Sandy Roy, Appellant
(Address and email removed)

Dear Sandy Roy:

Subject: Appeal of District Investigation Report - Riverside Unified School District
Sandy Roy, Appellant

Case #: 2022-0191

The Local Agency Systems Support Office of the California Department of Education (CDE) is in receipt of your Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) appeal, dated September 11, 2022, of the Riverside Unified School District’s (District’s) Investigation Report, dated August 18, 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 14, 2022, Sandy Roy (Appellant) submitted a UCP Complaint to the District, alleging that the District violated requirements related to Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) composition during the 2021-–22 school year. The District issued an Investigation Report in response to that Complaint on August 18, 2022. The Appellant submitted an Appeal to the CDE on September 12, 2022. On September 21, 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 October 24, 2022.

Upon reviewing the District’s initial documentation, the CDE determined additional information was needed from the District. The CDE sent a letter requesting the District provide additional documentation on November 28, 2022. The CDE received the District’s additional documentation on January 11, 2023.

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.) The CDE finds that the District complied with its complaint procedures, with the exception that while the District’s existing procedures correctly note that a complainant has 30 days to appeal to the CDE and require the District’s Investigation Report to “include” “[n]otice of the complainant’s right to appeal,” the District’s Investigation Report’s notice in this case erroneously stated 15 instead of 30 days. CDE trusts that the District will take steps to ensure that such mistakes not occur in the future.

II. Summary of Complaint and District Investigation Report

The Complaint

The Appellant’s UCP Complaint alleged the District’s PAC was not composed of a majority of parents, including parents of students who meet one or more of the definitions in EC Section 42238.01, during the 2021–22 school year.

The District’s Investigation Report

In its Investigation Report, the District found itself in compliance with respect to the allegation. Specifically, the District provided its procedures for how parents are selected to participate in the PAC and included a roster of participants for both the 2021–22 and 2022–23 school years. Furthermore, the District indicated that it ensures the PAC composition includes at least one parent of a student who meets one or more of the definitions in EC Section 42238.01 by requiring a parent from the District English Learner Advisory Committee and a Parent representing Foster Youth to participate in the PAC.

III. Summary of Appeal

The Appeal reiterated the allegation that the District’s PAC did not include a majority of parents of students, including parents of students who meet one or more of the definitions in EC Section 42238.01, during the 2021–22 school year.

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

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 material factual findings and legal conclusions in the District’s Investigation Report are supported by substantial evidence and the law.

EC Section 52063 provides that “[t]he governing board of a school district shall establish a parent advisory committee to provide advice to the governing board of the school district and the superintendent of the school district” regarding the LCAP. Additionally, 5 CCR Section 15495(f) requires the PAC to be “composed of a majority of parents, as defined in subdivision (e), of pupils and include parents of pupils to whom one or more of the definitions in Education Code section 42238.01 apply.”

Generally speaking, pupils who meet “one or more of the definitions in Education Code section 42238.01” refers to pupils who are low-income, English Learners, and/or foster youth, and collectively, such pupils are often referred to as “unduplicated pupils.”

Under 5 CCR Section 15495(e), “parents” means the natural or adoptive parents, legal guardians, or other persons holding the right to make educational decisions for the student pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361 or 727 or EC sections 56028 or 56055, including foster parents who hold rights to make educational decisions.

The District’s Investigation Report was supported by a written policy, consistent with what District staff stated were well-established practices and policies, regarding how the District goes about establishing PAC membership. The policy requires parent representation from certain schools with a sufficiently high percentage of unduplicated pupils, as well as from specific parent leadership groups, including the District English Learner Advisory Committee. The policy also directs District staff to ensure participation of parents of unduplicated pupils. While the policy also calls for student members and members from specified educational partner groups who need not be parents, the membership rules dictate a parent majority. In addition to the written policy itself and District staff statements confirming its reflection of long-standing District practice, the District provided emails from August 2021, nine months prior to the initial complaint in this matter, reflecting District staff’s efforts to secure parent membership in a manner consistent with the policy.

The District also provided a roster of PAC members for both the 2021–22 and 2022–23 school years, reflecting that both PACs were composed of a majority of parents and included parents of unduplicated pupils.

Appellant has questioned the District’s PAC rosters and conclusions by asserting that certain parent members are employed by the District. However, the law does not preclude parents who are also district employees from serving on the PAC and counting toward the parent majority.

Appellant has also questioned the District’s PAC rosters and conclusions by asserting that the District has provided different information about PAC membership at different times, and that the rosters and percentages do not reflect who actually attends the PAC meetings and fail to include District leadership who often attend those meetings. In this regard, the District has explained variances in the information about PAC membership provided to Appellant by noting that there were genuine membership changes at times (e.g., the addition of four new members in June 2021) and that some statements about PAC membership mistakenly included individuals (such as district staff) that customarily attended the PAC meetings, but were not actually “members” of that body.

A school district’s PAC is subject to the Greene Act, which generally speaking, requires the PAC to act as a body in publicly-noticed meetings that are open to the public. (See EC Section 35147.) Therefore, there is nothing wrong with anyone (including District staff, and Appellant for that matter) routinely attending meetings of the District’s PAC. Indeed, given the PAC’s function and purpose, it makes good sense for District staff to attend the PAC’s meetings. However, there is a distinction between actual PAC members and those District staff members (and any others) who routinely attend the meetings. Here, it appears that the District, through staff, mistakenly failed to recognize that distinction in communicating information about its PAC membership to Appellant. The CDE can understand the confusion that that may have caused, and the CDE strongly recommends that the District take steps to avoid confusion in the future. However, the precise question on appeal is whether the PAC actually had a parent majority, as well as parents of unduplicated pupils, not whether the District’s employees could have been clearer at all times. Considering the totality of the evidence, there is substantial evidence supporting the District’s finding that its PAC’s membership complied with the law in 2021–22.

VI. Conclusion

The CDE does not find merit in the Appeal of the District’s Decision. No corrective actions are required.

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: Raul Ayala, Director of Pupil Services, Riverside Unified School District