Two-decade old legal battle over special education oversight nears resolution, brings major changes

Credit: Jane Meredith Adams/EdSource Today

March 19, 2017

The California Department of Education said last week that it will comply with a federal court order to improve significantly its system for monitoring special education, after years of legal maneuvering to block the changes.

The department said it would end its legal challenges and follow a “corrective action plan” for special education monitoring issued in 2014 by the U.S. District Court of Northern California in San Francisco. Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate upholding its December decision that the state must comply with the district court order to follow the corrective action plan. The department had sought a rehearing, after losing its appeal to overturn the order. Legal recourse would be an appeal to the high court, which the department said it had rejected.

“We are not considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Cynthia Butler, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Education said in an email Monday. “We are continuing to work on the corrective action plan imposed by the court monitor.”

Advocates for students who receive special education services welcomed the news. “The California Department of Education must now comply with the corrective action plan and reform its dysfunctional state-level monitoring system,” said William Koski, an attorney from Stanford Law School’s Youth Education Law Project. Koski is one of several public advocacy attorneys representing the plaintiffs in a 1996 class action lawsuit, Emma C. et al. v. Delaine Eastin et al., that led to the corrective action plan.

“The corrective action plan requires reforms to the design of CDE’s state-level monitoring system that will benefit all concerned about CDE’s responsibilities to monitor and enforce special education laws,” said Larisa Cummings, a staff attorney at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund who is representing the plaintiffs in the Emma C. lawsuit.

The changes in monitoring come as California is taking steps to address a root concern about special education services statewide: why many students with disabilities, about 85 percent of whom have no intellectual disability, are not receiving the supports that would allow them to achieve at the same high level as their peers, according to the Statewide Special Education Task Force final report in 2015. Achievement levels for students with disabilities in California are among the lowest in the nation, the report found. Changes in credentialing requirements for special education and general education teachers, urged by the task force, now are underway as part of a strategy to bring all students — those with or without disabilities — into a unified teaching and administrative system to improve outcomes.

The corrective action plan emerged from a long running 2003 consent decree that settled the Emma C. lawsuit and continues to govern special education services in East Palo Alto’s K-8 Ravenswood City School District. The lawsuit, brought by eight students in the Ravenswood district, alleged erratic or nonexistent special education services in the district, as well as poor oversight by the California Department of Education.

Under the terms of the consent decree, the California Department of Education agreed to monitor improvements in special education in Ravenswood in areas including staff training, student assessments, the creation of individualized education plans and the integration of students with disabilities into general classrooms.

And the department agreed to submit its monitoring system to a court monitor, appointed by Judge Thelton Henderson of the U.S. District Court, who would determine whether the system is “capable of ensuring continued compliance with the law” to serve children with disabilities in Ravenswood. Both the Ravenswood plaintiffs and the California Department of Education agreed in the consent decree to grant the court “broad authority” to review and improve the state monitoring system, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals noted.

While the consent decree concerns the corrective action plan only as it applies to the monitoring of the Ravenswood district, changes to the monitoring system would likely affect oversight of special education in other districts, said Karli Eisenberg, a deputy attorney general representing the California Department of Education. Eisenberg argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in November that changes to its monitoring system should not apply to how the department monitors districts across the state.

“The parties to this action signed a consent decree outlining an agreed-upon remedy, the Ravenswood corrective action plan,” Eisenberg said to panel of three judges. “Over 10 years later, the district court has imposed an entirely new remedy, a statewide corrective action plan, affecting not just the 400 (special education) students in Ravenswood but the 600,000 students statewide receiving special education services.”

The judges – Chief Judge Sidney Thomas and Judges Michelle Friedland Alex Kozinski – quickly got to the heart of the state’s approach to monitoring special education.

Friedland asked Koski: “Am I understanding that basically it’s the state who said if you’re challenging Ravenswood’s monitoring, you’re really challenging the whole state because it’s a uniform system? Is it the state that said we just have one system so it is the whole state?”

Koski: “The state has offered only one system, so that’s exactly right.”

The plan requires the California Department of Education to create a monitoring system that uses more rigorous data collection, program evaluation and intervention to ensure that a district is in compliance with the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It calls for the state to explain precisely how it determines, among other measures, that a district is identifying children in need of services and providing students with disabilities who are suspended with behavioral supports that could allow them to remain in class.

