CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (CDE)
INVESTIGATION OF APPEAL AGAINST THE
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
REYNA FRIAS, APPELLANT

District:

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)

County:

Los Angeles

Date of Investigation:

November 12, 2015 – May 25, 2016

Appellant:

Reyna Frias
Community Coalition of South Los Angeles

Primary District Staff:

Michelle King, Superintendent
Los Angeles Unified School District
Julie Hall-Panameno, Director
Los Angeles Unified School District
Binh Nguyen, Coordinator of Litigation Research
Los Angeles Unified School District

CDE Staff:

Jeff Breshears, Director
Local Agency Systems Support Office
Marsha Bedwell, Attorney
Legal Affairs
Jonathan Feagle, Consultant
Local Agency Systems Support Office

Date of Report

May 27, 2016

1

 CONTENTS
I.

BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................3

II.

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS, DISTRICT RESPONSE AND APPEAL ................. 3

III. GENERAL PROCEDURES OF INVESTIGATION .................................................... 7
IV. APPLICABLE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ..................................................... 8
V.

FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ............................................ 8

VI. REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ................................................................... 17
VII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 17
VIII. APPENDIX 1: EXHIBITS ........................................................................................ 18

2

 INVESTIGATION OF APPEAL
Los Angeles Unified School District
Reyna Frias, Appellant
DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
I. BACKGROUND
On November 12, 2015, the Local Agency Systems Support Office (LASSO) of the
California Department of Education (CDE) received an appeal, pursuant to California
Education Code (EC) Section 52075, of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s
decision dated November 9, 2015. The complaint alleged that Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD) violated statute by including special education spending as part
of its estimate of prior year expenditures for services for foster youth, low income
students, and English learners in its 2014-15 and 2015-16 local control and
accountability plans (LCAP).
The initial complaint (Complaint) was filed by Ms. Reyna Frias and the Community
Coalition of South Los Angeles (Complainants), with representation, on September 9,
2015 with LAUSD. Complainants requested that LAUSD revise its 2015-16 LCAP to
remove special education funding as part of its prior year spending for unduplicated
pupils and revise its proportionality calculation and its LCAP to ensure that it spends the
appropriate amount of money on increased and improved services for unduplicated
pupils in fiscal year 2015-16 and future years.
The District’s Decision in response to the initial complaint was presented in a letter from
Julie Hall-Panameno, Director of Educational Equity Compliance Office, dated
November 9, 2015 (District Report). Complainants, with representation, submitted an
appeal to the CDE. In response to the appeal, the CDE notified LAUSD, by letter dated
November 13, 2015, that the CDE had received an appeal of its Decision dated
November 9, 2015, and requested that LAUSD provide the required documents pursuant
to California Code of Regulations, Title 5 (5 CCR) Section 4633(a). LAUSD responded to
the CDE with an email dated November 20, 2015. All required documents were included
as attachments to this email. In a letter dated January 13, 2016, the CDE notified
LAUSD and the appellant that the CDE would conduct a further investigation of the
allegations and, due to the complexity and state-wide nature of the issues, had found
good cause to extend the investigation timeline pursuant to 5 CCR Section 4662(b).

II. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS, DISTRICT RESPONSE AND APPEAL
The Complaint
The Complaint alleges LAUSD failed to comply with legal requirements related to its
2014–15 and 2015–16 LCAPs. In particular, the complaint alleges LAUSD violated EC
Section 42238.07 and 5 CCR Section 15496 by including a portion of the district’s
special education spending as part of its estimate of prior year expenditures for services
for foster youth, low income students, and English learners (unduplicated pupils) in its
2014–15 and 2015–16 LCAPs.

