September 14, 2022

Sahar Durali
Chelsea Helena
Attorneys for Diana Padilla
Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County
13327 Van Nuys Boulevard
Pacoima, CA 91331

Alexandra Santa Ana
Mona Tawatao
Attorneys for Cancel the Contract
Equal Justice Society
1939 Harrison Street Suite 818
Oakland, CA 94612

Dear Attorneys Durali, Helena, Santa Ana, and Tawatao:

Subject: Appeal of District Decision - Antelope Valley Union High School District
Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County and Equal Justice Society, Appellants

Case #: 2022-0075

The Local Agency Systems Support Office of the California Department of Education (CDE) is in receipt of your Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) appeal, dated April 13, 2022 (Appeal), of the Antelope Valley Union High School District’s (District’s) investigation report (Investigation Report), concerning your UCP complaint (Complaint). This is the CDE’s Decision on the Appeal.

I. Background

California law authorizes the filing of an administrative UCP complaint to resolve allegations that a local educational agency (LEA) failed to meet requirements governing Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) in Title 2, Division 4, Part 28, Chapter 6.1, Article 4.5 of the California Education Code (EC) (i.e., sections 52059.5 – 52077). (EC Section 52075; EC Section 33315; California Code of Regulations, Title 5 [5 CCR] Section 4600 et seq.) Such complaints are to be filed pursuant to, and are governed by, the UCP regulations set forth in 5 CCR Section 4600 et seq. (Id.)

On February 9, 2022, Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County and Equal Justice Society (Appellants) submitted their Complaint to the District. The District issued its Investigation Report in response to the Complaint on March 15, 2022. Appellants submitted their Appeal to the CDE on April 13, 2022. On April 26, 2022, the CDE sent a notice of appeal letter to the District requesting the District’s investigation file, its local UCP complaint procedures, and other documentation specified in 5 CCR Section 4633. The CDE received the District’s documentation on May 5, 2022. On June 9, 2022, the CDE sent a letter to Appellants and the District indicating it would require additional time to complete its investigation.

The CDE reviewed all materials it received in connection with the Appeal.

Pursuant to 5 CCR Section 4633(g), the CDE is required to determine whether or not the District complied with its complaint procedures. CDE has reviewed the District’s complaint procedures, contained in Board Policy and Regulation 1312.3. Consistent with 5 CCR Section 4630(a), the District’s procedures require (subject to an exception not applicable here) that UCP complaints must be filed no later than one year from the date the alleged violation occurred. As discussed in Section V of this Decision, CDE has determined that certain aspects of Appellants’ Complaint and Appeal pertain to alleged violations dating back to 2019, more than one year prior to the Complaint filing. Aside from that issue, the CDE finds that the District complied with its complaint procedures in this matter.

II. Summary of Complaint and Investigation Report

The Complaint

The Complaint was based on five allegations, summarized below:

Allegation 1

The Complaint alleged that the District’s estimated actual expenditures on several of its contributing actions reflect that the District both underspent and overspent Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) supplemental and concentration grant (S&C) funds budgeted for the actions.1 The Complaint includes two tables demonstrating budgeted S&C funded expenditures and estimated actual S&C funded expenditures for the 2019–2020 school year. The first table included actions in which the District underspent the budgeted S&C funds. The second table included actions in which the District overspent the budgeted S&C funds. After accounting for all budgeted and estimated actual expenditures of LCFF S&C funds, the Complaint alleged that there was a “total shortfall of $3,610,400 from the $40,644,167 of S&C funds that were budgeted in 2019–2020.” (Compliant, p. 6.) The Complaint characterized that “shortfall” as a “carryover” and alleged that the District violated 5 CCR Section 15496 by not accounting for the “carryover” in its 2021–2022 LCAP. (Id., pp. 6-7.)

Allegation 2

The Complaint’s second allegation was based on EC Section 52064(b)(1), which generally speaking, requires that LCAPs include a description of annual goals, for all pupils and each numerically significant subgroup of pupils identified pursuant to EC Section 52052. The Complaint alleged that the District violated that provision because there “are no annual goal statements” in the District’s 2019–2020 or 2021–2022 LCAPs “for any of the pupil groups” identified in EC Section 52052. (Complaint, p. 7.)