The California Department of Education has been taking steps to comply with the corrective action plan since it was first ordered in 2014, after losing its motion in district court to stay the order while the department worked to overturn it. Maureen Burness, co-executive director of the Statewide Special Education Task Force said the Emma C. consent decree already has spurred changes in special education policy.

“I have been in several different meetings over the last few years where the ongoing status of that (Emma C.) case has been claimed as the reason for the increase in monitoring from the state department of education,” Burness said.

In the Ravenswood district, the termination of the consent decree depends on two factors: evidence that Ravenswood has met its improvement goals and proof that the state has a monitoring system that will keep Ravenswood improvements in compliance with federal law.

“We are on the verge of having Ravenswood come into full compliance with the Ravenswood self-improvement plan,” Koski said. But before that can happen, he said, “the state must have in place a system to ensure compliance with the law.”

He added, “The federal court has looked at the state-level special education monitoring system and found it lacking under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and under the consent decree.”


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *

Click here to cancel reply.

Comments Policy

The goal of the comments section on EdSource is to facilitate thoughtful conversation about content published on our website. Click here for EdSource’s Comments Policy.

Condoms and General Education




I am opposed to the reduction of the current General Education courses in the University of the Philippines because the move follows the logic of neoliberal globalization. Neoliberalism doubles up as a form of social discipline and a strategy of accumulation.

As a form of social discipline the crisis of neoliberal globalization requires regional bodies such as the ASEAN to impose yet another set of social discipline in the educational system. The move to enact K-12 is not a product of an internal audit of the Philippine educational system. The latter needs to be modified for the demands of the so-called free market, an entity whose tyranny has only resulted in broken lives and futures of the majority.

The move to reduce GE courses down to 21 units or even just the idea of shaping our GE after the requisites of ASEAN, K-12– entities that facilitate the tyranny of the free market despite its crisis is a challenge to critical thinking and a symptom of its erosion.

Must we always cope? When do we fight back?*

With everything that’s been happening in the world, the mechanisms which ensure the immiseration of too many lives and the exploitation of our labors, how can, for the life of me, let the cream of the crop, the best of our youth, our Iskolar ng Bayan, be allowed to go out into the world with an orientation already skewed to the inhuman desires of this system? The form is the content and these two are dialectically related. Therefore reducing GE courses already says a lot about UP’s position on neoliberal impositions.

Effacing and or reducing GE courses is like granting our teenagers relative autonomy, pushing them to embrace the world like a lover sans a lesson on condom-use negotiation, which only responsible, credible and nurturing figures can provide.

*I owe that formulation to Pierre Bourdieu, GE prepared me to value his work as a scholar and a political activist


Initial school spending plan entails 7.04 percent increase

Chris Wilson

Chris Wilson

Posted: Friday, March 17, 2017 9:25 pm

Initial school spending plan entails 7.04 percent increase

BRISTOL — When the Board of Education meets with the Board of Finance next month, it will present a proposed 2017-18 school budget with a 7.04 percent increase over the current year.

The school board recently voted 6-3 for the increase, with Jeffrey Caggiano, Thomas O’Brien and David Scott voting against.

Board Chairman Chris Wilson said this year the board is breaking the 2017-18 budget into a general education budget of $89,450,829, and a special education budget of $24,171,510. Extra funds from the state bring the special education budget up to $28,571,510, he noted.

The budget was broken down differently this year to help the finance board better understand the special education costs, he said.

Most of the increase in the general education budget is due to salary and benefits increases across the bargaining units, and even for people who are non-bargaining, and some of it is making up for the shortfall in the current budget plus inflation, Wilson said.

The two boards will meet on Monday, April 3. “Typically there are several meetings and some back and forth on the budget,” he said. “We feel like our charge is to tell the community what we need as a school system to maintain current services. It’s not to meet some sort of benchmark which they are looking for from a fiscal point of view”

“We realize the education budget is hard for people to spend money on but we look at it as an investment,” he added.

At a special meeting recently, the school board members discussed the impact of potential cuts on the district and whether to send the finance board a budget with a 3 percent increase versus a larger one.

Wilson said there wasn’t a consensus but most of the board members felt that the cuts to attain a smaller increase would entail — items such as eliminating custodians, clerical staff, teachers, world language in the middle school, and other programs — would have too much of a negative impact.

Board Vice Chairman Karen Vibert said she didn’t want to see the district go backwards, and she could not vote for a budget that makes these reductions. Jennifer Dube and others agreed.

Caggiano said the thought of the cuts made him “sick to my stomach,” but he felt the board needed to consider consolidation of schools and combining tech and financial services with the city.

