In a decision with statewide implications, the California Department of Education ruled this week that the San Bernardino County Office of Education erred in approving several districts’ plans for spending money targeted for low-income students and other high-needs student groups.
The department upheld a June 2020 complaint filed on behalf of two San Bernardino-area faith-based organizations against the office of San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Ted Alejandre. The county office should not have signed off on the Local Control and Accountability Plans of three school districts that failed to justify how they would spend tens of millions of dollars, the ruling said. Included was spending on police and law enforcement that the organizations argued should have been spent instead on counseling and wellness centers serving Black and Latino students.
LCAPs are the annual plans in which districts detail their spending priorities for money from the Local Control Funding Formula, including extra funding for “high-needs students”: English learners, homeless, foster and low-income students.
The California Department of Education has previously ruled that individual districts, including Los Angeles and Long Beach, either misspent or failed to document funding for high-needs students. But in a “historic decision,” the department for the first time held a county office “responsible for failing its oversight responsibilities,” said Nicole Gon Ochi, senior attorney for Public Advocates. Together with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, it filed the complaint for the local advocacy organizations.
“We hope that the ruling serves as a wake-up call for all county superintendents to be more vigilant in their oversight responsibilities,” Ochi said. “County offices should be on notice that the community is watching and will hold them accountable for ensuring that districts fulfill their equity, transparency and community engagement obligations.”
In writing their accountability plans, districts are required to specify how they would increase or improve services for high-needs students equivalent to the extra funding that those students generate. Districts should set not only goals but also metrics to document improvement.
The complaint charged that San Bernardino City Unified School, Hesperia Unified and Victor Valley Union High School districts did not do that. The Education Department agreed and ordered that the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools ensure, moving forward, that districts in the county follow state regulations.
In a one-page statement Wednesday, Alejandre’s office denied it did anything wrong and said it would ask the department to clarify aspects of the ruling. Under local control, the statement said, the county office has a limited, “supportive role.”
“The San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools stands by its position that all legal requirements were met in this case with respect to its limited oversight responsibilities,” it said. The office “does not develop LCAPs on behalf of districts, nor is it responsible for allocating or determining how district funds should be spent.”
The California County Superintendents Educational Services Association, which represents county offices and trains county officials on overseeing district accountability plans, declined to comment on the ruling.
The complaint said the three districts combined failed to account for more than $150 million in “supplemental and concentration” grants, as the extra funding is called, for the intended student groups. The county office said that it had accounted for the funding in examining the districts’ budgets and other financial documents. But the Department of Education said that transparency to the public requires that all spending be laid out in the accountability plans.
Funding for police questioned
The complaint also zeroed in on $14 million that Chaffey Joint Union High School, Apple Valley Unified and Hesperia Unified districts spent on police services. Parents affiliated with the community organizations that filed the complaint, the Inland Congregations United for Change and Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement, have argued for years that the police alienate students of color, instead of helping them. The districts asserted that using the supplemental and concentration money was justifiable to ensure school safety because the students targeted for the funding comprise a majority of the students in the high schools.
But the department rejected that argument, reaffirming, as it has previously, that “simply stating that a district has a high enrollment of (intended student groups) does not meet this standard to increase or improve services because serving students is not the same as enrolling students.”
The complaint cited research findings that the presence of police officers not only doesn’t improve school climate but harms students whose misbehavior could be resolved without criminal citations and arrests.
The department didn’t directly take a position on funding counselors versus cops, indicating that’s a local decision. But its ruling did say that the three school districts failed to explain how using funding for law enforcement would be “effective” and principally directed to high-needs students, as required by law. The county office, in turn, should have questioned the appropriations but didn’t, the ruling said.
“We feel vindicated by the decision,” said Sergio Luna, lead organizer with Inland Congregations United for Change. “For years, our students and parents have tried to be involved in their school district’s decision-making, but they have been consistently shut out, including when it comes to overspending on school police.”
Parents and students in a number of districts, along with some state leaders, have called for school boards to reduce or eliminate the presence of police on high school campuses (see here and here). That pressure could accelerate with the new state ruling because districts are in the process of approving LCAPs for 2021-22.
The complaint raised a third issue. It said that the county office should have required districts to carry over unused supplemental and concentration funding and spend it on targeted student groups in the following year. Public Advocates has asserted this position for years, arguing districts were doing an improper end run around the law by spending the leftover funding however they wanted.
But, consistent with the position of the State Board of Education, the Department of Education said the Local Control Funding Formula does not tie a district’s hands from one year to the next.
That’s expected to change, however. Gov. Gavin Newsom agrees with the advocates and has included a provision in the 2021-22 budget that will commit districts to spend unused supplemental and concentration on targeted students in their next budget.
The Department of Education’s ruling acknowledges that the rules may change. When they do, county offices will have to ensure that districts comply, it said.
Last fall, after the complaint was filed, Felicia Jones, a parent in the Rialto School District, near San Bernardino, underscored the county office’s oversight role. “We don’t have enough power within individual organizations to monitor every district,” she said. “That’s why this complaint is critical; the rubber-stamping of LCAPs has to stop.”