Allegation 3

The Complaint alleged that the District violated 5 CCR Section 15496 by continually failing to describe how districtwide allocations of S&C funds are principally directed towards, and effective, in meeting the District’s goals for its unduplicated pupils. In that regard, the Complaint draws special attention to 24 actions from the 2019–2020 LCAP.

Allegation 4

The Complaint argued that the District’s allocation of $1,700,000 of S&C funds for a contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (i.e., Goal 3, Action 23 of the District’s 2019–2020 LCAP) is “particularly problematic and improper” because such expenditures “are antithetical to the purpose of LCFF and should not be counted towards the increased or improved services requirement[.]” (Complaint, p. 9.)

Allgation 5

The Complaint’s final allegation was of a general lack of transparency regarding the use of S&C funds in the District’s LCAP, which the Complaint alleges hinders meaningful engagement with the District’s parents, students, and other educational partners.

***

As a remedy for the above-referenced alleged violations, the Complaint requested a series of specific corrective actions.

The District’s Investigation Report

In its Investigation Report, the District found itself in compliance with respect to all allegations, as summarized below.

Allegation 1

In response to Allegation 1, the District indicated that it spent less than it budgeted for S&C funded actions and services in the 2019–2020 school year “due to the COVID-19 school closures and by the receipt of COVID-19 relief funds, which were utilized to fund a variety of planned actions.” (Investigation Report, p. 2.) The District explained that it “prioritized spending the COVID-19 relief funds because those funds had a deadline by which, if not used, the District would lose the funding; as opposed to the unused S&C funds which could be, and were, carried over.” (Id.) The District asserted that it “transferred unused funds to a ‘Targeted Resources’ funds within its Special Reserve Fund 17 allocations” and that such funds “remain available for the District to use in the event of a future shortfall of S&C funds.” (Id.)

Allegation 2

In response to Allegation 2, the District noted that EC Section 52064(b)(1)’s legal requirement is directed to the California State Board of Education (SBE) in adopting an LCAP template, not to school districts. The District concluded that it adhered to the SBE-adopted template in the development and adoption of both its 2019–2020 and 2021–2022 LCAPs, and that it followed the guidance and training provided by the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), which reviewed and approved both LCAPs. Lastly, the District noted that while the 2019–2020 and the 2021–2022 LCAPs did not include separate annual goal statements specific to each student group, specific student groups were identified in various parts of the LCAPs.

Allegation 3

In response to Allegation 3, the District concluded that its 2019–2020 and 2021–2022 LCAPs sufficiently demonstrated how districtwide actions and services were principally directed towards, and effective in, meeting its goals for its unduplicated pupils, in conformance with 5 CCR Section 15496.

Allegation 4

In response to Allegation 4, the District concluded: “At the time the District allocated its S&C funds to a contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the District was not prohibited from expending its S&C funds on a contract with a law enforcement agency. In or around July 2021, however, the District was advised by LACOE that school districts may no longer expend S&C funds on contracts with law enforcement. Accordingly, in the 2021–2022 LCAP, the District did not allocate any ‘S&C’ funds to a contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.” (Emphasis in original.) (Investigation Report, p. 8.)

Allegation 5

In response to Allegation 5, the District concluded that it was transparent in the development and adoption of its 2021–22 LCAP. The District found that it complied with the LCAP template instructions and that it engaged with various stakeholder groups, shared survey data, elicited feedback, and notified the public of the opportunity to submit comments regarding the LCAP.

III. Summary of Appeal

As summarized below, the Appeal rejects the District’s conclusions with respect to each of the Complaint’s five allegations.

