Official Letter
Official Letter
Neelum Arya, Appellant
(email address removed)
Dear Neelum Arya:
Subject: Appeal of District Investigation Report – Del Mar Union School District
Neelum Arya, Appellant
Case #: 2025-0006
The Local Agency Systems Support Office of the California Department of Education (CDE) is in receipt of your Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) appeal, dated January 12, 2025 (Appeal), of the Del Mar Union School District’s (District’s) Investigation Report, dated December 13, 2024, concerning your UCP complaint (Complaint) dated October 2, 2024. This is the CDE’s Decision on the Appeal as it relates to Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP)-related issues. We understand that other CDE offices are handling other aspects of the Appeal.
I. Background
California law authorizes the filing of an administrative UCP complaint to resolve allegations that a local educational agency (LEA), such as a school district, county office of education, or charter school, failed to meet requirements governing 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). (See EC Section 52075; EC Section 33315; California Code of Regulations, Title 5 [5 CCR] Section 4600 et seq.)
On October 2, 2024, Neelum Arya (Appellant) submitted a UCP complaint to the District alleging, among other things, that the District failed to comply with certain LCAP-related requirements. The District issued an Investigation Report in response to the Complaint on December 13, 2024. The Appellant submitted an Appeal to the CDE on January 12, 2025. On January 30, 2025, the CDE sent a notice of appeal letter to the District requesting the investigation file, the District’s local UCP complaint procedures, and other documentation specified in 5 CCR Section 4633. The CDE received the District’s documentation on February 7, 2025.
The CDE reviewed all materials it received in connection with the Appeal.
Pursuant to 5 CCR Section 4633(g), the CDE has also reviewed the District’s complaint procedures (Board Policy and Administrative Regulation [AR] 1312.3) and finds that the District substantially complied with its complaint procedures in these matters, although as discussed below, the CDE finds that the District misinterpreted the nature and scope of part of the Complaint, which caused its Investigation Report to fail to “include…a clear determination for each allegation” of the UCP complaint (AR 1312.3).
II. Summary of Complaints and District Investigation Report
The Complaint
The Complaint raised several issues, some of which are not relevant to, or a basis of, the Appeal’s LCAP-related arguments that are the subject of this Decision. As is relevant here, the Complaint alleged that there were deficiencies in the manner the District addressed state priority 3, Parental Involvement and Family Engagement, in the 2024–25 LCAP. The Complaint also alleged the District failed to comply with the LCAP template adopted by the State Board of Education because it did not include its entire budget in the 2024–25 LCAP and the District’s justification for the use of supplemental funds for increased or improved services for unduplicated students was insufficient. (Complaint, pp. 2 and 4.) (See EC sections 42238.07 and 52060, and 5 CCR Section 15496.)
The District's Investigation Report
In the District’s Investigation Report, Allegations 4 and 8 were relevant to the LCAP-related requirements. (Investigation Report, pp. 5 and 7.)
With respect to Allegation 4, the District interpreted the Complaint as an allegation of insufficient engagement of educational partners in the development of the LCAP and found itself in compliance. The Investigation Report concluded it had already addressed that allegation in its previous Investigation Report dated November 15, 2024, and that it had deemed the allegation unfounded upon review of its engagement of educational partners. (Investigation Report, p. 5.)
In response to Allegation 8, the District found itself in compliance with respect to inclusion of budgeted expenditures in the 2024–25 LCAP and properly addressing the increased or improved services requirements consistent with 5 CCR Section 15496.
III. Summary of Appeal
Among other things, a UCP appellant “must specify and explain the basis for the appeal.” (5 CCR Section 4632[a].) In addition, while the UCP authorizes LEAs to use their own local procedures to resolve complaints that do not fall within the UCP’s scope, only LEA Investigation Reports of complaints that fall within the UCP’s scope may be appealed to the CDE. (5 CCR 4632[d]; 5 CCR Section 4610[e].) Appeals that do not comply with these requirements need not be processed. (5 CCR Section 4632[d].) While the initial Complaint and the Appeal touched upon some other issues, the Appeal focused on two LCAP-related claims:
- The District did not properly address state priority 3, Parental Involvement and Family Engagement, in the 2024–25 LCAP. Specifically, the District did not include a baseline for Metric 2.5 Seeking Parent Input for LCAP Development, and Action 2.5 Parent Education and Action 2.7 Parent Involvement and Support do not properly address “how the school is improving how the district will seek parent input” (Appeal, p. 5.)
- The District failed to comply with the LCAP template adopted by the State Board of Education because “1) the District provides only 5% of the overall budget in the LCAP; 2) DMUSD has failed to explain how the STEAM+ program is funded; and 3) the expenditures of supplemental funds for unduplicated pupils do not meet the requirements of 5 CCR § 15496 (b)(2).” (Appeal, p. 6.)