To get more reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.
We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.
Rebecca Dawn Wu 2 years ago2 years ago
As a Rep told me in CDE, after the signoff of an LCAP, the CDE does not audit or enforce the spending it will claim it will spend on. In this situation, the complaint from non-profit groups were complaining it should not have been signed off by the county (true) but this is not reviewing once it is signed off. The good people of the county and district have no power no place to … Read More
As a Rep told me in CDE, after the signoff of an LCAP, the CDE does not audit or enforce the spending it will claim it will spend on. In this situation, the complaint from non-profit groups were complaining it should not have been signed off by the county (true) but this is not reviewing once it is signed off.
The good people of the county and district have no power no place to complain unless it seems non-profits make a complaints for them. This is not enough justice.
Rebecca Dawn Wu 2 years ago2 years ago
The California Office of Controller is required to audit fiscal issues yet they do not go into these waters. They ignore the real issues. Based on personal complaints. I think a good public interest writ might solve that and on a few other runaway agencies like CDE. It would be nice to get a class action going but not for money but for change.
Rebecca Wu 2 years ago2 years ago
I spoke with a few different people at CDE and they told me they do not review to see that funds are spent properly; they only really look or review if parents are not given their rights in the process of approving the LCAP. Yet after years of contacting more than one county office of education, and attempts to communicate with CCSEA, legislators for years about the failures of the COE to review and lack … Read More
I spoke with a few different people at CDE and they told me they do not review to see that funds are spent properly; they only really look or review if parents are not given their rights in the process of approving the LCAP. Yet after years of contacting more than one county office of education, and attempts to communicate with CCSEA, legislators for years about the failures of the COE to review and lack of it anywhere else I am very happy to see this great article. I even videoed myself years ago attempting to go inside the L street office and trying to find a way to communicate to CCSEA. This is nice to see.
Frances O'Neill Zimmerman 2 years ago2 years ago
The many years' misuse of Local Control Funding Formula money by individual school districts is tragic. Money intended to improve education for poor kids and English Language Learners was diverted to other purposes with the blind-eye complicity of county boards of education which are supposed to provide regulatory oversight. But make no mistake: original sin lies elsewhere. Local school boards and puppet superintendents permitted this scandalous misappropriation of state money, but the mechanism was … Read More
The many years’ misuse of Local Control Funding Formula money by individual school districts is tragic. Money intended to improve education for poor kids and English Language Learners was diverted to other purposes with the blind-eye complicity of county boards of education which are supposed to provide regulatory oversight. But make no mistake: original sin lies elsewhere. Local school boards and puppet superintendents permitted this scandalous misappropriation of state money, but the mechanism was designed by former Governor Jerry Brown who needed to keep the California Teachers Association, the most powerful lobby in all Sacramento, fat and happy.
SD Parent 2 years ago2 years ago
This is hardly a win in what is a massive, structural problem with the LCFF and the LCAP. If this system were working, CAASPP scores would be meaningfully improving – but they aren't (see **). The truth is that there is no real accountability in the LCAP because it was designed without any. State law prohibits holding teachers accountable, the school districts can – and routinely, do – ignore parent/community feedback in the development … Read More
This is hardly a win in what is a massive, structural problem with the LCFF and the LCAP. If this system were working, CAASPP scores would be meaningfully improving – but they aren’t (see **).
The truth is that there is no real accountability in the LCAP because it was designed without any. State law prohibits holding teachers accountable, the school districts can – and routinely, do – ignore parent/community feedback in the development of the LCAP (both in actions and in spending), school boards rubber stamp whatever LCAP is put in front of them, and county offices of education rubber stamp that.
Some districts (including San Diego Unified) don’t even publicly review the metric results, instead providing “highlights” of positive data and ignoring (hiding?) the data that shows that the spending and actions did not meet the goals. (The “negative data” only resurfaces in the 200+ page detailed version of the next year’s LCAP, without any consequence.) All parties then go through another round of the charade every year, and Sacramento looks the other way.
**What the CAASPP scores demonstrate is the failure of LCFF and the LCAP. In the three years between 2015-16 and 2018-19, the percentage of students in California meeting standards in ELA barely moved (from 49% to 51%), and the gains were only slightly better in Math (from 37% to 40%). Economically disadvantaged students made slightly better gains over those years, but have lower percentages meeting standards (from 35% to 39% in ELA and from 23% to 27% in Math). And English Learners have made no gains at all, remaining at an abysmal 13% in ELA (not entirely surprising since they are still learning English) and an even more abysmal 12% in Math.
At the current pace, it will will take generations before California students meet standards. Time has proven that more funding for disadvantaged students isn’t working and that the LCFF/LCAP system as a whole is broken. If California actually wants students to succeed, then the folks in Sacramento need to stop ignoring the problem and amend the LCAP to create a system with layers of actual accountability.
Anna Quint 2 years ago2 years ago
Thank you so much for speaking up. I would love to add my voice but am unsure whether there are any groups I can speak to/join in our area to help push for improvements.
CA resident 2 years ago2 years ago
Interested to hear more about accountability for teachers. What do you mean by that?