3

 The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) includes a seven-step proportionality
calculation to determine the minimal proportionality percentage (MPP) by which a local
educational agency (LEA) must increase or improve services for unduplicated pupils
above services provided to all pupils in the fiscal year. (See below, p. 8) Step two of this
calculation requires an LEA to estimate the amount of LCFF funds expended by the LEA
on services for unduplicated pupils in the prior year that is in addition to what was
expended on services provided for all pupils (“prior year expenditures”).
According to the Complaint, when calculating the MPP for the 2014–15 LCAP and 2015–
16 LCAP, LAUSD includes $450 million of special education expenditures as part of its
$700 million estimate of “prior year expenditures.” The complaint asserts that special
education expenditures may not be counted as such “prior year expenditures” because
special education services are available to all students. In support of this assertion, the
complaint states that all pupils may request an Individual Education Plan for special
education services, and an LEA must provide these services to all students who qualify,
regardless of whether or not they are counted as an unduplicated pupil. The Complaint
therefore concludes that special education expenditures are not services targeted for
unduplicated pupils and may not be counted as prior year expenditures for unduplicated
pupils.
The Complaint alleges that as a result of the inclusion of the $450 million of special
education expenditures in the estimation of prior year expenditures, LAUSD
shortchanged unduplicated pupils $126 million in increased or improved services in
2014–15, and $288 million in such services in 2015–16. The Complaint further alleges
the “deficit” in expenditures on programs for unduplicated pupils will continue to build
each year until it grows to $450 million annually at full implementation of LCFF
(estimated to be in 2020–21). Finally, the Complaint alleges that inclusion of special
education as prior year expenditures will cost unduplicated pupils “$2 billion in increased
or improved services between now and FY 2020–21” (Original Complaint, p. 5).
The Complaint requests LAUSD revise its 2015–16 LCAP to remove special education
funding as part of its prior year spending for foster youth, low income pupils, and English
learners, and also revise its MPP calculation and its 2015–16 LCAP to ensure it spends
the appropriate amount of money on increased and improved services for such pupils in
2015–16 and in future years.

LAUSD Response to the Complaint
LAUSD investigated the Complaint, pursuant to its Uniform Complaint Procedures. It
concluded the complainants’ legal contentions were without merit. The district’s view is
summarized as follows:
The plain language of the 5 CCR Section15496 directs LEAs to estimate the amount of
LCFF funds expended by the LEAs on services for unduplicated pupils in the prior year
that is in addition to what was expended on services provided for all pupils. (Emphasis in
District Report, p. 14.) According to LAUSD, special education services are not services
provided to all pupils, but are instead services provided only to a small percentage of
pupils who meet specific eligibility requirements prescribed by federal and state special
education laws. (Individuals with Disabilities Act [20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.]; EC 56000 et
seq.) Therefore, special education services may be included in the estimate of prior year
expenditures on services for unduplicated pupils under 5 CCR Section 15496(a)(2).

4

 LAUSD further argues the regulations broadly define “services.” (District Report, p. 14.)
LAUSD determined it was within its “discretion to interpret subdivision (a) of Section
15496 according to its plain meaning.” (District Report, p. 18.)
LAUSD further described how it determined the “prior year expenditure” figure to be
$450 million in 2013–14 and 2014–15. LAUSD utilized its estimate of District General
Fund contribution to special education (net of revenue limit and affiliated charters), 1
which was $653.4 million for 2013–14 and $633.9 million for 2014–15. 2 It further
calculated the percentage of unduplicated pupils who receive special education services,
excluding those attending affiliated charter schools, utilizing 2012–13 CALPADS and
CASEMIS student enrollment data. 3 That percentage was determined to be 79.38%.
LAUSD reports it identified the subset of special education programs that benefit
unduplicated pupils and applied the 79% to the expenditures for those programs,
yielding $449.88 million in expenditures for 2013–14 and 2014–15. (District Report, p.
10.)
The district response to the complaint included general descriptions of some of the
expenditures included in the $450 million. These included: initiatives addressing
integration of student with disabilities into general education settings, and reducing
disproportionality among subgroups identified for special education; increased support
services to advance academic achievement of English learners with disabilities; aligning
IEPs with the district’s English Leaner Master Plan, inclusion of IEP goals for English
proficiency in each IEP, and identification of the ELD present level of performance in
each student. (District Report, p. 10.)
LAUSD’s response further states that certain expenditures were excluded from its
calculation of prior year expenditures for unduplicated pupils, even though it believes
that the regulations would permit inclusion of a wide array of expenditures in the
calculation. Special education expenditures excluded were described as: $33 million on
spending for pre-school and adult populations; $6.5 million for SPED Career & Transition
Program, which serves pupils from both K-12 and adult student populations. LAUSD
reports it took a conservative approach in making its calculation and excluded an

