District Special Education Expenses FCMAT analyzed the district’s special education income and expenditures, using only ongoing income from fiscal years 2021-22 to 2024-25 (one-time 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24 income was excluded), as shown in Table 29 below. As described in the “Building Comparable Data” section, FCMAT added district transportation charges that were charged to administration and removed all identifiable duplicate SELPA income and expenses, so they were not double counted. In addition, FCMAT included the correction to the 2025-26 journal entry, which had accidentally eliminated the budget for books and supplies. Special edu- cation transportation costs are reported separately in Table 29 due to their unique expense trends. Data from 2021-22 was used as the base for calculating the percent change in the “Adjusted Historical 2022-23” column. Table 29. Comparison of Adjusted Special Education Expenses Using Ongoing Income Only, 2022-23 to 2025-26 Average Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted Historical Historical Historical Historical Budget Annual Category 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Rate Increase in Special Education Students 3.8% 6.1% 5.9% 5.2% 5.3% Increase/Decrease in Ongoing Income 14.2% 11.6% -2.0% 6.2% 7.9% Increase in Certificated Salaries 12.1% 16.0% 7.3% 7.4% 11.8% Increase in Classified Salaries 23.6% 25.6% 15.5% 13.5% 21.6% Increase in Benefits 20.8% 18.5% 11.1% 11.7% 16.8% Increase/Decrease in Books and Supplies 42.9% -24.4% 23.0% -24.1% 13.9% Increase in Services 37.9% 6.6% 11.0% 9.6% 18.5% Increase in Transportation Services 4.0% 12.8% 12.2% 15.8% 9.7% Increase/Decrease in Other Tuition 23.8% -4.9% 33.4% -7.6% 17.4% Increase in Adjusted General Fund Contribution 37.9% 6.6% 11.0% 9.6% 18.5% Adjusted Dollar Amount of General Fund Contribution $26,561,535 $32,023,098 $38,685,165 $44,269,997 N/A Adjusted Dollar Amount of Special Education Expenses $49,438,441 $56,135,496 $61,987,241 $69,292,419 N/A Sources: Official SACS unaudited actuals, 2025-26 budget as of January 30, 2026, district provided journal entries from 2025-26, district pro- vided SELPA income and expenses, and Enrollment Multi-Year Summary for Charter and Non-Charter Schools - Val Verde Unified. Notes: Official SACS data were adjusted as described in the “Building Comparative Data” section of this report. The “Adjusted Dollar Amount of Special Education Expenses” and “Adjusted Dollar Amount of General Fund Contribution” categories were adjusted to match footnoted entries in the district’s budget. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 38 Findings and Recommendations Unrestricted General Fund Contribution to Special Education Special Education Funding and Expenses During the review period, the number of students identified for special education increased by an average of 5.3% per year, and adjusted expenses increased by approximately 14.9% per year. The district’s ongoing special education funding over the review period increased by an average of 7.9% per year. In 2025-26, the district is projecting a 6.2% increase in special education income, primarily because of increased funding in Mental Health-Related Services. District transportation income is generated, in part, from expenses coded to SACS Function Code 3600, as shown in the district’s unaudited actuals. These 2024-25 expenses will determine 2025-26 reimbursement amounts. However, parents paid in lieu of district transportation expenses have not been coded to SACS Function Code 3600. Additionally, no NPS SELPA-paid home-to-school transportation expenses have been coded to SACS Function Code 3600. Failure to consistently report all transportation expenses billed to the district may have resulted in lost transportation income. District transportation expenses increased by an average of 9.7% per year during the review period. The district contracts with another district for home-to-school transportation services. The district reported that it anticipates putting this contract out for bid soon to determine if it can reduce expenses. Staffing Costs From 2021-22 to 2024-25, certificated special education staffing and salaries rose by 15.5% beyond negoti- ated raises and step and column changes, primarily due to adding more special education teachers, pro- gram specialists, and teachers on special assignment. Classified special education salaries rose by 48.5% beyond negotiated and standard increases. Support staff expanded to include more instructional assistants for new programs, and mental health therapists across all campuses. In its 2025-26 budget, the district is projecting a 7.4% increase in special education certificated employee staffing costs, and a 13.5% increase in nontransportation-related classified employee staffing costs. Cost of Supplies From 2021-22 and 2024-25 the cost of supplies increased by an average of 13.9% per year. As of the 2025- 26 second interim financial reporting period, the district had a negative supplies budget. An entry to cor- rect it was not included in