Vangie Urias, Appellant
(Address and email removed)

Dear Vangie Urias:

Subject: Appeal of District Investigation Report - Raisin City School District
Vangie Urias, Appellant

Case #: 2022-0234

The Local Agency Systems Support Office (LASSO) of the California Department of Education (CDE) is in receipt of your Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) appeal (Appeal), dated November 19, 2022, of the Raisin City School District’s (District’s) Investigation Report, dated October 20, 2022, concerning your UCP 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), such as a school district, 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.).

On June 21, 2022, Vangie Urias (Appellant) submitted a UCP Complaint to the District. The Complaint alleged violations of Proposition 58 and inappropriate discontinuance of the District’s Dual Immersion program; however, those allegations do not fall within LASSO’s purview and are not relevant to this Decision. The Complaint also alleged that, in violation of EC Section 52062(a)(2), the District failed to present the LCAP to the English Learner Parent Advisory Committee (also referred to as the District English Learner Advisory Committee, or DELAC) during the development of the 2022-2023 LCAP, and failed to respond to the DELAC’s comments.

The District issued an Initial Investigation Report in response to that Complaint on August 11, 2022. In the District’s Initial Investigation Report, the District addressed the allegation relating to discontinuance of its Dual Immersion program, but it did not address the allegations about failing to present the LCAP to the DELAC and failing to respond to the DELAC’s comments during the development of the 2022-2023 LCAP.

The Appellant submitted an Appeal to the CDE on August 26, 2022, which raised a new allegation about the District’s methods of arranging for nominations and elections for DELAC membership.

On October 3, 2022, the CDE sent a letter to the Appellant notifying them that the allegations related to Proposition 58, discontinuance of the Dual Immersion program, and the District’s methods of arranging for DELAC membership do not fall under LASSO’s purview and would not be handled by LASSO.

On October 3, 2022, the CDE sent a Notice of Appeal letter to the District, which noted that the District’s Initial Investigation Report failed to address the violations of EC Section 52062(a)(2) and directed the District to investigate and address those allegations in an amended report. The District issued an Amended Investigation Report on October 20, 2022.

The Appellant submitted an Appeal from the Amended Investigation Report to the CDE, which was dated November 19, 2022.

On November 28, 2022, 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 December 14, 2022.

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. The CDE has reviewed the District’s complaint procedures (BP and AR 1312.3) and finds that the District complied with its complaint procedures in these matters.

II. Summary of Complaint and District Investigation Report

The Complaint

As is relevant to the Appeal, the Appellant’s UCP Complaint alleged the District did not present the LCAP to the DELAC for review and comment during the development of the 2022-2023 LCAP, and the superintendent did not respond in writing to comments made by the DELAC, as required by EC Section 52062(a)(2).

The District’s Investigation Report

In its Investigation Report, dated October 20, 2022, the District found itself in compliance with respect to the allegation. Specifically, the District provided record (including a sign-in sheet, meeting minutes, and presentation materials) of a meeting on April 4, 2022 that was attended by some DELAC members and where the then-current draft of the 2022-2023 LCAP was presented. The provided documentation indicated that District staff were present at the meeting to answer questions as the LCAP was presented. According to the Investigation Report, “Administration did not believe that any questions or recommendations were presented by DELAC members that warranted written responses by the Superintendent because of Administration's verbal responses given during the course of the meeting.”

Summary of Appeal

The Appeal challenged the District’s findings, noting that the District could only show having “one meeting with the community that was poorly attended.” It also asserted that the DELAC has never received verbal or written communication from the current superintendent related to its concerns.

III. Legal Authorities

EC sections 44238.01, 42238.02, 42238.07, 52059.5 – 52077

5 CCR sections 15494 – 15497

IV. CDE Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

After a thorough review of all materials received in connection with the Appeal, in accordance with 5 CCR Section 4633(g), the CDE finds that the findings and legal conclusions in the District’s Investigation Report are not supported by substantial evidence.