1 CDE understands net of revenue limit to mean the amount of contributions to special education
excluding an amount equal to revenue limit funding for certain special education pupils. CDE
understands net of affiliated charters to mean that LAUSD excluded charter school expenditures
that are included in its general ledger.
2

Special education services are funded by a combination of three funding sources: federal,
state, and local. Federal funds and state funds are provided through special education categorical
grants. The contribution of local funds to special education typically comes from a school district’s
unrestricted general funds, and this contribution is sometimes referred to as “encroachment” based on the idea a contribution of local funds for special education “encroaches” on general
education program. However, the label can be a misnomer when it is used to describe any local
expenditure for special education, as “regular” education costs for pupils receiving special
education are intended to be funded from other local sources, including LCFF. However, it is the
case that Federal and state special education categorical funds do not fund the full excess costs
of educating pupils with disabilities.
3 CALPADS and CASEMIS are student information systems, CASEMIS including data specific to
Special Education.

5

 additional $34.5 million, “to ensure that its proportionality calculations were based upon
services geared directly to unduplicated pupils.” The exclusions included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

SPED Central Office ($11.15 million)
SPED IMA Equipment-Materials ($4.56 million)
SPED Reimbursement Due Process ($4.26 million)
SPED Allocation to Schools for Compliance (3.25 million)
SPED Program Specialists Certificated ($2.94 million)
SPED IMA Allocation to Schools ($1.05 million)
SPED Least Restrict Environment Counselors ($0.65 million), and
SPED Temporary Personnel Account ($0.13 million.

LAUSD also reports it excluded some amount in expenditures for services that may
involve minimal contact between special education personnel and the general education
population, including some amount for salaries and health benefits for therapists and
specialist who participate in assessments to determine pupil eligibility for special
education. (District Report, p. 13.)
The LAUSD response concludes the district’s actions as described above are
appropriate under 5 CCR Section 15496(a). It states that the regulation setting forth the
requirements for estimates of prior year expenditures for unduplicated pupils does not
exclude expenditures for services that are “”’available to all students…who are eligible’”,
or services that are not “’targeted for’” unduplicated pupils. (District Report, p. 14, citing
allegations of the Complaint.) It concludes that 5 CCR Section 15496 directs LEAs to
exclude only “services provided to all pupils,” and accordingly poses the question to be
answered as:
“Are special education services ‘services provided to all pupils’ under Section 15496 of
title 5 of the California Code of Regulations?” (District Report, p. 14.)
LAUSD states its view that, factually, special education services are services provided
only to those eligible to receive them according to statute, and the expenditures included
in its estimate are only for those students who have an IEP. It further asserts that no
authority in the LCFF or implementing regulations, or legislative or regulatory history,
support a conclusion that services for special education are “services provided to all
students” despite that phrase’s “plain meaning.” (District Report, p.15.) LAUSD asserts
that Complainants’ construction of the regulations is inconsistent with the Legislature’s
lack of inclusion of a “do not supplant” restriction in the LCFF. (District Report, p.17.)
In addition, LAUSD argues that the legislative direction to authorize expenditure of
supplemental and concentration funds on a “district-wide” or “school-wide” basis support
its methods for determining “prior year expenditures.” (District Report, p. 17.) According
to LAUSD, the fact that 84% of its pupils are unduplicated pupils, means the “districtwide core educational program is itself “‘principally directed towards….meeting the
district’s goals for its unduplicated pupils.’” (District Report, p.18.) Based on the above,
LAUSD’s response concludes $450 million in special education expenditures described
above may be included in its estimate of prior year expenditures on services for
unduplicated pupils.

