Darris Lange, Appellant
(Address and email removed)

Dear Darris Lange:

Subject: Appeal of County Decision – Ventura County Office of Education
Darris Lange, Appellant

Case #: 2023–0243

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 6, 2023 (Appeal), of the Ventura County Office of Education (County) Investigation Report 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, 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 September 10, 2023, Darris Lange (Appellant) submitted a UCP Complaint to the County, alleging that the County violated requirements related to the approval of district LCAPs for the 2023–24 school year. The County issued an Investigation Report in response to that Complaint on November 17, 2023. The Appellant submitted an Appeal to the CDE on December 6, 2023. On January 22, 2024, the CDE sent a notice of appeal letter to the County requesting the investigation file, the County’s local UCP complaint procedures, and other documentation specified in 5 CCR Section 4633. The CDE received the County’s documentation on January 24, 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 County’s complaint procedures (Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 1312.3) and finds that the County complied with its complaint procedures in these matters.

II. Summary of Complaint and County Investigation Report

The Complaint

The Complaint raised several issues, most of which are not relevant to, or a basis of, the Appeal. As is relevant to the Appeal, the Complaint alleged that the County improperly approved 2023–24 school district LCAPs, particularly the Ojai Unified School District’s (OUSD) LCAP, because they failed to include expenditures related to teacher salaries, required curriculum, and necessary school supplies, which allegedly hinders the County’s ability to determine that the districts’ respective budgets include sufficient expenditures to implement the LCAP. (Complaint at pp. 2, 4-5.) (See EC Section 52070[d].)

The County's Investigation Report

In its Investigation Report, the County found itself in compliance with respect to all allegations brought forth in the Complaint. As relevant to the Appeal, the County noted that school districts determine their own services and expenditures and account for them in their budgets, and that while the County has broader duties with respect to district budgets and fiscal oversight more generally, with respect to LCAP review and approval specifically, the County’s responsibility is to ensure that the LCAP meets specific requirements and that the district budget includes expenditures sufficient to implement the LCAP’s “designated expenditures.” (Investigation Report at pp. 3-4.) Based on review of documents and interviews with relevant County staff, the Investigation Report concluded that the County complied with its LCAP review and approval obligations. (Id. at p.4) It also noted that expenditures related to teacher salaries, required curriculum, and necessary school supplies were addressed in the LCFF Budget Overview for Parents section of the 2023–24 OUSD LCAP. (Id.)

III. Summary of Appeal

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 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 claims:

1. The County did not follow its complaint procedures. (5 CCR Section 4632[b][1].)
   
   
2. The County’s Investigation Report lacked supporting facts and evidence and correct legal conclusions with respect to the Complaint’s allegation about improper LCAP approval stemming from LCAPs’ lack of expenditures relating to things such as teacher salaries, instructional materials and school supplies. (5 CCR Section 4632[b][2]-[4].) In this regard, the Appeal asserts that LCAPs must include such expenditures because they serve state priorities specified in EC Section 52060(d), and that the LEA’s Investigation Report erroneously suggests that County Superintendents are not required to verify if districts’ budgets are sufficient to implement actions and services not included in the LCAP. (Appeal at p.4.)

IV. Legal Authorities

EC sections 44238.01, 42238.02, 42238.07, 52059.5 – 52077

5 CCR sections 15494 – 15497

V. CDE Findings and Determinations on Appeal

Appeal Claim 1

Appellant does not specify what rule, procedure, or other part of the County’s local complaint procedures that the County allegedly failed to comply with. Appellant asserts: “[i]t has come to my attention that Dr. Santos, the assigned investigator for the complaint in question, has acknowledged that the scope of the UCP complaint exceeds his professional knowledge” (Appeal at 3); however, the Appeal does not explain how that alleged acknowledgement came to Appellant’s attention, let alone the precise substance and context of any such acknowledgement. The County’s Administrative Regulation 1312.3 specifically designates Dr. Santos as a compliance officer authorized to investigate and resolve UCP complaints. The Investigation Report and the County’s investigation file reflect that Dr. Santos reviewed relevant law and documents and interviewed relevant County staff. Based on CDE’s review of the County’s complaint procedures (Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 1312.3) and all materials received in connection with the Appeal, the CDE finds that the County complied with its complaint procedures in these matters.

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

Appeal Claim 2

Appellant’s second claim on appeal is premised on two assertions: (1) LCAPs must include expenditures for the costs of teacher salaries, instructional materials, etc. because those expenditures may serve state priorities enumerated in EC Section 52060(d), and therefore, a County Superintendent may not approve an LCAP that lacks such expenditures; and (2) a County Superintendent’s LCAP review and approval obligation includes verifying that a district’s budget includes expenditures sufficient to implement actions and strategies that are not included in the LCAP. As discussed below, these assertions misapprehend the relevant legal requirements.

