Neelum Arya, Appellant
(email removed)

Dear Neelum Arya:

Subject: Appeal of District Investigation Report – Del Mar Union School District
Neelum Arya, Appellant

Case #: 2024-0134

The Local Agency Systems Support Office of the California Department of Education (CDE) is in receipt of your Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) appeal, dated August 17, 2024 (Appeal), of the Del Mar Union School District’s (District’s) Investigation Report, dated July 19, 2024, concerning your UCP Complaints. This is the CDE’s Decision on the Appeal as it relates to LCAP-related issues. We understand that other CDE offices are handling other aspects of 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, county office of education, or charter school, 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). (See EC Section 52075; EC Section 33315; California Code of Regulations, Title 5 [5 CCR] Section 4600 et seq.)

On April 23, 2024, and May 28, 2024, Neelum Arya (Appellant) submitted UCP Complaints to the District alleging, among other things, that the District failed to comply with certain LCAP-related requirements. The District issued an Investigation Report in response to the Complaints on July 19, 2024. The Appellant submitted an Appeal to the CDE on August 17, 2024. On September 18, 2024, 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 September 27, 2024.

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

Pursuant to 5 CCR Section 4633(g), the CDE has also reviewed the District’s complaint procedures (Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 1312.3) and finds that the District complied with its complaint procedures in these matters.

II. Summary of Complaints and District Investigation Report

The Complaints

The Complaints raised several issues, some of which are not relevant to, or a basis of, the Appeal’s LCAP-related arguments that are the subject of this Decision. As is relevant here, both the April 23, 2024 Complaint and the May 28, 2024 Complaint alleged that there were deficiencies in the composition and operation of the District’s LCAP Parent Advisory Committee. (April 23, 2024 Complaint, p. 9 and May 28, 2024 Complaint, p. 2.) (See EC sections 52062 and 52063.)

The District's Investigation Report

In the District’s Investigation Report, Allegations 2 and 3 were relevant to the LCAP-related requirements. (Investigation Report, pp. 3-4.)

In response to Allegation 2, the District found itself out of compliance with respect to the establishment of the Parent Advisory Committee. (Investigation Report, p. 3.) The Investigation Report concluded, “The investigation revealed that the District’s Board did not establish the LCAP parent advisory committee. Rather, the District utilized the PTA Presidents Advisory Committee and DELAC, which were not committees established by the Board, to fulfil the role of the LCAP parent advisory committee.” (Investigation Report, p. 6.) With respect to Corrective Actions, the District stated, “The Board will establish an LCAP parent advisory committee in compliance with the requirements of Education Code section 52063.” (Investigation Report, p. 7.)

In response to Allegation 3, the District found itself in compliance with respect to presenting the LCAP to the Parent Advisory Committee in accordance with EC Section 52062(a)(1). The Investigation Report stated:

…on May 7, 2024, the District convened a joint meeting of the PTA Presidents Advisory Committee and DELAC, which in practice, served as the LCAP parent advisory committee. At this meeting, the District reviewed the LCAP goals and the District’s proposed actions to achieve those goals. The District then afforded the committee members the opportunity to provide feedback during the meeting though [sic] open comments and after the meeting through a survey. Subsequently, on May 23, 2024, the District sent all District parents, including the committee members, a link to the draft LCAP along with a survey link seeking feedback. On June 17, 2024, the District sent an email to the committee members specifically, which contained a link to the draft LCAP and a survey link affording the committee members another opportunity to provide feedback. The District did not receive any further feedback from the committee members. (Investigation Report, p. 6.)

III. Summary of Appeal

Among other things, a UCP appellant “must specify and explain the basis for the appeal.” (5 CCR Section 4632[a].) In addition, while the UCP authorizes LEAs to use their own local procedures to resolve complaints that do not fall within the UCP’s scope, only LEA Investigation Reports of complaints that fall within the UCP’s scope may be appealed to the CDE. (5 CCR 4632[d]; 5 CCR Section 4610[e].) Appeals that do not comply with these requirements need not be processed. (5 CCR Section 4632[d].)

While the initial Complaint touched upon some other issues, the subject Appeal focused on two LCAP-related claims:

1. The local governing board of the District did not properly establish the LCAP Parent Advisory Committee. (EC Section 52063.) Though the District provided a remedy to this oversight in the Investigation Report, the Appellant does not find the District’s corrective action to be sufficient. (Appeal, p. 12.)
   
   
2. The District did not provide a draft of the LCAP to the Parent Advisory Committee consistent with the requirements in EC Section 52062[a][1]. (Appeal, p. 13.)

IV. Legal Authorities

EC section 42238.01, 42238.02, 42238.07, 52059.5 – 52077
5 CCR sections 15494 – 15497

V. CDE Findings and Determinations on Appeal

Appeal Claim 1

The CDE finds that the District’s self-imposed corrective action sufficiently addressed the sustained allegation that the District’s governing board did not properly establish the LCAP Parent Advisory Committee. The District’s investigation confirmed noncompliance, and the corrective action requires compliance.

Additionally, in the investigation file provided to the CDE, the District included a Declaration from Assistant Superintendent Ryan Stanley that described how the District would go about having the governing board establish a Parent Advisory Committee in accordance with statute. This explanation provides additional detail as to how the corrective action will be implemented.

Therefore, Appeal Claim 1 lacks merit and the appeal based thereon is denied.

It is important to note, if the enrollment of a school district includes at least 15 percent English learners and the school district enrolls at least 50 students who are English learners, the school district is required to form a separate English Learner Parent Advisory Committee. The Parent Advisory Committee and the English Learner Parent Advisory Committee must be established by the local governing board of the school district individually, and both committees must operate distinctly.

Appeal Claim 2

Though the District indicated that the PTA Presidents Advisory Committee and the DELAC served as the Parent Advisory Committee for purposes of the 2024–25 LCAP, the fact that these committees were not established by the local governing board of the District as such indicates the District is not in compliance with the requirement to present the LCAP to the Parent Advisory Committee, consistent with EC Section 52062(a)(1). Additionally, per the Investigation Report and the investigation file provided to the CDE, the District did not provide sufficient evidence that it presented the full draft of the LCAP to the Parent Advisory Committee for review and comment. Solely presenting the LCAP goals and actions, without also including the entire draft of the LCAP document, does not sufficiently adhere to the legal requirement to present the LCAP to the Parent Advisory Committee for review and comment. (EC Section 52062[a][1].)

Therefore, Appeal Claim 2 has merit and the appeal based thereon is sustained.

VI. Conclusion

Appeal Claim 1 is denied.

Appeal Claim 2 is sustained. The corrective action is provided below.

VII. Corrective Actions

In addition to the local governing board properly establishing a Parent Advisory Committee for the development of the 2025–26 LCAP and annual update to the LCAP, the District must include the full 2025–26 LCAP draft in the presentation to the Parent Advisory Committee for review and comment.

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: Ryan Stanley, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources, Del Mar Union School District