6

 The Appeal
In their appeal, Complainants state that there are no material facts in dispute. (Appeal, p.
2.) Complainants point out that LAUSD derived its estimate of “prior year expenditures”
by application of a formula:
79% (representing unduplicated pupils), multiplied by expenses associated with a
subset of special education programs that would benefit these pupils, yielding
$449.8 million in prior year expenditures.
This figure, notes Complainants, is nearly all of the special education general fund
encroachment. Complainants describe the key issue as the legal interpretation to be
given 5 CCR Section 15496(a)(2)’s requirement to “[e]stimate the amount of LCFF funds
expended by the LEA on services for unduplicated pupils in the prior year that is in
addition to what was expending on services provided for all pupils.” (Appeal, p. 2,
emphasis in Appeal.)
Complainants allege that LAUSD essentially interprets “services provided for all pupils”
to mean only those services provided to “precisely 100% of pupils,” and such
interpretation is not supported by law. According to Complainants, such an interpretation
would lead to absurd results, allowing a district to apply its unduplicated percentage to
any program that is available to all pupils but serves only a portion of pupils, such as
summer school, after-school programs, extracurricular activities and such. (Appeal, p. 2.)
Complainants further assert LAUSD failed to address Complainants’ argument that 5
CCR Section 15496(a)(2) recognizes only two types of spending for services: (1)
expenditures on services for unduplicated pupils and (2) expenditures on services for all
pupils. According to Complainants, expenditures for services that serve pupils without
regard to students’ low-income, English learner, or foster youth status are not
“expenditures for unduplicated pupils,” and, therefore, do not meet the regulatory
standard for inclusion as part of “prior year expenditures.” (Appeal, p. 2.)
Complainants also restate their assertion that because special education expenditures
are incurred pursuant to preexisting federal and state mandates, LAUSD’s action
violates the mandate to “increase or improve services for unduplicated pupils as
compared to services provided to all pupils” as required by the statute and regulations.
(Appeal, p. 3.)
Complainants requested remedy is that the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI)
overturn LAUSD’s decision, and require LAUSD to revise its 2015–16 LCAP to remove
special education funding as part of its prior year spending for unduplicated pupils, and
also to revise its proportionality calculation and 2015–16 LCAP to ensure it spends the
appropriate of money on increased and improved services for such pupils in 2015–16
and future years.

III. GENERAL PROCEDURES OF INVESTIGATION
Upon receipt of the appeal, CDE requested LAUSD provide the following documents in
accordance with 5 CCR Section 4633(a):
•

A copy of the original complaint

7

 •
•
•
•
•
•

A copy of the Decision
A summary of the nature and extent of the investigation conducted by the
local educational agency, if not covered in the Decision
A copy of the investigation file, including but not limited to, all notes,
interviews and documents submitted by the parties or gathered by the
investigator
A report of any action taken to resolve the complaint
A copy of the local educational agency complaint procedures
Such other relevant information as the Department may request

CDE reviewed these documents. In addition, CDE reviewed the LAUSD 2014–15 LCAP
and 2015–16 LCAP. CDE conducted a telephone conference with Complainants’
representatives on February 24, 2016, to discuss the complaint. Complainants’
representatives explained the basis for the complaint consistent with the written appeal
submission. CDE conducted a telephone conference with representatives of LAUSD on
April 6, 2016. In that conference CDE requested LAUSD provide information identifying
the program expenditures which it included it in its calculation of the $450 million prior
year expenditures. In response, LAUSD provided a list of special education programs
included in SACS Resource Code 6500, specifying which programs were included and
which were excluded, as well as further argument in support of its determination. (Exhibit
F.)

IV. APPLICABLE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
•
•

California Education Code (EC) sections 42238.02, 42238.07, 52060-52075
California Code of Regulations, Title 5 (5 CCR) 15494-15497.5

V. FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
LCFF Overview
An overview of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) legislation is helpful to
understanding the allegations of this Complaint. The LCFF was enacted by Assembly
Bill No. 97 (Chapter 47, Statutes of 2013) 4, and was effective on July 1, 2013. The LCFF
establishes a new funding formula for school districts (as well county offices of
education, and charter schools (LEA’s)). It replaces the long-standing “revenue limit”
system of funding. Under revenue limits, districts received funds based on a unique
revenue limit amount multiplied by their average daily attendance (ADA). This statutory
formula provided school districts most of their general purpose funding.
Under the old system, revenue limit funding was coupled with “categorical” programs.
These programs provided funding for specific, restricted purposes, typically funded
either by program-specific formula grants, or pursuant to an application submitted by a
school district. Often, categorical programs were designed to provide targeted services