EC Section 52060(a) directs school districts to adopt LCAPs using a template adopted by the State Board of Education. EC Section 52060(d) lists “state priorities for purposes of a school district’s” LCAP, which include “[i]mplementation of the academic content and performance standards adopted by the state board[.]” EC Section 52064(b) directed that the LCAP template include, among other things, “[a] description of the [district’s] annual goals…to be achieved for each of the state priorities[,]” “[a] description of the specific actions” that the district will take during the year to achieve those goals, and “budgeted expenditures for the ensuing year implementing each specific action included in the” LCAP. (EC Section 52064[b][1]-[3].) EC Section 52064(e)(4) directed that the LCAP template instruction specify that districts “should prioritize the focus of the goals, specific actions, and related expenditures included within one or more of the state priorities.” Pursuant to those provisions, the 2023–24 LCAP template directed districts to “address all LCFF priorities and associated metrics” in their LCAP, but recommended that they “prioritize the goals, specific actions, and related expenditures included within the LCAP within one or more state priorities.” (2023–24 Template at p.7)

While an LCAP must state the district’s goals for addressing the state priorities, and a description of actions and expenditures to achieve those goals, the 2023–23 LCAP template and instructions do not necessarily require a listing of all of the district’s annual costs that bear some relation to a state priority. Thus, while an LCAP may contain a budgeted expenditure for teacher salaries or instructional materials, the inclusion of such costs is not always required. The pertinent question is whether actions and expenditures are identified for the district’s goals, which in the aggregate must “address” each state priority but may also prioritize one or more them. Teachers will always need to be paid, instructional materials will always cost money, and a district’s budget will always need to account for such expenditures. But a district’s LCAP is not necessarily required to include such expenditures where the costs do not implement a district’s otherwise sufficient goals and actions for the year.

EC Section 52064.1 requires a district to include a “summary document” as the cover page to the LCAP, known as the LCFF Budget Overview for Parents. The LCFF Budget Overview for Parents must include both the district’s total projected general fund expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year and the district’s total budgeted expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year on the planned actions and services to meet the goals included in the LCAP. In accordance with EC Section 52064.1(b)(7) and page 3 of the 2023–24 LCFF Budget Overview for Parents instructions, the district is required to provide a brief description (75 words or less) of the activities or programs supported by any expenditures that are not included in the LCAP. Here, OUSD sufficiently complied with this requirement as evidenced on page 4 of the Investigation Report and on page 3 of the 2023–24 OUSD LCAP.

The Investigation Report’s conclusion that districts determine their own LCAP goals, actions and expenditures and that the County’s LCAP review and approval duty is to confirm that the district’s adopted LCAP meets statutory requirements is correct. EC Section 52070(d). Neither the original Complaint nor the Appeal explains how any districts’ LCAP in the county for 2023–24 failed to comply with the LCAP template and instructions, other than through the assertion that the LCAP for OUSD and other unidentified school districts fail to include expenditures for teacher salaries, instructional materials, etc. As discussed above, that assertion misstates legal requirements. Moreover, the County’s investigation file includes OUSD’s 2022–23 and 2023–24 LCAPs, which sufficiently comply with the LCAP template and instructions related to goals, actions and services. Furthermore, the Investigation Report reflects that interviews with County staff responsible for working with districts in support of their LCAPs confirmed that the County undertook to ensure such requirements were met prior to approval.

As noted above, Appeal Claim 2 is also premised on the assertion that the County’s LCAP review and approval obligation required them to verify that districts’ respective budgets included expenditures sufficient to cover costs for things like teacher salaries and instructional materials not included in the LCAP. However, the relevant LCAP review and approval obligation, found in EC Section 52070(d)(2) requires the County Superintendent to determine whether “[t]he budget for the applicable fiscal year adopted by the governing board of the district includes expenditures sufficient to implement the specific actions and strategies included in the local control and accountability plan adopted by the governing board of the school district, based on the projections of the costs included in the plan.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, setting aside a County Superintendent’s budget review and fiscal oversight obligations specified in other parts of the Education Code that are not included within the UCP’s scope, the LCAP review and approval requirement subject to the UCP and the subject of the Appeal focuses on budget sufficiency for the specific things included in the LCAP, not things that are not included.

The Appeal references the important role that County Superintendents play in reviewing and approving district budgets and conducting fiscal oversight to ensure healthy district budgets. CDE agrees that the law places County Superintendents in that important role. However, the laws governing County Superintendents’ more general budget review and approval and fiscal oversight obligations are not within the UCP’s scope, and therefore, are beyond the scope of the Appeal. (5 CCR 4610[b]; 5 CCR 4632[d]; EC Section 33315[a][1]; EC Section 52075.)

The Investigation Report reflects that interviews with County staff responsible for ensuring compliance with EC Section 52070(d)(2) confirmed that the County undertook to ensure that district budgets included expenditures sufficient to implement the specific actions and strategies included in the LCAP prior to approval. In addition, the County’s investigation file includes the OUSD 2022-23 and 2023-24 adopted budgets and LCAPs, which reflect that the County could have reasonably made the determination required by EC Section 52070(d)(2) prior to approval.

For the above reasons, with respect to the Appeal’s second claim, CDE finds that the Investigation Report contains sufficient factual findings, is supported by substantial evidence, and includes correct legal conclusions. Therefore, Appeal Claim 2 lacks merit and the appeal based thereon is denied.

VI. Conclusion

The Appeal is denied in its entirety.

VII. Corrective Actions

None.

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. Juan Santos, Assistant Superintendent, Ventura County Office of Education