Darris Lange, Appellant
(Address and email removed)

Dear Darris Lange:

Subject: Appeal of District Decisions - Ojai Unified School District
Darris Lange, Appellant

Case #: 2021-0115 and 2021-0128

The Local Agency Systems Support Office of the California Department of Education (CDE) is in receipt of your Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) appeals, dated September 12, 2021, and October 9, 2021, respectively (collectively, the Appeals), of the Ojai Unified School District’s (District’s) Investigation Reports, dated July 16, 2021, and September 9, 2021, (collectively, the LEA Investigation Reports), concerning your UCP Complaints. This is the CDE’s Decision on the Appeals.

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 7, 2021, Darris Lange (Appellant) submitted a UCP Complaint to the District, alleging 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 that Complaint on July 16, 2021. The Appellant submitted an Appeal to the CDE on September 12, 2021. On September 30, 2021, 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 13, 2021.

On July 20, 2021, the Appellant submitted a second UCP Complaint to the District, alleging that the District’s 2021–22 LCAP violated requirements governing LCAPs. The District issued an Investigation Report in response to that Complaint on September 9, 2021. The Appellant submitted an Appeal to the CDE on October 9, 2021. On October 27, 2021, the CDE sent a notice of appeal letter to the District requesting the investigation file and other specified records. The CDE received the District’s documentation on November 19, 2021.

On November 9, 2021, the CDE sent a letter to the Appellant and the District indicating it would provide one Decision for both Appeals, and it would require additional time to complete its investigation.

The CDE reviewed all materials it received in connection with the Appeals.

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 did not fully comply with its complaint procedures in these matters. Specifically, the District did not provide a corrective action for Allegation 2 as required by 5 CCR Section 4631(e)(3) and Board Policy Manual Regulation 1312.3. Otherwise, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the District complied with its UCP procedures.

II. Summary of Complaints and District Investigation Reports

The Complaints

As is relevant to the Appeals, the Appellant’s UCP Complaints alleged the following violations of law:

1. The District’s 2021–22 LCAP was not presented to the PAC for review and comment (EC Section 52062[a][1]).
2. The District’s PAC had been disbanded, and, therefore, the District did not have an established PAC to review and comment on the 2021–22 LCAP (EC Section 52063; 5 CCR Section 15495). While the District may have engaged with various Schoolsite Councils, the District did not disclose that such councils would serve as the PAC or otherwise properly establish a PAC (EC sections 35147, 65000, and 52063).
3. Goals for “all students” were not included in the District’s 2021–22 LCAP. The District’s 2021–22 LCAP only has Actions and Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) funding allocated for actions for unduplicated students (EC sections 52052 and 52064[b][1]).

The District’s Investigation Reports

In its Investigation Reports, the District found itself in compliance with respect to Allegations 2 and 3. The District found itself to be out of compliance with respect to Allegation 1 because it did not present the 2021–22 LCAP to a PAC for review and comment.

Allegation 1

In response to Allegation 1, the District concluded that the allegation in the Complaint had merit. The District stated, “the Schoolsite Council attendees were never provided a copy of the LCAP to provide written comment on” (First Investigation Report, p. 2).

The District did not provide corrective actions to remedy the allegation.

Allegation 2

In response to Allegation 2, the District concluded that the allegation in the Complaint was unfounded. The District indicated that the disbanded committee was not the statutory PAC called for in EC sections 52062 and 52063. The District stated that it “utilized the School Site Council to advise on the District’s development of the LCAP in a May 5, 2021, meeting.” It further stated, “Any name which the District chose to use for the Parent Advisory Committee is irrelevant to its status under the LCAP requirements found in the Education Code. Moreover, there is not prohibition on the District utilizing the School Site Council to fill the role of the statutory PAC so long as it met all other legal requirements” (First Investigation Report, p. 2).

Allegation 3

In response to Allegation 3, the District found that its 2021–22 LCAP includes goals and actions for “all students.” By way of example, the District pointed to a planned action/service that stated, “Increase technology access for all students and parents, especially low-income, English Learners, and foster youth” (Second Investigation Report, p. 2). The District noted that similar language was used throughout the LCAP.

The District also indicated EC Section 52064 does not require the use of the language “all students,” but instead requires that all students are addressed in the LCAP. The District stated it is implied that its goals and actions apply to “all students” unless otherwise noted.

III. Summary of Appeals

Allegation 1

Both Appeals acknowledged the District’s conclusion that it did not present the LCAP to a PAC for review and comment. The Appeals requested that the District provide the LCAP to a newly established PAC for review and comment.

Allegation 2

Both Appeals contested the District’s determination that it properly established the “School Site Council” (or any other body) as the PAC to review and provide comment on the LCAP. The Appeals requested that the District establish a PAC.

Allegation 3

The Appeals reiterated the allegation that the District’s LCAP did not include goals and actions for all students.

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

Allegation 1

Both the Investigation Reports and the Appeals acknowledged that the District did not present the 2021–22 LCAP to a PAC for review and comment, and, therefore, did not respond in writing to comments received from the PAC. However, the District did not provide a corrective action, as required by 5 CCR Section 4631(e)(3) and the District’s Board Policy Manual Regulation 1312.3.

The Appeal of the District’s Investigation Reports regarding Allegation 1 has merit. Corrective action is assigned below.

Allegation 2

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

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 LCAP requirements. Additionally, 5 CCR Section 15495(f) requires the PAC to be composed of a majority of parents of students, including parents of students who are low-income, English Learners, and/or foster youth.