Last spring the school board had proposed closing up to two schools to close a $3 million gap between its school budget request and what the city was willing to pay. The controversial proposal drew crowds of parents and educators to meetings to protest the idea. Ultimately the board did not resort to any closings.

O’Brien suggested members wait to get some input from the bargaining units, saying “we either cut now or cut later.” He made a motion to postpone the vote, which was defeated 5-4. After discussion, Vibert suggested they vote on a 6.79 percent increase, but ultimately the larger increase prevailed.

Susan Corica can be reached at 860-973-1802 or

  • Discuss


Friday, March 17, 2017 9:25 pm.

Trump’s Higher Education Cuts Are Neither Bold Nor Brutal

As is customary for presidents during their first year in office, President Trump on Thursday released a slimmed-down budget proposal to Congress outlining which federal government programs he’d like to expand, and which ones he’d like to cut. If Trump has his way, the Department of Education’s discretionary funding will shrink by 13% in 2018. But this change is not nearly as dramatic as it sounds.

Trump would eliminate or scale back a number of K-12 and general education programs, along with two programs exclusively pertaining to higher education. The budget abolishes the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant, which allocates funds to colleges for financial aid, and “significantly reduces” Federal Work Study, which incentivizes students to hold campus jobs. Together, these two programs account for $1.7 billion in annual spending.

That figure may sound hefty, but it represents a drop in the bucket of overall federal spending on student aid in higher education, which was nearly $80 billion in fiscal year 2016. Federal Pell Grants, which defray college costs for low-income students, constitute the largest single expenditure at $28 billion annually. Federal tax credits that families can use to offset tuition costs represent the second largest expenditures category at $21 billion.

Preston Cooper/Forbes

Sources: Congressional Budget Office fair-value estimates (student loans), Education Department budget (Pell Grants, SEOG, Work-Study, Service Grants), Defense Department budget (military benefits), Veterans Affairs Department budget (veterans’ benefits), and Joint Committee on Taxation (tax expenditures). List is not exhaustive, as cost estimates do not exist for all programs.

Of twelve major federal programs that provide financial help to college students, the two programs affected by Trump’s budget rank eighth and ninth in terms of cost. Reality matches neither the big-thinking fiscal conservatism promised by Trump’s defenders nor the apocalyptic slashing alleged by his opponents. Trump’s budget cuts leave the vast majority of federal higher education spending untouched.

In fairness to Trump, his draft budget only touches discretionary spending—i.e., government spending that must be reauthorized by Congress from year to year. This contrasts to mandatory spending, which takes place automatically and without congressional approval. For instance, eligible individuals may take out student loans from the government even though Congress does not reauthorize the student loan program every year. Expenditures through the tax code, such as tuition tax credits, are also not discretionary spending. Anyone eligible may claim a reduction to their tax liability that Congress has once authorized—lawmakers do not have to re-approve these expenditures every year.

Of the items identified above, only a portion of Pell Grants, some military education benefits, and the two programs targeted by Trump’s budget count as discretionary spending. Therefore, while the proposed budget may appear to make dramatic cuts to the federal role in higher education, that case only stands up if you consider discretionary spending alone.

What are the two discretionary programs that Trump’s budget targets? The Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant (SEOG) is a holdover from the period before Congress established the larger and better-targeted Pell Grant. Since nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program, the SEOG remained even after the Pell Grant usurped its purpose. The SEOG routes funds through institutions themselves to reduce tuition expenses for low-income students. Unlike the Pell Grant, though, SEOG funds do not follow needy students themselves: rather, colleges receive SEOG money based largely on whether they have received it in the past. This makes the program not only redundant, but far less efficient than its larger counterpart, the Pell Grant.

The Trump administration proposes reducing, not eliminating, another program: Federal Work-Study. This program seeks to encourage students to work in part-time jobs (usually on campus) in order to pay tuition expenses and living costs. Research has found that roughly half of participants in Federal Work-Study would have worked anyways; moreover, the program sees high participation rates among wealthy students and at elite institutions. All this suggests Federal Work-Study could improve with an overall spending reduction and better targeting of funds, as the Trump budget proposes.

Eliminating a redundant program and scaling back an overbroad one are both sensible budgeting decisions. But if President Trump is looking for serious savings, he ought to think a little bigger. Loans to graduate students in particular will cause most of the increase in the student loan program’s costs over the next decade: ending these would save $37 billion by 2027. But recall that graduate student loans are mandatory programs. Congress cannot end these simply by failing to include them in the annual budget. And therein lies the difficulty. If discretionary government programs are permanent, mandatory programs are eternal.

