Cynthia Connor, Appellant
(Address and email removed)

Dear Cynthia Connor:

Subject: Appeal of District Decision - Roseville City Elementary School District
Cynthia Connor, Appellant

Case #: 2022-0009

The Local Agency Systems Support Office of the California Department of Education (CDE) is in receipt of your Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) appeal, dated December 28, 2021, of the Roseville City Elementary School District’s (District’s) Investigation Report, dated November 18, 2021, 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, 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 October 19, 2021, Cynthia Connor (Appellant) submitted a UCP Complaint to the District. Generally speaking, as is relevant to the subject UCP appeal, the Complaint alleged that the District violated requirements related to Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) engagement for the 2021–22 LCAP. The District issued an Investigation Report in response to the Complaint on November 18, 2021. The Appellant submitted an appeal to the CDE on December 3, 2021. On December 20, 2021, the CDE sent a letter to the Appellant requesting, within 10 days, clarification as to the basis for the appeal. The Appellant submitted clarification (together with the earlier appeal submission, the Appeal) to the CDE on December 28, 2021. On January 25, 2022, the CDE sent a notice of appeal letter to the District stating that the Appeal raised one UCP issue for resolution: whether or not the District had a properly established PAC pursuant to EC Section 52063 and whether the District properly engaged with its PAC pursuant to EC Section 52062(a)(1) prior to adopting its 2021–22 LCAP. The CDE’s notice of appeal also requested 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 February 2, 2022.

On February 14, 2022, the CDE sent a letter to the Appellant 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. The CDE has reviewed the District’s complaint procedures (Board Policy and Regulation 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 following violations of law:

1. The District did not have a properly established PAC pursuant to EC Section 52063.
2. The District did not properly engage with its PAC pursuant to EC Section 52062(a)(1) prior to adopting its 2021–22 LCAP.

The District’s Investigation Report

In its Investigation Report, the District found itself in compliance with respect to Allegations 1 and 2.

Allegation 1

In response to Allegation 1, the District concluded that the allegation in the Complaint was unfounded. The District stated it “utilized feedback from the LCAP Parent Advisory Committee and from every school site council in the district. Each site was then represented on the LCAP Parent Advisory Committee as well as representatives from the unduplicated student groups” (Investigation Report, p. 2).

Allegation 2

In response to Allegation 2, the District concluded that the allegation in the Complaint was unfounded. The District indicated, “There were ample opportunities for Complainant to submit feedback and participate prior to Board approval on June 23, 2021” (Investigation Report, p. 3). In the District’s Investigation Report, the District included a list of meetings and opportunities to provide feedback offered to its educational partners.

III. Summary of Appeal

The Appeal takes issue with the District’s conclusions, stating, among other things: “The RCSD has repeatedly failed to produce factual data to support their claims to have Parent Advisory Committee in place along with proof of their meetings and ledgers as required by law” (Appeal, p. 1).

IV. Legal Authorities

EC sections 44238.01, 42238.02, 42238.07, 52059.5 – 52077

5 CCR sections 15494 – 15497

V. CDE Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Following a review of all materials received in connection with the Appeal, in accordance with 5 CCR Section 4633(g), the CDE finds that the District’s decision regarding both Allegations is supported by substantial evidence and its legal conclusions are not contrary to law.

The District’s LCAP policies adopted by the governing board recognize the role of a PAC in LCAP development (see District Board Policy 0460), and the District’s investigation file provided to the CDE contained documentation (labeled Exhibits A-Q) that collectively contained substantial evidence of the District’s engagement with an established PAC as required by EC Section 52062(a)(1) and EC Section 52063.

Exhibit F included a presentation to the District’s principals, conducted on February 23, 2021, indicating the District’s “LCAP Committee” (also referred to as the “LCAP Parent Group”) would consist of one parent from each school’s Schoolsite Council (SSC).

Exhibit G included an email, sent to the District’s principals on March 7, 2021, with instructions to be shared with each school’s SSC members on how to provide feedback to guide the development of the District’s 2021–22 LCAP. On page 3, steps three through five explained how the SSC members’ feedback would be utilized, as follows:

3. Your feedback will be analyzed by an LCAP Parent/Guardian Group, with School Site Council members representing every site.
4. This representative group will analyze the ideas and actions and make recommendations to the Superintendent.
5. I will take recommendations from this group to the Superintendent for review and feedback. The Superintendent will respond to the recommendations in writing. Many of the recommendations from parents/guardians have been funded in past years. While some may not have been able to be approved by the Superintendent right away, the list is always revisited during the year when new funding or grants become available. For example, we were able to fund additional mental health workers at four sites with grant funds.

Exhibit I included a Zoom meeting invitation for an “LCAP Parent Meeting” on April 12, 2021, that was conducted with the parent representatives from each school’s SSC, collectively known as the “LCAP Parent Group.” The meeting description included the following statement, “We look forward to providing information regarding your feedback, adjustments to the LCAP based on your feedback, and take any other ideas into consideration.”

Exhibit J included a PowerPoint presentation titled “LCAP Parent Feedback” presented at the April 12, 2021, meeting.

Exhibit K included a follow up email, sent on April 13, 2021, to the meeting attendees indicating the draft 2021–22 LCAP would be sent to them upon completion.

Exhibit N included an email, sent on June 4, 2021, to the April 12, 2021, meeting attendees with the Draft 2019–2020 LCAP and Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan Annual Update, the Draft Budget Overview for Parents, and the Draft 2021–22 LCAP. The email included a link to an optional Zoom meeting on June 6, 2021, to allow for recipients to ask questions verbally. Recipients were also encouraged to submit questions in writing, if needed.

Exhibit O included an additional Zoom meeting invite for a meeting held on June 10, 2021, with the LCAP Parent Group for a final review of the 2021–22 LCAP.

Exhibit P included the written response to a question submitted by a member of the LCAP Parent Group on June 4, 2021.

Exhibit Q included an excerpt from the June 21, 2021, local governing board meeting where the LCAP was presented for adoption. In the excerpt, the board was informed that “the Parent LCAP committee, the DELAC committee, and the larger RCSD public has been able to provide comment and ask questions. There was only one question that was responded to by the Superintendent and is in the Board packet” (Exhibit Q, p. 2).

Lastly, aside from the opportunities for feedback offered to the District’s LCAP Parent Group, the District provided opportunity for the greater community to provide input on the Draft 2021–22 LCAP as well. Exhibit M included a copy of the “Draft Local Control and Accountability (LCAP) Community Feedback Form,” in both English and Spanish, that was open from June 3 through June 30, 2021.

VI. Conclusion

With respect to both Allegations, the Appeal is denied.

VII. 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. 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 email at JStrong@cde.ca.gov.

Sincerely,

Joshua Strong, Administrator
Local Agency Systems Support Office

JS:hb

cc: Meghan Baichtal, Assistant Superintendent, Roseville City Elementary School District