Allegation 1

The Appeal argues that due to underspending of S&C funds in the 2019–2020 school year, the District must have experienced a “shortfall” in increasing or improving services by the “minimum proportionality percentage, or MPP,” and that such “MPP shortfall” carried over and had to be made up in the next year. (Appeal, p. 3.) The Appeal references Assembly Bill 1835 (which it argues “merely clarified existing law”) and the changes to the 2022–23 LCAP template to support that argument. Appellants request that the CDE “order the District to reallocate any underspent and misappropriated S&C funds towards services for unduplicated pupils.” (Id., pp. 3-4.)

Allegation 2

The Appeal maintains that the District violated EC Section 52064(b)(1) because its 2019–2020 and 2021–22 LCAPs did not articulate “any goals” for numerically significant subgroups, particularly “ethnic subgroups.” (Appeal, p. 6.) The Appeal asserts that the District “cannot hide behind” purported adherence to the LCAP template or LACOE’s approval of the LCAPs. (Id., p. 6.)

Allegation 3

The Appeal focuses on the 24 action items from the District’s 2019–2020 LCAP and argues that the District failed to demonstrate how those districtwide actions were principally directed towards and effective in meeting its goals for unduplicated pupils. Appellants assert that the District “consistently fails to explain how its districtwide investment of supplemental and concentration funds considers the particular needs of targeted students, and instead relies on the incorrect assumption that these funds are justified if high need students benefit.” (Appeal, p. 9). Appellants assert that the “District’s explanations are too often cursory and conclusory,” and argue that the “CDE should find that the expenditures at issue were impermissible uses of S&C funds.” (Id., p. 10.)

Allegation 4

The Appeal argues that while LACOE may not have explicitly prohibited its resident districts from using S&C funds on law enforcement contracts in 2019–-2020, the District was still required to justify its law enforcement contract as a proper use of S&C funds in its 2019–-2020 LCAP, which Appellants argue the District failed to do. The Appeal requests that the CDE “find the District’s 1.7-million-dollar expenditure of LCFF funds invalid and require the District to redirect those funds towards refined and measurably increased and improved services for unduplicated pupils.” (Appeal, p. 11.)

Allegation 5

The Appeal argues that, “irrespective of the legitimacy or effectiveness of the District’s interest holder outreach, the District’s use of S&C expenditures remains opaque and indiscernible, especially in light of the significant, unexplained millions of dollars of over-expenditures and shortfalls in S&C funding.” (Appeal, p. 11.) Appellants urge the CDE to find that that the District’s practices violate “LCFF’s transparency requirements.” (Id.)

IV. Legal Authorities

EC section 44238.01, 42238.02, 42238.07, 52059.5 – 52077

5 CCR sections 15494 – 15497

V. CDE Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Subject to an exception not applicable here, UCP complaints “shall be filed not later than one year from the date the alleged violation occurred[.]” (5 CCR Section 4630[a].) For complaints relating to LCAPs, “the date of the alleged violation is the date when the reviewing authority approves the LCAP or annual update that was adopted by the LEA.” (Id.) Here, the “reviewing authority” is LACOE, and LACOE approved the District’s 2019–2020 LCAP on September 16, 2019. The Complaint was filed in February 2022, more than two years from the date that LACOE approved the District’s 2019–2020 LCAP. Consequently, this Decision does not resolve allegations of legal violations in the development, content, or adoption of the District’s 2019–2020 LCAP.

Background Applicable to Multiple Allegations

The LCFF apportions S&C funds to LEAs on the basis of the number and concentration of unduplicated students (low-income, English learner, and foster youth). (EC sections 42238.02, 42238.07.) LEAs are required to increase or improve services for unduplicated students as compared to the services provided to all students in the fiscal year in proportion to the additional funding provided. (EC Section 42238.07; 5 CCR 15496.) To “improve services” means to “grow services in quality,” and to “increase services” means to “grow services in quantity.” (5 CCR Section 15495[k] and [l].) Regulations provide the formula for calculating the percentage by which services must be proportionally increased or improved for unduplicated students above services provided to all students in the fiscal year. (5 CCR Section 15496.) This percentage is referred to as the minimum proportionality percentage (MPP).