Trump’s education budget: 4 things to know for CT schools

A school bus drops off students at a school in the south end of Hartford

President Donald Trump unveiled a budget outline Thursday that slashes federal funding for education by 14 percent – cuts that would cripple programs that thousands of Connecticut children participate in each year.

He also is proposing some increases for school choice and left the state’s major education grants untouched.

Here are four things to know about what the proposal could mean to you.

Special education

Federal funding for special education would be flat-funded.

Given that special education costs in Connecticut’s school districts are the fastest growing expense, flat funding from the federal government probably would result in reductions to general education in many districts because federal law forbids cutting spending on programs for physically and intellectually disabled students. Just under 10 percent of spending on special education currently comes from the federal funding.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s budget also essentially recommends the state flat fund special education, though he is proposing redirecting more of that aid to the poorest communities.

School choice

As expected, the Republican president’s budget offers a big incentive to expand enrollment in nontraditional public schools, including charter and private schools.

It would be up to school district and state leaders, however, to seek any of the $1 billion in new funding Trump has “dedicated to encouraging districts to adopt a system of student-based budgeting and open enrollment that enables federal, state, and local funding to follow the student to the public school of his or her choice.”

The U.S. Department of Education would eventually “ramp up” that funding.

It’s unclear whether state leaders would embrace the federal offer. Past efforts at the state level to have state money follow students to whichever school they enroll in have fallen short.

Malloy and the state Rep. Andy Fleischmann, the longtime House chairman of the legislature’s Education Committee, have both said that such approaches would inappropriately siphon money away from high-need schools.

Trump also is proposing a $168 million boost for charter school funding – a 50 percent increase – and a new $250 million program that could be used for a private-school choice program that was not described further.

“The budget places power in the hands of parents and families to choose schools that are best for their children by investing an additional $1.4 billion in school choice programs,” U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said in a statement.

There was no mention in the budget outline of a new federal tax credit for donations to private-school scholarships, which Trump highlighted in his first address to Congress and during a visit to a Catholic School in Florida earlier this month.

In Connecticut, enrollment in school choice programs has taken off over the past two decades. This school year 66,557 students – one-in-eight public school students – attend non-traditional public schools. This includes the 9,573 students in charter schools, 39,911 in integrated regional magnet schools that enroll suburban and city students, and 11,000 in vocational high schools.

Programs for impoverished students

The budget proposal leaves untouched the largest source of federal education money for Connecticut’s schools, the so-called Title 1 grant, which provides schools in the state with about $120 million annually. However, the proposal would eliminate funding for several programs geared toward improving educational outcomes for students from low-income families.

Trump proposed eliminating the $9 million the state receives each year for before- and after-school programs and summer programs through the 21st Century Community Learning Centers grant.

“The programs lacks strong evidence of meeting its objectives, such as improving student achievement,” the budget proposal reads.

These grants, which run between $25,000 and $200,000 a year, currently help pay for programs in Bridgeport, Hartford, Waterbury and numerous other communities. (See here for which communities.)

Funding also would be eliminated for AmeriCorps, which runs an after-school program for struggling students. There were 658 students participating in these programs throughout the state – primarily in Bridgeport and New Haven – as of February.

Not mentioned in the president’s slim budget preview is what funding level he wants for Head Start, which provides childcare and preschool for low-income families. Also unmentioned were the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, which investigates complaints, or the Career and Technical Education program, which helps fund high school programs throughout the state.

Devos said the budget, “continues support for the nation’s most vulnerable populations, such as students with disabilities”

But, she continued, “Taxpayers deserve to know their dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively. This budget is the first step in investing in education programs that work, and maintaining our Department’s focus on supporting states and school districts in providing an equal opportunity for a quality education to all students.

Colleges and Universities

Trump proposes making huge cuts in funding for federal research. Most notable, he proposes a 20 percent reduction to the National Institutes of Health, the federal agency that many colleges and universities in Connecticut depend on most for federal research funding.

The budget proposes a “major reorganization of NIH’s Institutes and Centers to help focus resources on the highest priority research and training activities” and recommends the government “rebalance Federal contributions to research funding.”

Working 4 You: Special Education & Access Denied?

