Summary of Uniform Complaint Procedure Decisions
Summaries of, and links to, Uniform Complaint Procedure (UCP) decisions issued by the California Department of Education (CDE).This page provides summaries of, and links to, Uniform Complaint Procedure (UCP) decisions issued by the California Department of Education (CDE) related to California Education Code (EC) sections 42238.01, 42238.02, 42238.07, 47606.5, 47607.3, and 52060–52077, and California Code of Regulations, Title 5 (5 CCR), sections 15494–15497.
2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017
2023
March 23 – Riverside Unified School District (RUSD)
This complaint alleged the District’s Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) was improperly composed and did not contain a majority of parents.
The CDE found the District’s policy and practices for establishing its PAC were supported by substantial evidence and not contrary to the legal requirements.
February 16 – Raisin City School District (RCSD)
This complaint alleged the District did not present the 2022–23 Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) to the District English Learner Advisory Committee (DELAC) for review and comment during its development, and the superintendent did not respond in writing to comments made by the DELAC, as required by EC Section 52062(a)(2).
The CDE found the District did not properly engage with the DELAC during the development and adoption of the 2022–23 LCAP because it presented the LCAP at an open public meeting rather than presenting to the DELAC in its official capacity as an advisory group.
2022
September 14 – Antelope Valley Union High School District (AVUHSD)
This complaint alleged the District’s estimated actual expenditures on several contributing actions in its 2019–2020 LCAP reflected underspending and overspending of Local Control Funding Formula supplemental and concentration grant funds (LCFF S&C grant funds) budgeted for said actions, the District did not include goals for all of the required student groups in EC Section 52052 in either its 2019–2020 or its 2021–22 LCAPs, the District failed to describe how districtwide allocations of LCFF S&C grant funds were “principally directed towards” and “effective in” meeting the District’s goals for unduplicated students in its 2019–2020 LCAP, the District improperly allocated LCFF S&C grant funds for a contract with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department in its 2019–2020 LCAP, and the District’s 2019–2020 and 2021–22 LCAPs lacked transparency regarding the use of LCFF S&C grant funds.
The CDE did not find merit in any of the allegations in the complaint.
Note: Consistent with 5 CCR, Section 4630(a), UCP complaints “shall be filed not later than one year from the date the alleged violation occurred.” For complaints relating to LCAPs, the date of the alleged violation is the date when the reviewing authority approves the LCAP or the annual update to the LCAP that was adopted by the LEA. The District’s 2019–2020 LCAP was approved by the reviewing authority on September 16, 2019. The above complaint was filed in February 2022. Therefore, the CDE’s Decision did not resolve allegations of legal violations in the development, content, or adoption of the District’s 2019–2020 LCAP.
March 2 – Roseville City Elementary School District (RCESD)
This complaint alleged the District did not have a properly established PAC and did not properly engage with said committee prior to adopting the 2021–22 LCAP.
The CDE did not find merit in either allegation. The District’s LCAP policies adopted by the governing board recognized the role of the PAC in LCAP development, and the District’s investigation file provided to the CDE contained substantial evidence of the District’s engagement with an established PAC as required by EC sections 52062(a)(1) and 52063.
February 7 – Ojai Unified School District (OUSD)
This complaint alleged the District’s 2021–22 LCAP was not presented to the PAC for review and comment, there was not an established PAC during the development of the 2021–22 LCAP (instead, School Site Councils were utilized for educational partner engagement purposes), and the District’s 2021–22 LCAP did not include goals for “all students.”
The CDE found merit in the first two allegations, including that the District did not have an established PAC during the development of the 2021–22 LCAP and therefore did not present the 2021–22 LCAP to the PAC for review and comment. However, the CDE did not find merit in the third allegation that the District did not include goals for “all students” in its 2021–22 LCAP.
2021
June 18 – San Bernardino County Office of Education (SBCOE)
This complaint alleged the SBCOE approved district LCAPs that were out of compliance with applicable laws.
The CDE found the SBCOE approved districts’ 2019–2020 LCAPs which had not demonstrated, either qualitatively or quantitatively, how the districts increased or improved services for their unduplicated students as compared to services provided for all students in proportion to the increase in funding generated by the number and concentration of their unduplicated students. The CDE also found the SBCOE approved districts’ 2019–2020 LCAPs that did not meet the requirement to describe how services provided on a districtwide or schoolwide basis are “principally directed towards” and “effective in” meeting its goals for unduplicated pupils.
2020
July 30 – Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
This complaint focused on allegations related to revising an adopted LCAP, grouping multiple actions together into a single action, the level of specificity for action descriptions, allocating LCFF funds to school sites, and the requirement to increase or improve services for unduplicated students.