IV. Legal Authorities
EC sections 42238.01, 42238.02, 42238.07, 52059.5 – 52077
5 CCR sections 15494 – 15497
V. CDE Findings and Determinations on Appeal
Appeal Claim 1
Though the District indicated it had addressed Appeal Claim 1 in its previous Investigation Report dated November 15, 2024, upon the CDE’s review of said Investigation Report, it was determined the issues raised in the Complaint were not the same as those addressed in the previous Investigation Report. Specifically, while the previous Investigation Report focused on engagement in the development of the LCAP, the Complaint underlying this Appeal focused on LCAP instructions that require addressing all state priorities and providing baseline data for metrics. (Complaint, pp. 2-3.) The following is the CDE’s decision on the matter.
EC Section 52060(a) directs school districts to adopt LCAPs using a template adopted by the State Board of Education. EC Section 52060(d) lists “state priorities for purposes of a school district’s” LCAP, which include “[p]arental involvement and family engagement, including efforts the school district makes to seek parent input in making decisions for the school district and each individual schoolsite, and including how the school district will promote parental participation in programs for unduplicated pupils and individuals with exceptional needs.”
Appellant’s first claim on appeal is premised on two assertions: (1) the District did not properly address state priority 3, Parental Involvement and Family Engagement, in the 2024–25 LCAP as evidenced by Actions 2.5 Parent Education and Action 2.7 Parent Involvement and Support; and (2) the District did not include baseline data for Metric 2.5 Seeking Parent Input for LCAP Development.
Upon review of the District’s investigation file provided to the CDE, the CDE found the District sufficiently addressed state priority 3 in the 2024–25 LCAP.
Per pages 8 and 9 of the LCAP instructions, “At a minimum, the LCAP must address all [Local Control Funding Formula] LCFF priorities and associated metrics articulated in EC sections 52060(d) and 52066(d), as applicable to the LEA. The LCFF State Priorities Summary (DOCX) provides a summary of EC sections 52060(d) and 52066(d) to aid in the development of the LCAP.”
Page 1 of the LCFF State Priorities Summary for Priority 3 states the LEA is required to address the following in the LCAP:
A. The efforts the school district makes to seek parent input in making decisions for the LEA and each individual schoolsite;
B. How the LEA will promote parental participation in programs for low income, English learner and foster youth students; and
C. How the LEA will promote parental participation in programs for students with disabilities.
In the Engaging Educational Partners section, the LEA described how it addressed subsection A of Priority 3 listed above. Specifically, pages 6 and 7 state:
In developing the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP), DMUSD diligently involves parents to ensure their perspectives influence decision-making. This partnership is essential for tailoring educational strategies to meet the needs of students and the broader community effectively.
Parent Engagement Strategies:
Regular Communication: Throughout the year, DMUSD leaders, including the superintendent, district office administrators, and school principals, hold meetings with parents. These sessions cover a wide range of topics related to the LCAP, such as the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), budget details, implementation of California Standards, instructional programs, facilities, and student progress data. Proposed actions being considered for the LCAP are shared with parents at the site level through the School Site Council (SSC), the English Learner Advisory Council (ELAC), and at principal coffees. These are intended to be interactive meetings, encouraging open dialogue and allowing parents to engage directly with administrators and educators.
Surveys: DMUSD conducts several surveys to gather parent feedback:
- Annual Spring Community Survey helps to identify priorities for the LCAP (4/11-4/19)
- Parents can provide feedback following a presentation on actions being considered for inclusion in the upcoming LCAP - Ashley Falls (SSC: 5/13), Carmel Del Mar (SSC: 5/23), Del Mar Heights (SSC: 5/16), Del Mar Hills Academy (SSC: 4/30, ELAC: 4/25, PTA: 5/10), Ocean Air (SSC: 5/2, PTA: 5/9), Pacific Sky (SSC: 4/30, PTA: 5/15), Sage Canyon (SSC: 5/6, PTA/Principal's Coffee: 4/26), Sycamore Ridge (SSC: 5/2), Torrey Hills (SSC: 5/14, PTA: 5/14)
- A follow-up survey is conducted after the May LCAP hearing helps to refine the draft plan. (5/23-6/3)
- The Speak-Up survey provides insights into the necessary support for the safe and effective use of digital tools in education and includes questions regarding school safety and connectedness. (5/13 - 5/24)
These surveys are crucial for understanding parent perspectives and integrating their feedback into the planning process.
Parent Committees: DMUSD has established a parent committee that includes representatives from each school. This committee meets with district leaders to discuss LCAP goals and actions, ensuring that parent feedback is integrated into the planning process (5/7).