Don’t Miss

  • Contests

  • Arkansas Professionals

    Copyright 2017 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

  • McDonald's Pay it Forward

  • Keep On Amazing

    Copyright 2017 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

  • Missing Persons

“);b.ajax({type:”GET”,url:c}).done(function(h){var i=b(h);d.empty();d.append(i)}).fail(function(){d.append(“

Oops. Something went wrong. Please wait a minute and refresh your browser.


Proposal to fund early childhood education fails again

Posted: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 11:30 pm

Updated: 12:32 am, Thu Mar 16, 2017.

Proposal to fund early childhood education fails again

By Steve Terrell
The New Mexican

The Santa Fe New Mexican

Two Democrats joined with four Republican senators in a committee vote Wednesday to effectively kill a proposed constitutional amendment that would tap into New Mexico’s Land Grant Permanent Fund to help pay for early childhood education

The vote in the Senate Rules Committee to table House Joint Resolution 1 likely puts an end to what has become a perennial effort take an extra 1 percent of interest earnings from the $15 billion endowment to spend on early childhood programs.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety.

You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?


Choose an online service.

    Current print subscribers


    Choose an online service.

      Current print subscribers


      Wednesday, March 15, 2017 11:30 pm.

      Updated: 12:32 am.

      Iowa City school bond supports public education

      It is my pleasure to support public education, our students, staff and our community by putting forth a general obligation bond that will fully fund the Iowa City school district Facilities Master Plan. The plan is transforming our learning environment and improving all of our schools over 10 years by delivering a 21st Century learning environment.

      The Facilities Master Plan is the community’s plan, developed in 2013 with more than 1,000 people participating in the process. Since that time, it has been our plan to fully fund the remainder of the FMP with a general obligation bond in September 2017.

      During our annual FMP renewal, we once again completed extensive community engagement. Nearly 1,700 people participated using the district’s Thought Exchange digital engagement tool. Others participated in listening posts and one-to-one conversations. I want to share the key themes that emerged.

      HVAC, HVAC, HVAC: By a significant margin, the primary input was to complete heating, ventilation and air conditioning improvements in our schools. The good news here is that we have made historic progress over the past four years and are in a position to complete HVAC in elementary schools by 2019, in junior high schools by 2020 and in our high schools by 2021. We need the GO bond to finish this critically important work.

      Keep it Simple: In January, I proposed a viable approach to reducing the GO bond by about half. I felt like this was a debate we needed to have before issuing our bond proposal. Any reduced plan gets complicated since it could mean multiple bonds would be needed to complete the work. It could require the extension of SAVE (the penny tax), and of course we need to pick which projects would be included in a reduced bond and which projects to exclude from the bond. In January’s listening posts and face-to-face conversations, people were clear in their feedback to the district: a reduced bond is complicated and there is significant fear that the projects that are not included in a reduced bond may not be completed. By the end of January, I agreed: Let’s keep it simple.

      Stick to the Plan: Since 2013 it has been the plan to fully fund the remainder of the Facilities Master Plan with a GO bond in September 2017. The FMP has been prioritized by the educational adequacy of our schools. We had to level the pace of improvement to match cash flow and our organizational capacity for this historic level of improvement. The plan also balanced investments and improvements across our district so everyone saw improvement. We have seen tremendous improvements in the learning environments where we have completed FMP projects. By the end of January, I agreed: Stick to the plan.

      One thing I learned in this process is that many people in the community are far too linear on thinking about the capacities of our schools. A school’s capacity is not a static number based only on the physical building. Capacity management is dynamic and needs also to take into account policy (example: policy on class sizes) and programming (example: adding Special Education or English Language Learner programming can reduce rooms for general education). These all change over time and the impacts on capacity need to be evaluated on a regular basis.

      Let’s be frank. public education is under attack. It’s being assaulted at both the state and federal levels. You, the public, have precious few opportunities to directly vote to support public education. Voters in the Iowa City school district will have this opportunity this September. I plan to vote to support public education, to support our students, to support our staff and to support our community.

      • Chris Lynch is a member of the Iowa City Community School Board. This column represents his opinions and not necessarily those of the board.

      Education, dedication, loyalty focus of 4-H Day at the Capitol

      More than 400 4-H members from throughout Arkansas arrived at the State Capitol Building recently to hear from Gov. Asa Hutchinson and other elected officials before touring the grounds, meeting with some of their respective legislators and attending readings of the 4-H Day resolutions in the House and Senate. Speaking to the hundreds of 4-H members who assembled a the Arkansas Association of Counties headquarters, State Auditor Andrea Lea said the visit was an opportunity to get a taste of the legislative processes that affect their lives.