An LEA is required to follow the SBE-adopted LCAP Template. (EC sections 52064, 52070.) In the 2021–22 LCAP Template, the Increased or Improved Services for Foster Youth, English Learners, and Low-income Students section required an LEA to identify the amount of its LCFF funds in the LCAP year calculated on the basis of the number and concentration of unduplicated students, and to identify the percentage by which it must increase or improve services for unduplicated students as compared to all students. This section also required an LEA to describe how the services provided for unduplicated students are increased or improved by at least this percentage, either quantitatively or qualitatively, as compared to services provided for all students in the LCAP year. (EC Section 42238.07; 5 CCR Section 15496.)

As such, there is no spending requirement; rather, an LEA must demonstrate in its LCAP how the services provided will meet the requirement to increase or improve services for unduplicated students as compared to services provided for all students in the LCAP year. An LEA does not meet its obligation to increase or improve services by describing planned expenditures. Likewise, the improvement provided by an action in the LCAP is not measured in terms of the expenditures that support it. The increase or improvement in services are described in terms of the planned results or outcomes that will occur as a result of an LEA making the associated expenditures.

The collective set of actions described by an LEA that will contribute to meeting the required proportional increase or improvement in services for unduplicated students over services provided to all students include two categories of services:

• Services that are limited to serving one or more unduplicated student group
• Services that upgrade the entire educational program of an LEA or school site(s)

Services of the latter category are referred to as either a schoolwide or an LEA-wide action.

The actions included as contributing to meeting the increased or improved services requirement must be indicated as such in the Goals and Actions section of the LCAP. As a result, the description of actions and services in the Increased or Improved Services section must be aligned with those actions that are included in the Goals and Actions section as contributing to meeting the increased or improved services requirement. An adequate description of how an LEA will meet its increased or improved services requirement must address in some manner the actions included in the Goals and Actions section as contributing to meeting this requirement.

AB 130, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on July 9, 2021, amended state law to include a requirement that LEAs report the degree to which they met their MPP; and an LEA that does not meet its MPP must “carry over” the unmet percentage of the MPP beginning with the 2022–23 school year. In the event an LEA has carryover, the unmet percentage of the MPP is added to the projected percentage to increase or improve services for the LEA for the coming year, and the sum of those two percentages is the total MPP that the LEA must meet in the coming year. An LEA has flexibility to meet that MPP either quantitatively (using an expenditure of LCFF funds) or qualitatively (with a percentage of improved services).

Allegation 1

Appellants outlined LCAP action items from the District’s 2019–2020 LCAP for which the District allegedly both overspent and underspent LCFF S&C funds. In their Appeal, Appellants assert that AB 1835 recently created specific requirements “to carry over” unused S&C funds in future LCAPs, but the appeal argues that “AB 1835 merely clarified existing law[.]” (Appeal, p. 3.)

Respectfully, Appellants’ argument is mistaken. AB 1835 never became law; it was vetoed by Governor Newsom in September 2020. AB 1835 was introduced in response to a K-12 Local Control Funding Report (CSA Report) issued by the California State Auditor in November 2019.2 After purporting to review and evaluate all laws and regulations relating to expenditure of S&C funds, the CSA Report concluded that there is “no requirement under current law for districts to continue using unspent supplemental and concentration funds in the following year to increase or improve services for intended student groups – the unspent funds essentially can be used for any purpose in subsequent years.” (CSA Report, p. 20.) The CSA Report recommended that the Legislature amend state law if it wanted to change that.

Notably, the legislative bill analyses for AB 1835 in both the Senate and the Assembly, recognized and echoed the CSA’s conclusion about the then-current law:3

Under current law, unspent supplemental and concentration funds carryover to a LEA’s general fund in subsequent years. This bill proposes to require that carryover supplemental and concentration funds continue to be expended to increase and improve services for unduplicated pupils in future years, rather than revert to the LEA’s general fund. (Senate Floor Analysis, 8/23/20, at p.3; Assembly Floor Analysis, 6/5/20, at p.1.)