The CDE found the District’s 2019–2020 LCAP grouped actions that were contributing to meet the increased or improved services requirement with actions that were not contributing to meet the increased or improved services requirement together into a single action in the LCAP when the 2017–2020 LCAP Template did not provide for the opportunity to do so. The CDE also found the descriptions of actions in the District’s 2019–2020 LCAP did not provide sufficient information to enable the LEA and its educational partners to track implementation and address the actions’ effectiveness over time, as required by the annual update process. Additionally, the CDE found both the District’s 2018–19 and 2019–2020 LCAPs did not demonstrate, either qualitatively or quantitatively, how the district increased or improved services for their unduplicated students as compared to services provided for all students in proportion to the increase in funding generated by the number and concentration of their unduplicated students. Lastly, the CDE found both the District’s 2018–19 and 2019–2020 LCAPs did not meet the requirement to describe how services provided on a districtwide or schoolwide basis are “principally directed towards” and “effective in” meeting its goals for unduplicated pupils.
July 30 – Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE)
This complaint alleged the LACOE approved the LAUSD’s 2019–2020 LCAP that was out of compliance with applicable laws.
The CDE found the LACOE approved LAUSD’s 2019–2020 LCAP in a manner inconsistent with statutory requirements.
2019
July 30 – Bakersfield City School District (BCSD)
This complaint alleged the District failed to properly revise its 2018–19 LCAP using the LCAP revision process detailed in EC Section 52062(c). Specifically, the complaint alleged the District did not seek proper engagement and input by educational partner groups and the public prior to making changes to a planned action.
The CDE found the District complied with the revision and adoption requirements detailed in EC Section 52062 in its decision to modify an action in its 2018–19 LCAP. Specifically, the District held the required meetings with both the PAC and the English Learner Parent Advisory Committee, it consulted with its special education local plan area, it notified and informed the community and staff about the LCAP revision process, and it held a separate public hearing to solicit feedback as well as a public meeting to adopt the LCAP revisions. The CDE did not find merit in the Appeal.
April 26 – Merced City School District (MCSD)
This complaint focused on allegations related to articulating goals for unduplicated pupilstudents and numerically significant pupilstudent subgroups, the requirement to increase or improve services for unduplicated students, the requirement to account for all LCFF S&C grant funded expenditures in the LCAP, and lack of meaningful stakeholder engagement in the LCAP development process.
The CDE found the District’s 2018–19 LCAP did not demonstrate, either qualitatively or quantitatively, how the district increased or improved services for their unduplicated students as compared to services provided for all students in proportion to the increase in funding generated by the number and concentration of their unduplicated students. The CDE also found that the District’s 2018–19 LCAP did not meet the requirement to describe how services provided on a districtwide or schoolwide basis are “principally directed towards” and “effective in” meeting its goals for unduplicated pupilstudents.
March 29 – Del Norte Unified School District (DNUSD)
This complaint focused on allegations related to the requirement to increase or improve services for unduplicated students, including the LEA’s evaluation of effectiveness for prior year actions and services in the Annual Update.
The CDE found the District’s 2018–19 LCAP did not meet the requirement to describe how services provided on a districtwide or schoolwide basis are “principally directed towards” and “effective in” meeting its goals for unduplicated students. The District’s Decision rectified the allegation related to the LEA’s evaluation of effectiveness for prior year actions and services in the Annual Update.
March 15 – Mill Valley School District (MVSD)
This complaint focused on allegations related to the composition of the PAC, the requirement to hold PAC meetings open to the public, and the requirement to increase or improve services for unduplicated students.
The allegations related to the PAC and its respective meetings were resolved in the District’s Decision and not appealed. Regarding the allegation related to the increased or improved services requirement, the CDE found the District’s 2018–19 LCAP did not meet the requirement to describe how services provided on a districtwide or schoolwide basis are “principally directed towards” and “effective in” meeting its goals for unduplicated pupilstudents.
MVSD decision letter 2019 (PDF)
February 13 – Klamath Trinity Joint Unified School District (KTJUSD)
This complaint focused on allegations related to the requirement to increase or improve services for unduplicated students, the requirement to account for all LCFF S&C grant funded expenditures in the LCAP, the requirement to adhere to the 2017–2020 LCAP template and instructions specifically pertaining to the Annual Update, and that the KTJUSD’s superintendent did not present the LCAP to the PAC as required.