The materials received in this matter reflect that while the District Superintendent, Dr. Tiffany Morse, founded (in 2020) and then later disbanded an advisory committee, that committee was never intended to, and never did, serve as the PAC referenced in EC sections 52062–52063 (District’s Confidential Investigation Report at pp. 9–10.) Moreover, there is no evidence in the file materials reflecting that the District’s governing board established that committee for LCAP review purposes. A report provided to the CDE by the District reflects that a District employee who reportedly helped draft the District’s LCAP since 2014–15 believed that the District did not have “a statutory PAC” in the 2020–21 school year because “an LCAP was not required due to the pandemic.” The CDE notes, however, that state law would have required the District to submit its Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan for that school year to its PAC established pursuant to EC Section 52063 for review and comment. See EC Section 43509(b)(3).

The same District report provided to the CDE also reflects conflicting understandings among District personnel regarding what, if anything, served as the “statutory” PAC for purposes of 2021–22 LCAP development. For example, the District’s Assistant Superintendent reportedly believed that the “statutory function (for review and comment on the LCAP) was actually performed by the current standing School Site Councils” (District Confidential Investigation Report at p. 9). A different District employee, who helped draft the District’s LCAP since 2014–15, reportedly understood that while the various Schoolsite Councils were included in LCAP development discussion, “[w]ithin the School Site Councils, a separate committee of 29 parents [and a few students] made up the statutory PAC.” (Emphasis added.) (Id. at p.10.) Meanwhile, the District’s Superintendent reportedly “decided to restructure the School Site Councils into a new committee to review the LCAP” after initially reaching out for willing parents and recognizing that there “was too little time to form a new statutory PAC” (Id. at 11). The file materials reflect that the various Schoolsite Councils were invited to a May 5, 2021, Zoom meeting to discuss the LCAP. However, the file materials do not reflect that the District’s governing board established those several councils (or any subgroup or subcommittee of those councils or their respective members) as a PAC for LCAP purposes (which is subject to certain notice, open meeting, and agenda requirements specified in EC Section 35147).

There should not be such confusion about what is the PAC under EC sections 52062–52063. The requirement in EC Section 52063 that “the governing board” of the district “establish” a PAC to review and provide comment on the district’s LCAP is calculated to eliminate such uncertainty, as district boards typically must meet and act in open, publicly-noticed meetings, with records of actions taken. In this case, the CDE finds a lack of substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the District had a properly established PAC and presented the draft of the 2021–22 LCAP to that PAC for review and comment, as required. There is also a lack of substantial evidence to support the conclusion that whatever was understood as the “statutory PAC” satisfied the majority parent composition requirement set forth in 5 CCR Section 15495(f).

Therefore, the allegation that the District did not have a properly established PAC has merit. The CDE has assigned corrective action below.

Allegation 3

Following a review of all materials received in connection with the Appeals, in accordance with 5 CCR Section 4633(g), the CDE finds that the District’s decision regarding Allegation 3 is supported by substantial evidence and its legal conclusions are not contrary to law.

EC Section 52064(b)(1) requires LEAs to include a description of its annual goals, for all pupils and each subgroup of pupils identified pursuant to EC Section 52052, to be achieved for each of the state priorities.

The District’s 2021–22 LCAP includes two goals.

Goal 1 states:

The district will provide safe and engaging learning environments by partnering with families and community to increase engagement between home and school; by enhancing communications and family access to information; by encouraging positive climate/culture at each site; and by focusing on student physical and mental health. The goal's metrics for measuring and reporting align to State Priorities 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 (Ojai USD 2021–22 LCAP, p. 8).

Goal 2 states:

All student groups will achieve at high levels. The district will provide high quality instruction by retaining qualified teachers; by implementing State Content Standard that include a broad course of study with equal access by all; by addressing the learning loss and the achievement gap of ALL students to ensure equity and to ensure that students achieve academic success and are college and career ready. The goal's metrics for measuring and reporting align to State Priorities 1, 2, 4, and 7 (Ojai USD 2021–22 LCAP, p. 13).

Both goals and their respective associated actions address the achievement of all students. Though some actions are noted as contributing to meet the District’s requirement to increase or improve services for students who are low-income, English Learners, and/or foster youth, regulations specify conditions allowing LEAs to demonstrate the requisite increase or improvement by using funds “to upgrade the entire educational program” of a school district (see 5 CCR Section 15496[b]), and the District’s contributing actions are provided on an LEA-wide basis. The UCP Complaints and Appeals do not allege that the conditions allowing the District to rely on LEA-wide expenditures were not met.

With respect to the funding included, or not included, in the District’s 2021–22 LCAP, EC Section 52064(b)(3) requires LEAs to include the budgeted expenditures for each action in the LCAP, but it does not require the LEA to budget every dollar it receives within the LCAP. Instead, EC Section 52064.1 requires LEAs to complete the LCFF Budget Overview for Parents which includes a summary of the LEA’s revenue and related expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year (Ojai USD 2021–22 LCAP, pp. 1–6).

Therefore, Allegation 3 lacks merit and the Appeal is denied.

VI. Conclusion

With respect to Allegation 3, the Appeal is denied. The CDE finds merit in the Appeal of Allegations 1 and 2. Corrective actions are assigned below.

VII. Corrective Actions

With respect to Allegations 1 and 2, the governing board of the District must establish in a public board meeting a PAC consistent with the requirements in 5 CCR Section 15495(f) and EC Section 52063 for the development of the 2022–23 LCAP and annual update to the LCAP. The District must present the 2022–23 LCAP and the annual update to the LCAP to the newly established PAC for review and comment, pursuant to EC Section 52062(a)(1).

With respect to the finding regarding the District’s failure to comply with its Board Policy 1312.3, the District is required to adhere to its Policies and Procedures, consistent with 5 CCR Section 4631, in future decisions.

VIII. 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: Dr. Tiffany Morse, Superintendent, Ojai Unified School District