As noted, the Governor vetoed the bill. The veto message expressed concerns about flaws and implementation, but also expressed support for the bill’s intent, and to that end, noted that the administration would be proposing different statutory language for the Legislature’s consideration in the next year’s budget.

Such language was proposed in January 2021 in AB 130.4 AB 130 moved through the legislative process and became law in July 2021, which led to new requirements and a new LCAP template commencing with the 2022–23 school year. Should the District have an unmet percentage of MPP in the 2021–22 school year, the District will be required to account for, and meet, the unmet percentage of MPP in the 2022–23 school year.

Finally, assuming for the sake of argument that there were some pre-AB 130 carryover requirement and that the District had a “short fall” from the 2019–2020 school year that needed to be addressed in the next year, Appellants do not allege or show that the District failed to comply with that requirement, or any other specific legal requirement subject to the UCP, in the 2020–21 school year. Appellants’ Complaint and Appeal deal only with the District’s 2019–2020 and 2021–22 LCAPs. School districts were not required to adopt an LCAP in the 2020–21 school year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Given all of the above, the CDE cannot conclude that the District has a current shortfall-based carryover from the 2019–2020 school year. The CDE can, however, express its pleasure that executive leadership and legislative compromise has resulted in AB 130 and specific requirements going forward.

Based on all of the above, the CDE finds that the District’s ultimate disposition with respect to this allegation – that there was no violation of law with respect to “carryover” from the 2019–2020 school year into the 2021–22 LCAP and school year – is not contrary to law. Accordingly, the Appeal as to Allegation 1 is not sustained.

Allegation 2

LEAs must adopt an LCAP using the SBE-adopted template. (EC Section 52060.) As relevant to the Appeal, EC Section 52064(b) specifies that:

The template adopted by the state board shall require the inclusion of . . . [among other things]: (1) A description of the annual goals, for all pupils and each subgroup of pupils identified pursuant to Section 52052, to be achieved for each of the state priorities identified in [other specified statutes], as applicable[.] . . . For purposes of this article, a subgroup of pupils identified pursuant to Section 52052 shall be a numerically significant pupil subgroup as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 52052.” (EC Section 52064[b].)

EC Section 52052, in turn, provides that the state’s accountability system shall measure the overall performance of numerically significant pupil subgroups, including ethnic subgroups, socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils, English learners, pupils with disabilities, foster youth, and homeless youth, where “numerically significant” means at least 30 pupils, or 15 pupils with respect to foster or homeless youth. (EC Section 52052[a].)

Consistent with EC Section 52064, the 2021–22 LCAP Template (since revised) required LEAs to describe their goals and explain why they were chosen and how results would be measured and reported. It provided that “[a] well-developed goal can be focused on the performance relative to a metric or metrics for all students, a specified student group(s), narrowing performance gaps, or implementing programs or strategies expected to impact outcomes.” To that end, the Template encouraged LEAs “to identify metrics for specific student groups, as appropriate, including expected outcomes that would reflect narrowing of any existing performance gaps.” But “at minimum,” the Template required that “an LEA’s LCAP must include goals that are measured using all of the applicable metrics for the related state priorities, in each LCAP year as applicable to the type of LEA.” The Template also required the inclusion of expenditure tables by which LEAs were directed to, with respect to each goal-oriented action or service, “indicate the student group or groups who will be the primary beneficiary of the action by entering ‘All’, or by entering a specific student group or groups.”

Here, the District’s 2021–22 LCAP includes goals, as well as associated actions and services, intended for all students, which includes pupils in each pupil subgroup. Furthermore, collectively, the District’s goals address each of the state priorities and are measured using all of the applicable metrics. In addition, and more generally, the District’s 2021–22 LCAP reflects a review of the District’s Dashboard and local data, notes variances in student achieve across student groups, and describes goals and actions intended to address low achievement and performance gaps.