Destination 2028! Team Meeting: This meeting focused on reviewing progress on the district's strategic plan, Destination 2028, and gathering feedback to identify priority actions for the upcoming school year. Insights from this session also help inform the development of the LCAP. (5/21)
DMUSD ensures that parents have the opportunity to provide input through these engagement methods.
Additionally, on page 44 of the District’s 2024–25 LCAP, Action 2.7, Parent Involvement and Support, addresses subsections B and C of Priority 3 listed above. It states:
Continue to support parents who desire a greater understanding of the US School System.
- Revise, translate, and disseminate the Family Support Handbook for English learners' parents.
- Offer English as a Second Language classes for adults on school campuses.
- Work collaboratively with site and district parent groups (ELAC, DELAC, SSC, PTA) to identify and implement strategies to support families from multiple countries who reside within our school district.
Establish site liaisons for parents of students receiving special education services to increase their understanding of the programs serving their children.
As noted above, Appeal Claim 1 is also premised on the assertion that the District did not provide baseline data for Metric 2.5 Seeking Parent Input for LCAP Development.
Page 13 of the LCAP instructions states, “Enter the baseline when completing the LCAP for 2024–25.” Additionally, slide 56 of the CDE’s November 14, 2023, webinar titled 2024–25 LCAP – Template and Instructions (PPTX) states, “For the 2024–25 LCAP, complete the Metric #, Metric, Baseline, and Target for Year 3 Outcome.” Both the LCAP instructions and the CDE’s training instruct LEAs to include baseline data for all metrics in the LCAP.
Not including baseline data demonstrates noncompliance with the LCAP template and instructions.
Therefore, the first assertion of Appeal Claim 1 lacks merit and the appeal based thereon is denied; however, the second assertion of Appeal Claim 1 has merit and the appeal based thereon is sustained.
Appeal Claim 2
Appellant’s second claim on appeal is premised on three assertions: (1) LCAPs must include an LEA’s entire budget; (2) the District’s LCAP must include an explanation of how its STEAM+ program is funded; and (3) the District’s expenditures of supplemental funds for unduplicated pupils do not meet the requirements of 5 CCR Section 15496(b)(2).
EC Section 52060(a) directs school districts to adopt LCAPs using a template adopted by the State Board of Education. EC Section 52064(b) directed that the LCAP template include, among other things, “[a] description of the [district’s] annual goals…to be achieved for each of the state priorities[,]” “[a] description of the specific actions” that the district will take during the year to achieve those goals, and “budgeted expenditures for the ensuing year implementing each specific action included in the” LCAP. (EC Section 52064[b][1]-[3].) EC Section 52064(e)(4) directed that the LCAP template instructions specify that districts “should prioritize the focus of the goals, specific actions, and related expenditures included within one or more of the state priorities.” Pursuant to those provisions, the 2024–25 LCAP template directed districts to “address all LCFF priorities and associated metrics” in their LCAP, but recommended that they “prioritize the goals, specific actions, and related expenditures included within the LCAP within one or more state priorities.” (2024–25 LCAP Instructions, p. 8.)
While an LCAP must state the district’s goals for addressing the state priorities and a description of actions and expenditures to achieve those goals, the 2024–25 LCAP template and instructions do not necessarily require a listing of all of the district’s annual costs that bear some relation to a state priority. Thus, while an LCAP may contain a budgeted expenditure for specific programs or services like the STEAM+ program, the inclusion of such costs is not always required. The pertinent question is whether actions and expenditures are identified for the district’s goals, which in the aggregate must “address” each state priority but may also prioritize one or more of them. Programs and services generally cost money, and a district’s budget will always need to account for such expenditures. But a district’s LCAP is not necessarily required to include such expenditures where the costs do not implement a district’s otherwise sufficient goals and actions for the year. The District’s STEAM+ program is an example of a program or service that would be included in the District’s budget but not necessarily included in the District’s LCAP. The District did not attribute the STEAM+ program as a means of implementing any of its 2024–25 LCAP goals, and therefore, the STEAM+ program is not required to be included in the District’s LCAP as an expenditure.
EC Section 52064.1 requires a district to include a “summary document” as the cover page to the LCAP, known as the LCFF Budget Overview for Parents. The LCFF Budget Overview for Parents must include both the district’s total projected general fund expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year and the district’s total budgeted expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year on the planned actions and services to meet the goals included in the LCAP. In accordance with EC Section 52064.1(b)(7) and page 3 of the 2024–25 LCFF Budget Overview for Parents instructions, the district is required to provide a brief description (75 words or less) of the activities or programs supported by any expenditures that are not included in the LCAP. Here, the District sufficiently complied with this requirement as evidenced on page 2 of the District’s 2024–25 LCFF Budget Overview for Parents. The STEAM+ program was included in the District’s response as an expenditure not included in the District’s 2024–25 LCAP.