the SACS data but was included in this analysis. The 2025-26 budget is higher than previous years due to the district’s increased use of low-incidence funds. Cost of Services From 2021-22 to 2024-25, contracted service costs (excluding transportation) rose by an average of 18.5% per year. This increase was primarily due to increased costs of NPS placements and consultants. The dis- trict’s 2025-26 budget for services appears to be approximately $600,000 less than its projected expenses for 2025-26. However, the shortfall may be covered by budgeting for salary increases that have not yet been negotiated. Cost of Nonpublic School and Residential Treatment Center Services According to DataQuest and district CALPADS data, the number of district students attending an NPS or RTC increased by two students between 2022-23 and 2025-26, as shown in Table 30 below. However, staff reported that certain invoices for students placed in an NPS are paid by the SELPA and then passed on to the district for reimbursement. Due to that and staff turnover, not all students attending an NPS or RTC Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 39 Findings and Recommendations Unrestricted General Fund Contribution to Special Education appear to have been reported by the district in CALPADS or included in the district’s attendance system. Staff reported NPS and RTC enrollment is shown in Table 30 below. Table 30. District NPS and RTC Expenditures and District Reported and CALPADS NPS and RTC Enrollment, 2022-23 through 2025-26 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Number of Students (Staff Reported) 16 18 22 18 Number of Students (DataQuest) 11 11 14 13 District Expenditures $695,617 $759,956 $954,016 N/A Sources: Enrollment for Charter and Non-Charter Schools -Val Verde Unified School District (CDE) for 2022-23 through 2025-26. Staff reported that the district budgeted for a 15.7% decrease for NPS and RTC student services in 2025-26. The district’s average cost for a student placed at an NPS over the last two years was $39,859.71. This cost, reported by the district, decreased by 0.6% between 2023-24 and 2024-25. District Unrestricted General Fund Contribution The district’s adjusted unrestricted general fund contributions, including transportation and expenditures for full indirect costs, reductions for one-time income, and reductions for duplicate entries belonging to the SELPA and not the district, are shown in Table 31 below. Table 31. District’s Adjusted Unrestricted General Fund Contributions to Special Education (Including Transportation), 2021-22 through 2024-25 Category 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Adjusted Unrestricted General Fund Contribution $22,805,433 $26,561,535 $32,023,098 $38,685,165 Percentage of Adjusted Special Education Costs 55.7% 53.7% 57.0% 62.4% Sources: Official SACS unaudited actuals and district provided SELPA data. Note: Official SACS data were adjusted as described in the “Building Comparative Data” section of this report. In 2025-26, the district’s unrestricted general fund is estimated to be 63.9% of adjusted special education costs. Since 2021-22, costs for salaries, benefits, NPS placements, and NPA services have risen signifi- cantly, while special education income has not kept pace. Recommendations The district should: 1. Continue to monitor its unrestricted general fund contribution to the special education program. 2. Disaggregate, monitor and track special education NPA, NPS and RTC costs separately in SACS, and annually analyze trend data to use for budgeting. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 40 Findings and Recommendations Unrestricted General Fund Contribution to Special Education 3. Record NPS and RTC transportation expenses and payments to parents transporting their student in lieu of district provided transportation to SACS Function Code 3600 to generate transportation income. 4. Conservatively budget for increases in NPA, NPS, and transportation service expenditures. Compare year-to-date actual to budgeted expenditures at the interim reporting periods and adjust the budget accordingly. 5. Code SELPA expenses according to the CSAM so that the district’s MOE reporting and data files are differentiated from the SELPA’s and the district may accurately determine its expenditures. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 41 Appendix Appendix A. Study Agreement Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 42 Appendix Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 43 Appendix Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 44 Appendix Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 45 Appendix Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 46 Appendix Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 47 Appendix Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 48 Appendix Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 49 Appendix Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 50 Appendix Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Val Verde Unified School District 51