Appellants’ argument seems to be that the language from EC Section 52064(b) – (i.e., “A description of the annual goals, for all pupils and each subgroup of pupils…”) – requires LEAs to state separate goals for each of the LEA’s distinct pupil subgroups of more than 30 pupils (or 15 with respect to foster or homeless youth). Under that view, a school district would be legally required to state a separate goal (and then associated actions and services) for (in addition to each of the other identified pupil subgroups) each of its “ethnic subgroups” (a term not defined in the Education Code) of more than 30 pupils. For many school districts in this diverse state, that could easily require a separate goal for White students; a separate goal for Black students; a separate goal for Native American students; a separate goal for Hispanic students; a separate goal for Chinese students; a separate goal for Filipino students; a separate goal for Asian Indian students; a separate goal for Persian students; a separate goal for Arabic students; a separate goal for Vietnamese students; and a separate goal for each of any number of other “ethnic subgroups.” That, however, has never been the state’s interpretation of EC Section 52064(b). Rather, LEAs have been permitted to write goals for “all” pupils, which necessarily includes pupils who are in subgroups. (Of course, LEAs may also include goals and actions addressed to one or more specific subgroups.)

Notably, the Legislature has revisited EC Section 52064 several times in recent years, and in one recent amendment, directed that, “[o]n or before January 31, 2022,” the LCAP template require LEAs to include a goal in the LCAP focused on improving the performance of a specific pupil subgroup or subgroups if the LEA was identified for differentiated assistance based on the performance of the same pupil subgroup or subgroups for three or more consecutive years. (EC Section 52064[e][5].) The 2022–23 LCAP Template was the first that was required to, and that did, incorporate that legislative amendment. The District’s adoption of its 2022–23 LCAP postdates the Complaint and is not at issue in the Appeal.

Based on all of the above, the CDE finds that the District’s ultimate conclusion and disposition with respect to this allegation and the 2020–21 LCAP – that the LCAP’s goal descriptions did not violate EC Section 52064 or the Template – are supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the law.5 Accordingly, the Appeal as to Allegation 2 is not sustained.

Allegation 3

As summarized above, the Complaint’s third allegation challenged the sufficiency of the District’s demonstrations regarding contributing districtwide actions under 5 CCR Section 15496(a), with particular emphasis on 24 items from the District’s 2019–2020 LCAP. In their Appeal, Appellants focus almost exclusively on those 24 items. However, because Allegation 3 was made well more than one year after LACOE approved the District’s 2019–2020 LCAP, the allegation violates the one-year filing deadline in 5 CCR Section 4630(a) with respect to that LCAP’s alleged insufficiencies (5 CCR Section 4630[a]), and the CDE does not address such alleged insufficiencies here.

The CDE has considered the District’s 2021–22 LCAP with respect to Allegation 3. While Appellants complain that the District’s explanations are “too often cursory and conclusory” and “do not attempt” to explain “effectiveness,” Appellants do not point to any specific districtwide actions in the 2021–22 LCAP as problematic or as an example of their complaint. Appellants do chide the District for making vague and “unsupported statements such as ‘AVUHSD understands the effectiveness of this action as indicated by the following outcomes: Basics- teacher- Local Indicator- standard met-2020.’” (Appeal, p.10, and footnote 14, directing the reader to the 2021–22 LCAP “starting at pp.16.”) However, while that statement could be read as purporting to quote directly from the 2021–22 LCAP, the seemingly quoted language does not actually appear anywhere in the 2021–22 LCAP.

The CDE reviewed the District’s descriptions within the LCAP’s Increased or Improved Services section of the District’s 35 LEA-wide actions marked as contributing in the Goals and Actions section, to ensure that they sufficiently addressed the required criteria. The CDE finds that the District provided an adequate demonstration for those actions. Specifically, it has sufficiently described how the actions are principally directed towards and effective in meeting its goals for its unduplicated students, including:

1. Identifying how the needs, conditions, or circumstances of foster youth, English learners, and/or low-income students were considered prior to determining that the action be provided on an LEA-wide or schoolwide basis;
2. Explaning how the action, or aspects of the action, are based on these conditions;
3. Explaning how the action is intended to help achieve an expected measurable outcome of the associated goal; and
4. Explaining how the action will be effective in meeting the goals for the unduplicated student group(s).
5. For any action(s) being provided on an LEA-wide or schoolwide basis and being continued into the 2021–24 LCAP from the 2017–2020 LCAP, the LEA has included a determination of whether or not the action was effective as expected, including evidence of outcome data or actual implementation to date.