4 Senate Bill No. 91 (Chapter 70, Statutes of 2013) and Senate Bill No. 97 (Chapter 357, Statutes
of 2013), made minor changes to the LCFF as adopted by AB 97)

8

 based on demographics and needs of the pupils in a district. The LCFF replaced the
approximately three-quarters of categorical programs.
The LCFF establishes a “base” level of funding for school districts, which is a specified
amount for each unit of ADA based on grade spans: $6,845 for K-3; $6,947 for grades 46, $7,154 for grades 7 and 8, and $8,239 for grades 9-12. (EC Section 42238.02(d).)
These base rates may then be subject to additional adjustments as described below.
Implementation of the LCFF requirements began in 2013–2014, but full funding of the
formula is being phased in over several years. The LCFF is anticipated to be fully funded
by 2020–21. The Legislative Analyst reports that at the time of the LCFF’s adoption, the
base LCFF funding rate was estimated to be about $500 per pupil higher than the 2012–
13 revenue limit rates, and the state has provided approximately $12.8 billion in
additional K-12 funds over the past three years under the LCFF. 5 When fully
implemented, the LCFF will result in significantly more funding than was provided by the
previous system of revenue limits coupled with categorical programs.
Grade-Span Adjustments and Adjustments for “Unduplicated Pupils”
The LCFF provides for two adjustments to the base funding level described above. The
first adjustment is based upon the grade level of the pupils. A Kindergarten through
grade 3 adjustment increases the base rate by 10.4 percent tied to a reduction in classsize to a schoolsite-average of no more than 24 pupils, upon full implementation, unless
collectively bargained otherwise. (EC Section 42238.02(d)(3).) In addition, the formula
provides for an increase in the base amount by 2.6 percent for pupils in grades 9-12 to
reflect higher operating costs and a focus on college and career readiness. (EC Section
42238.02(d)(4).)
The second adjustment to the LCFF formula is based on pupil demographics. The
formula provides additional funding in the form of supplemental and concentration
amounts based on the number and concentration of low income, English learners and
foster youth pupils (“unduplicated pupils”) as defined by EC Section 42238.02(b). The
LCFF formula provides an additional 20 percent of the base amount for each
unduplicated pupil. (EC Section 42238.02(e).) When the number of unduplicated pupils
exceeds 55 percent of a school district’s enrollment, the LCFF formula provides an
additional 50 percent of the base amount for each unduplicated pupil that exceeds the
55 percent enrollment. (EC Section 42238.02(f).)
Expenditure Requirements for Supplemental and Concentration Funds
EC Section 42238.07 governs the expenditure of supplemental and concentration
funds). It provides:
“a) On or before January 31, 2014, the state board shall adopt regulations that
govern the expenditure of funds apportioned on the basis of the number and
concentration of unduplicated pupils pursuant to sections 2574, 2575, 42238.02,
and 42238.03. The regulations shall include, but are not limited to, provisions that
do all of the following:
5

Legislative Analyst’s Office, Overview of Local Control Funding Formula and New State
Accountability System; presentation to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education
Finance, March 8, 2016.