The CDE found the District’s 2018–19 LCAP did not demonstrate, either qualitatively or quantitatively, how the District increased or improved services for its unduplicated students as compared to services provided for all students in proportion to the increase in funding generated by the number and concentration of their unduplicated students. The CDE also found the District’s 2018–19 LCAP did not meet the requirement to describe how services provided on a districtwide or schoolwide basis are “principally directed towards” and “effective in” meeting its goals for unduplicated students. Lastly, the CDE found the District’s Annual Update for the 2017–18 LCAP year did not adhere to the 2017–2020 LCAP template and instructions as it related to the identification of actual actions/services and the responses to the required prompts.
KTJUSD decision letter 2019 (PDF)
January 7 – Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD)
This complaint focused on allegations related to lack of meaningful educational partner engagement in the LCAP development process and the requirement to increase or improve services for unduplicated students.
The CDE did not find merit in the allegation related to meaningful educational partner engagement. However, the CDE did find the District’s 2017–18 and 2018–19 LCAPs did not meet the requirement to describe how services provided on a districtwide or schoolwide basis are “principally directed towards” and “effective in” meeting its goals for unduplicated students.
2018
December 26 – Mill Valley School District (MVSD)
This complaint focused on allegations related to inclusion of an expenditure summary and budgeted expenditures in the LCAP and the requirement to hold PAC meetings open to the public.
The CDE found the District’s 2018–19 LCAP did not include individual funding sources for each budgeted expenditure as required in the 2017–2020 LCAP template and instructions. The District’s Decision rectified the allegation related to PAC meetings and corrective action was implemented.
MVSD decision letter 2018 (PDF)
November 2 – Klamath Trinity Joint Unified School District (KTJUSD)
This complaint focused on allegations related to the requirement to increase or improve services for unduplicated students; the requirement to adhere to the 2017–2020 LCAP template and instructions, specifically pertaining to the Annual Update; and the requirement to account for all LCFF S&C grant funded expenditures in the LCAP.
The CDE found the District’s 2017–18 LCAP did not demonstrate, either qualitatively or quantitatively, how the District increased or improved services for its unduplicated students as compared to services provided for all students in proportion to the increase in funding generated by the number and concentration of their unduplicated students. The CDE also found the District’s 2017–18 LCAP did not meet the requirement to describe how services provided on a districtwide or schoolwide basis are “principally directed towards” and “effective in” meeting its goals for unduplicated pupils. Lastly, the CDE found the District’s Annual Update for the 2016–17 LCAP year did not adhere to the 2017–2020 LCAP template and instructions pertaining to the identification of actual actions/services, the explanation of material differences between budgeted expenditures and estimated actual expenditures, and the responses to the required prompts.
KTJUSD decision letter 2018(PDF)
October 19 – San Joaquin County Office of Education (SJCOE)
This complaint focused on allegations related to articulating goals for numerically significant student groups; the requirement to distinguish between LCFF base, supplemental, and concentration grant funds in the LCAP,; the requirement to explain material differences between budgeted and estimated actual expenditures in the Annual Update,; and the requirement to increase or improve services for unduplicated students.
The CDE did not find merit in the allegations relating to articulating goals for numerically significant student groups, the requirement to distinguish between types of LCFF funds, or the requirement to explain material differences between budgeted and actual expenditures in the Annual Update. However, the CDE did find the SJCOE’s 2017–18 LCAP did not meet the requirement to describe how services provided on a districtwide or schoolwide basis are “principally directed towards” and “effective in” meeting its goals for unduplicated students.
October 5 – Mojave Unified School District (MUSD)
This complaint focused on allegations related to the requirement to explain material differences between budgeted and estimated actual expenditures in the Annual Update, the requirement to articulate goals for numerically significant student groups, the requirement to increase or improve services for unduplicated students, and insufficient information about the use of LCFF S&C grant funds to support meaningful educational partner engagement in the LCAP development process.
The CDE did not find merit in the allegations relating to the requirement to explain material differences between budgeted and actual expenditures in the Annual Update, articulating goals for numerically significant student groups, or the insufficient information about the use of LCFF S&C grant funds. However, the CDE did find the District’s 2017–18 LCAP did not meet the requirement to describe how services provided on a districtwide or schoolwide basis are “principally directed towards” and “effective in” meeting its goals for unduplicated students.
2017
May 5 – Fresno Unified School District (FUSD)
This complaint focused on allegations related to the requirement to increase or improve services for unduplicated students and the requirement to include data to demonstrate specific outcomes for unduplicated students in the Annual Update.
The CDE did not find merit in the allegation related to the requirement to include data to demonstrate specific outcomes for unduplicated students in the Annual Update. However, the CDE did find the District’s 2016–17 LCAP did not meet the requirement to describe how services provided on a districtwide or schoolwide basis are “principally directed towards” and “effective in” meeting its goals for unduplicated students.