Action 3.11 from the 2021–22 LCAP is illustrative. Through planned Action 3.11 (“Safe Secure and Positive Learning Environments”), the District said that District coordinators and various support personnel would coordinate services with Site Administrative Interns, Student Support Coordinators, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Coordinators, and Social Workers to engage English learner, foster youth, and low-income students and families, with a more positive and connected learning experience, by providing additional mentoring opportunities to address social-emotional, behavioral, and academic needs and build positive relationships with English learner, foster youth, and low-income students and families. (2021–22 LCAP, pp. 26-27.) In addition, support staff would “proactively monitor the school environment to positively intervene as necessary, to increase attendance, reduce suspensions, increase safety, connectedness and well-being for EL, FY and LI students and families. (Id., p. 27.)

In the Increased or Improved Services section, the District reported that it was providing Action 3.11 on an LEA-wide basis with the expectation of increased equitable outcomes for English learner, foster youth, and low-income students compared to all students in suspension and chronic absenteeism rates, and locate climate survey results. (Id., pp. 54-55, 65-66, 76-78.)

In explaining that expectation, the District observed that:

AVUHSD Low-Income (LI) students need access to additional supports that can increase their perception of self-success. LI students can experience poor educational and health outcomes, unhealthy eating habits, lower physical activity, obesity, asthma, and have often been exposed to alcohol, drug abuse, violence and trauma, which can put them at greater risk of acting out and dropping out of school, which can negatively impact their access to college and careers. (Id., at p. 55.)

…

AVUHSD Foster Youth (FY) students need additional emotional and behavioral supports as they can experience deeper issues of anger, abuse and disempowerment, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorders, Depression, Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) which can lead to feelings of sadness, helplessness, and hopelessness which can make it difficult for them to positively progress in school, graduate and successfully transition to independence. (Id., at pp. 66-77.)

…

AVUHSD English learner (EL) students can find it difficult to communicate from lack or oral speaking experiences which can lead to feelings of anxiety, confusion and isolation and need strong connections from caring adults to improve their sense of well-being. (Id., at p. 78.)

The District explained that the above-described Action 3.11 was in pursuit of its goals for its unduplicated pupils (increasing attendance;, reducing suspensions;, increasing safety, connectedness, and wellbeing) as evidenced by climate surveys and attendance and suspension rates. (Id., at pp. 56, 67, 78.) In that regard, the District explained that Action 3.11 was a continuation, with certain modifications, from the District’s prior school years, and that it understood that the action would be effective based on an actual increase in attendance rates, an actual decrease in suspension rates, and on meeting its Climate Survey local indicator standard in 2020–21. (Id.)

Similar descriptions are provided for each of the other 35 LEA-wide actions in the 2021–22 LCAP. LCAP descriptions can always be made more robust, and the District should strive for excellence. But the CDE’s role on appeal is to determine whether or not the LCAP violates a legal requirement. Here, with respect to Allegation 3 and the 2021–22 LCAP, the CDE finds that it does not.

Based on all of the above, the CDE finds that the District’s ultimate conclusion and disposition with respect to Allegation 3 and the 2020–21 LCAP are supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the law. Accordingly, the Appeal as to Allegation 3 is not sustained.

Allegation 4

Allegation 4 is based on the inclusion of a contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department as a contributing action in the District’s 2019–2020 LCAP. The action was not included in the District’s 2021–22 LCAP as a contributing action. The allegation is not further addressed because it was not made within the one-year filing deadline. (5 CCR Section 4630[a].)

Allegation 5

The UCP authorizes LCAP-related UCP complaints that allege the violation of a legal requirement contained in the statutes and regulations governing the LCAP. (EC Section 33315[a][1][L]; EC Section 52075[a]; 5 CCR Section 4610[a]-[b].)