9

 (1) Require a school district, county office of education, or charter school to
increase or improve services for unduplicated pupils in proportion to the increase
in funds apportioned on the basis of the number and concentration of
unduplicated pupils in the school district, county office of education, or charter
school.
(2) Authorize a school district, county office of education, or charter school to use
funds apportioned on the basis of the number of unduplicated pupils for
schoolwide purposes, or, for school districts, districtwide purposes, for county
offices of education, countywide purposes, or for charter schools, charterwide
purposes, in a manner that is no more restrictive than the restrictions provided for
in Title I of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301, et
seq.).
(b) The state board may adopt emergency regulations for purposes of this
section.”
Consistent with the provisions of EC Section 42238.07, the State Board of Education
(SBE) adopted regulations governing the expenditure of supplemental and concentration
funds in January 2015. These regulations are at 5 CCR sections 15495 through
15497.5.
5 CCR Section 15496 addresses the requirement that schools districts “increase or
improve” services for unduplicated pupils in proportion to the increase in supplemental
and concentration funds (EC Section 42238.07(a).) 6
Calculating the Minimum Proportionality Percentage (MPP)
As noted above, funding increases provided for by LCFF are being phased in over
several years, with the funding target expected to be reached by 2020–21.Prior to the
implementation of LCFF, districts varied in the extent to which they participated in
various categorical programs and in the level of services provided for low-income pupils,
English learners, and foster youth. Thus, in 2012–13, the year immediately preceding
the year of LCFF’s initial implementation, there was variation across districts in the level
of expenditures for services provided to pupils who met the criteria for low-income,
English learner, and foster youth. During the phase-in of funding, districts will receive
LCFF funding based upon the difference (gap) between their prior year funding and the
amount they will receive when the LCFF is fully funded (the target LCFF base funding
level [LCFF target]). Because of the phase in of LCFF funding, the base funding level
and supplemental and concentration grant funding level must be estimated until full
funding is reached.
In consideration of the phase-in of LCFF funding and the varying “starting” points for
school districts, 5 CCR Section 15496 provides a seven-step process for determining the
amount of funding attributable to supplemental and concentration grants in the LCAP
year and the minimum proportion by which a district must “increase or improve” services
for unduplicated pupils (MPP). (5 CCR Section 15496(b)(1)-(7).) During the transition to
full funding, these amounts will depend, in part, on a district’s estimate of LCFF funds
6

The process for adoption of permanent regulations proceeded in parallel with adoption of
emergency regulation, which were adopted in January 2014 and went into immediate effect. The
emergency and permanent regulations were the same with respect to determination of prior year
expenditures and calculating the minimum proportionality percentage.

10

 expended on services for unduplicated pupils in the prior year that is in addition to what
was expended on services for all pupils. (5 CCR Section 15496(b)(2)[Step two].)
Pursuant to the formula, districts make incremental progress toward the supplemental
and concentration grant expenditures levels required at full implementation to
proportionally increase or improve services for unduplicated pupils.
At full funding, a district’s supplemental and concentration grant funding level will be
identifiable, and the regulations at that point require the MPP to be calculated by dividing
that grant amount by the remainder of the district’s LCFF funds (with exclusion of certain
funds as identified in the regulation). (5 CCR Section 15496(a)(8).)
Schoolwide and Districtwide Expenditures of Supplemental and Concentration
Funds
EC Section 42238.07(b) required the SBE to adopt regulations to authorize a school
district to use funds apportioned on the basis of the number and concentration of
unduplicated pupils for “districtwide” or “schoolwide” purposes, in a manner no more
restrictive than provided for in Title I of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (20
U.S.C. Sec. 6301, et seq.). Title I provides federal financial assistance distributed
through state education agencies to LEAs with a high number or percentage of children
from low-income families to assist them in ensuring that all pupils meet the state’s
academic standards. LEAs are required to allocate funding to schools with the highest
percentages of children from low-income families. Unless the receiving school is
operating a schoolwide program, it is required to focus Title I services on children who
are identified as failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet state academic standards.
A school operating a schoolwide program is authorized to provide services to upgrade
the entire educational program of a school. A school serving an attendance area in
which least 40% of the pupils are from low income families may operate a schoolwide
program. Educational programs may be designed to serve all students, provided
requirements such as conducting a needs assessment, developing a comprehensive
plan, and conducting an annual evaluation of the plan are met. (20 U.S.C. 6313, 6314.) 7
Title I does not include a provision for districtwide programs.
Consistent with EC Section 42238.07(b), the expenditure regulations identify the
circumstances in which LEAs may use supplemental and concentration funds on a
districtwide or schoolwide basis. (5 CCR Section 15486(b).) The conditions imposed on
LEAs for such use vary depending on the type of LEA and the percentage of
unduplicated pupils. For a district such as LAUSD, with an enrollment of unduplicated
pupils of 84%, the requirements for districtwide use of supplemental and concentration
grant funding are as follows:
“(b) …an LEA may demonstrate it has increased or improved services for
unduplicated pupils… by using funds to upgrade the entire educational program
of … a school district…as follows:
(1) A school district that has an enrollment of unduplicated pupils of 55 percent or
more of the district's total enrollment in the fiscal year for which an LCAP is
adopted or in the prior year may expend supplemental and concentration grant
7 NCLB was recently amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (“ESSA”, Pub. Law No. 11495). ESSA contains provisions for schoolwide Title I programs.