EC Section 52062(a)(2) provides that “[t]he superintendent of the school district shall present the local control and accountability plan or annual update to the local control and accountability plan to the English learner parent advisory committee [also referred to as the District English Learner Advisory Committee or DELAC] established pursuant to Section 52063, if applicable, for review and comment. The superintendent of the school district shall respond, in writing, to comments received from the English learner parent advisory committee.”

As an initial matter, LASSO notes that a DELAC is an official Board-established committee. See EC Section 52063(a)(1). As such, it is subject to the Greene Act, which generally speaking, requires the committee to act as a body in publicly-noted meetings. See EC Section 35147.

As previously noted, the District relies on an April 4 meeting to support its findings of compliance with EC Section 52062(a)(2). However, the evidence does not reflect that that meeting was a meeting of the DELAC, at which the DELAC itself would receive the LCAP for review and comment, and provide comments to the superintendent for response. Exhibit A to the District’s Amended Investigation Report contains a notice of the April 4 meeting, however, the notice refers to the meeting as an “LCAP Educational Partners Meeting,” not a DELAC meeting. The notice poses the question “Who should attend?” and answers that question by listing “parents” first, then “teachers,” then “community members,” and finally “SSC, ELAC, DELAC, PAC Members.” Thus, the notice does not reflect that this was a DELAC meeting for the purpose of having that body consider and act by providing its comments on the LCAP. Exhibit A also contains an April 4 sign-in sheet, titled “LCAP Educational Partners Meeting,” reflecting that ten people signed-in, but only two are identified as DELAC members.

Similarly, Exhibit B appears to be minutes of the April 4 meeting, however, they are styled as minutes for an “Education Partners Update & Input on the 2022-23 LCAP and Budget Overview Meeting,” not as minutes of a DELAC meeting.

Significantly, LASSO notes that the District currently provides both the “minutes” and “agendas” for its DELAC’s 2021-2022 meetings on its website; however, no DELAC minutes or agendas are available for an April 4 meeting. Indeed, the District’s website indicates that its DELAC had its “Meeting 4” on February 16, 2022 and its “Meeting 5” on May 25, 2022. There is no record of a DELAC meeting on April 4, and the information posted for Meetings 4 and 5 do not reflect that those meetings were for receiving the LCAP and providing input on it.

Of course, it is important for a District to engage with all educational partners in developing its LCAP, and the District’s April 4, 2022 meeting in this case furthered such engagement. However, the District cannot point to that broader outreach meeting to prove that “the DELAC” was assembled to receive the LCAP and to, through collective action, provide that body’s comments on the LCAP to the District. The District cannot respond to “the DELAC’s” comments on the LCAP if the DELAC is not put in a position to provide that body’s comments.

V. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the District’s reliance on the April 4 meeting to show compliance with EC Section 52062(a)(2) is factually and legally unsupported, and the District has failed to demonstrate compliance with EC Section 52062(a)(2). Corrective actions are assigned below.

VI. Corrective Actions

For the 2023-2024 LCAP adoption process, and going forward, the District must present the LCAP to the DELAC at a properly noticed public DELAC meeting, the agenda for which must include an opportunity for the DELAC to review and discuss the LCAP and to develop that body’s comments on the LCAP (if any) for submission to the superintendent. The superintendent must then respond, in writing, to any comments submitted by the DELAC.

VII. Discretionary Reconsideration

As described in 5 CCR Section 4665, 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 why:

1. Relative to the allegation(s), the Department Investigation Report lacks material findings of fact necessary to reach a conclusion of law on the subject of the complaint, and/or
2. The material findings of fact in the Department Investigation Report are not supported by substantial evidence, and/or
3. The legal conclusion in the Department Investigation Report is inconsistent with the law, and/or
4. In a case in which the CDE found noncompliance, the corrective actions fail to provide a proper remedy.

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: Orin Hirschkorn, Superintendent, Raisin City School District