The LCAP laws contain a number of specific requirements to ensure that LEAs engage with their parents, pupils, personnel, and other educational partners. For example, EC Section 52060(g) requires school districts to consult with such educational partners in developing an LCAP. As another example, EC Section 52062 provides that before school districts adopt an LCAP, their superintendent must, among other things: present it to one or more parent advisory committees for review and comment, and respond in writing to comments received; notify members of the public of the opportunity to submit written comments regarding the specific actions and expenditures proposed to be included in the LCAP; and consult with the district’s special education local plan area administrator. And consistent with EC Section 52064(b)(10) and Section 52060(c), the 2021–22 LCAP Template required the District to summarize how it engaged with its educational partners and how such engagement influenced the development of the LCAP.

Appellants’ fifth allegation – that the District’s LCAP “lacks transparency” regarding the use of S&C funds and “deprives the public of the right to meaningfully participate in the LCAP process” (Appeal, p. 11) – does not allege that the District violated any of the above-identified specific requirements geared towards engagement and participation. Indeed, Appellants maintain in their Appeal that their transparency-based fifth allegation holds “irrespective of the legitimacy or effectiveness of the District’s interest holder outreach[.]” (Id.) The Appeal’s argument for the fifth allegation makes brief references to a violation of “LCFF’s transparency requirements” but it does specify any specific requirement or violation, other than the subjects of Appellants’ first and third allegations. (See Appeal at p.11, referring only to the alleged violations that are the subject of the first and third allegations.) Consequently, it is apparent that the fifth allegation is derivative of Appellants’ other allegations, which are addressed earlier in this Decision.

VI. Conclusion

The Appeal is denied with respect to all five allegations.

VII. Corrective Actions

None.

VIII. Discretionary Reconsideration

As described in 5 CCR Section 4635, within 30 days of the date of this Decision, either party may request reconsideration by the Superintendent or the Superintendent's designee. Pursuant to 5 CCR Section 4635(a), any such request shall specify and explain the reason(s) for contesting the findings of fact, conclusions of law, or corrective actions in the appeal Decision. Pursuant to 5 CCR Section 4635(b), in evaluating or deciding on any such request, the designated evaluator will not consider any information not previously submitted to the CDE by a party during the appeal unless such information was unknown to the party at the time of the appeal and, with due diligence, could not have become known to the party.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Joshua Strong, Administrator, Local Agency Systems Support Office, by phone at 916-982-2310 or by email at JStrong@cde.ca.gov.

Sincerely,

Joshua Strong, Administrator
Local Agency Systems Support Office

JS:hb

cc: Greg Nehen, Superintendent, Antelope Valley Union High School District

1 Supplemental and concentration grant funds are funds apportioned to the LEA on the basis of the number and concentration of unduplicated pupils (low-income, foster youth, and English learners), pursuant to EC sections 42238.01, 42238.02, 42238.07.

2 Available here: K–12 Local Control Funding The State’s Approach Has Not Ensured That Significant Funding Is Benefiting Students as Intended to Close Achievement Gaps (PDF)

3 These legislative bill analyses are available here: Bill Analysis - AB-1835 Education finance: local control funding formula: supplemental and concentration grants.

4 The Appeal cites a February 2021 EdSource article, suggesting that it reports Governor Newsom’s beliefs about then-current legal requirements. But setting aside the accuracy and relevance of any such reporting, the article cannot be read as stating what the Governor thought about existing legal requirements. Notably, however, the article conveyed that “county offices of education” and “most districts” determined that existing law allowed for unspent S&C funds to be “carried over and mixed in with unrestricted general revenue the next year[,]” a determination consistent with the CSA’s and the Senate’s and Assembly’s respective staff’s above-referenced conclusions.

5 In light of this finding, it is unnecessary to resolve all of the District’s subsidiary findings, such as, for example, the District’s LCAPs’ consistency with LACOE training and guidance.