      “You guys are the future—I know you hear that all the time,” Lea said. “But you are. You’re the ones who will make policy in the future. But you can also make a difference right now, where you are, when you visit your legislators.”

      After visiting with Lea, the 4-Hers took the short walk to the state Capitol building to visit with their elected officials and tour the grounds.

      The first 4-H Day at the Capitol was held two years ago, in 2015. Brian Helms, director of stakeholder relations for the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, said the purpose of the event was twofold: both to expose members of 4-H to the Capitol and the mechanics of the legislative process, and also to familiarize legislators with the widespread importance and popularity of the 4-H program, which serves all 75 counties in Arkansas.

      Lt. Gov. Tim Griffin told the crowd that in his life he’s never seen a larger crowd in the rotunda and earned a big cheer from Columbia County contingent.

      Griffin, referring to the Tufts study results included in the Senate resolution and pointing to his own green tie, said “the study shows that folks who wear green … in the long run. are better citizens. They’re more involved in your community. You care what’s going on. The fact that you’re here right now is Exhibit A.”

      Referring to the 4-H pledge, State Sen. Bruce Maloch told the crowd, “I challenge and encourage each of you to keep that clearer thinking. That greater loyalty and that larger service as 4-H prepares you to not only make a better living but make a better life.”

      Gov. Asa Hutchinson, addressing the assembled 4-H members in the Capitol Rotunda, emphasized the importance of the members’ future participation in government and the economy in Arkansas and beyond.

      “Arkansas impacts the globe,” Hutchinson, an alumnus of the Benton County 4-H program, said. “We impact the world, and the global marketplace is importance to us. We sell our agriculture all over the world.

      “Wherever you are, we’re going to impact the world,” he said. “We’re going to impact the globe, and you can do it from Arkansas.”

      For more information on 4-H, contact your county Extension office or visit

      Hot Jobs: March 14, 2017

      CORPUS CHRISTI (KIII NEWS) – This week’s Hot Jobs report is courtesy of Workforce Solutions of the Coastal Bend.

      Location Alice, Texas
      Job Number 7180504
      Title Field Service Technician
      Salary $18.00 – $29.00 Hour
      Qualifications Six (6) months prior Experience and a High School Diploma or General Education Development (GED) required.  Will be primarily responsible for the installation, operation, repair, removal, and maintenance of company tools and other oilfield equipment.  Familiar with a variety of field concepts, practices, and procedures a plus. Valid Class A – Commercial Driver’s License required.

      Location Corpus Christi, Texas
      Job Number 5212113
      Title Accountant III-IV
      Salary $37,000.00 – $55,000.00 Year +Benefits
      Qualifications Five (5) years prior Experience and a Bachelor’s Degree required. Will perform complex accounting work preparing financial statements, records, documents and reports. May specialize in some phase of accounting work such as federal funds accounting, property and equipment control, cost, payroll, and budgeting. Demonstrated knowledge of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and internal audit controls is required.

      Location Corpus Christi, Texas
      Job Number 5209096
      Title Maintenance Supervisor III
      Salary $18.00 Hour +Benefits
      Qualifications Four (4) years prior Experience and a High School Diploma or General Education Development (GED) required.  Responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of a large number of units, high complexity, high volume of work orders and repairs. Performs follow-up inspection to insure that proper corrective maintenance action was taken by maintenance employees.  HVAC or EPA certification required.  Valid Class C – Standard Driver’s License required.

      Location Portland, Texas
      Job Number 6534613
      Title Marketing Representative
      Salary $13.00 – $15.00 Hour
      Qualifications Three (3) years prior Experience and a High School Diploma or General Education Development (GED) required. Responsible for assisting with account retention and providing excellent customer service. Will educate clients about products and services, and making recommendations as needed.  Valid Class C – Standard Driver’s License

      Location Kingsville, Texas
      Job Number 2991027
      Title Purchasing Manager
      Salary $47,230.00 – $67,267.00 Year +Benefits
      Qualifications Five (5) years prior Experience and Three (3) years College, Technical or Vocational School required.   Performs related managerial and professional duties as assigned. Procures supplies, equipment and services through open market purchasing and competitive bidding procedures. Valid Class C – Standard Driver’s License required.

      To learn more about these jobs, call Workforce Solutions of the Coastal Bend at 888-860-JOBS.

      Hot Jobs is a segment that is found every Tuesday, on 3News at 5 p.m.

      © 2017 KIII-TV