The Investigation Report’s conclusion that the District was not required to provide a specific percentage of its overall budget in the LCAP is correct. (Investigation Report, p. 7.) Additionally, the Investigation Report’s assertion that the District’s 2024–25 LCFF Budget Overview for Parents indicates that the STEAM+ program is part of the District’s General Fund budgeted expenditures not funded through the LCAP is compliant with page 3 of the LCFF Budget Overview for Parents Instructions.
As noted above, Appeal Claim 2 is also premised on the assertion that the District’s expenditures of supplemental funds for unduplicated pupils do not meet the requirements of 5 CCR Section 15496(b)(2).
The LCFF apportions supplemental and concentration grant funds (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 2024–25 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. To demonstrate how these actions meet the increased or improved services requirement, an LEA’s descriptions must adhere to 5 CCR Section 15496(b)(2), which states:
(2) A school district that has an enrollment of unduplicated pupils that is less than 55 percent of the district's total enrollment in the fiscal year for which an LCAP is adopted may expend supplemental and concentration grant funds on a districtwide basis. A school district expending funds on a districtwide basis shall do all of the following:
(A) Identify in the LCAP those services that are being funded and provided on a districtwide basis.
(B) Describe in the LCAP how such services are principally directed towards, and are effective in, meeting the district's goals for its unduplicated pupils in the state and any local priority areas.
(C) Describe how these services are the most effective use of the funds to meet the district's goals for its unduplicated pupils in the state and any local priority areas. The description shall provide the basis for this determination, including, but not limited to, any alternatives considered and any supporting research, experience, or educational theory.
In accordance with the 2023–24 LCFF Summary Data (XLSX) file, the District’s unduplicated pupil percentage was 20.05% at the time the 2024–25 LCAP was developed and approved. Because the District’s unduplicated pupil percentage was under 55%, the District was required to address subsections (A), (B), and (C) of the aforementioned regulations in its increased or improved services demonstration for LEA-wide actions.
In review of the District’s 2024–25 Increased or Improved Services for Foster Youth, English Learners, and Low-Income Students section, the District identified six LEA-wide contributing actions as demonstration for meeting its MPP. Though the District adequately addressed subsections (A) and (B) of the regulation referenced above, the District did not address the requirements in subsection (C). None of the explanations for LEA-wide actions include a description of how the services provided were the most effective use of the funds to meet the district’s goals for its unduplicated students. Additionally, none of the explanations for LEA-wide actions included a basis for the determination to provide the services on an LEA-wide basis, despite having fewer than 55% unduplicated students, nor were any alternatives considered, or any supporting research, experience, or educational theory provided in the descriptions.
For the above reasons, with respect to the first and second assertions of Appeal Claim 2, the CDE finds that the Investigation Report contains sufficient factual findings, is supported by substantial evidence, and includes correct legal conclusions. Therefore, the first and second assertions of Appeal Claim 2 lack merit and the appeal based thereon is denied.
With respect to the third assertion of Appeal Claim 2, the CDE finds the appeal has merit and the appeal based thereon is sustained.
VI. Conclusion
The first assertion of Appeal Claim 1 is denied.
The second assertion of Appeal Claim 1 is sustained. The corrective action is provided below.
The first and second assertions of Appeal Claim 2 are denied.
The third assertion of Appeal Claim 2 is partially sustained. The corrective action is provided below.
VII. Corrective Actions
In accordance with the 2025–26 LCAP instructions, the District must include baseline data for all metrics, including Metric 2.5 Seeking Parent Input for LCAP Development, in the 2025–26 LCAP. Additionally, the District must address all components of 5 CCR Section 15496(b)(2) in its 2025–26 Increased or Improved Services for Foster Youth, English Learners, and Low-Income Students section for all LEA-wide actions.
VIII. Discretionary Reconsideration
As described in 5 CCR Section 4635, within 30 days of receipt of this report, either party may request reconsideration by the Superintendent or the Superintendent's designee. The request for reconsideration shall specify and explain the reason(s) for contesting the findings of fact, conclusions of law, or corrective actions in the appeal Decision. (5 CCR Section 4635[a].) In evaluating or deciding on a request for reconsideration, the Superintendent (or designee) 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. (5 CCR Section 4635[b].)
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Joshua Strong, Administrator, Local Agency Systems Support Office, by email at JStrong@cde.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Joshua Strong, Administrator
Local Agency Systems Support Office
JS:hb
cc: Ryan Stanley, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources, Del Mar Union School District