11

 funds on a districtwide basis. A school district expending funds on a districtwide
basis shall do all of the following:
(A) Identify in the LCAP those services that are being funded and provided on a
districtwide basis.
(B) Describe in the LCAP how such services are principally directed towards, and
are effective in, meeting the district's goals for its unduplicated pupils in the state
and any local priority areas.”
The Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP)
LCFF requires the governing board of each school district to adopt an LCAP, on or
before July 1, 2014, using a template adopted by the SBE. (EC Section 52060.) The
LCAP is required to be updated on or before July 1 of each year. According to statute,
the LCAP is required to include, for the school district and each school within the district:
•

•

a description of the annual goals, for all pupils and each subgroup of pupils
identified pursuant to EC Section 52052, 8 to be achieved for each of the eight
state priorities identified in EC Section 52060(d), as well as for any additional
local priorities identified by the district governing board, and
a description of the specific actions the school district will take during each
year of the local control and accountability plan to achieve the goals identified
in its plan.

EC Section 52064 required the SBE to adopt a template by March 31, 2014, for LEAs to
use for their LCAPs and annual updates to the plan. The SBE-adopted template for the
LCAP and Annual Update is at 5 CCR Section 15497.5.
Stakeholder Input on Development and Approval of the LCAP
The LCAP must be developed with stakeholder input, as prescribed by EC sections
52060, 52062 and 52063. There must be consultation with teachers, principals,
administrators, other school personnel, local bargaining units of the school district,
parents, and pupils. (EC Section 52060(g).) A district also must have a parent advisory
committee to advise on the LCAP. Before a governing board adopts the LCAP, the
district superintendent must present it to the parent advisory committee, and respond in
writing to advisory committee comments. (EC sections 52062(a)(1); 52063(a)(1).)
Districts, such as LAUSD, that have enrollment of English learners of at least 15 percent
and at least 50 English learners, also must have an English learner parent advisory
committee. (EC Section 52063(b).) Prior to adoption, the district superintendent must
present it to the English learner parent advisory committee for review and comment, and
respond, in writing, to comments received from the committee. (EC Section
52062(a)(2).)
Members of the public must be informed by the district of the opportunity to submit
written comments regarding the specific actions and expenditures proposed to be
included in the plan. (EC Section 52062(a)(3).) A school district governing board is
required to adopt its LCAP and annual update using a two-meeting process. It must first
8

These subgroups of pupils are: ethnic subgroups, socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils,
English Learners, pupils with disabilities, foster youth, and homeless youth (homeless youth
added effective June 24, 2015).

12

 hold a public hearing at which it receives public comment; this hearing must be held at
the same meeting as its first public hearing on adoption of its proposed budget. The
district may then adopt its LCAP or annual update at a public meeting held at least oneday after the initial public hearing, and that meeting must be the same meeting at which
the district adopts its budget. (EC Section 52062(b).)
A school district may adopt revisions to its LCAP during the time it is in effect, if it follows
the above process for adopting an LCAP, including adopting the revisions in a public
meeting.
County Superintendent Review and Approval
Within five days of adoption of the LCAP or annual update by the governing board, a
school district is required to submit it to the county superintendent of schools for review
and approval. (EC Section 52070.) The statutes establishes a procedure by which a
county superintendent may seek clarification from the district regarding the LCAP or
annual update. Any recommendations of a county superintendent for amendments to the
LCAP or annual update must be considered by the governing board of the school district
in a public meeting. By October 8 of each year the county superintendent must approve
the district’s LCAP or annual update if he or she determines:
•
•

•

The LCAP or annual update adheres to the SBE-adopted template (EC
Section 52070(d)(1))
The school district’s budget for the applicable fiscal year includes
expenditures sufficient to implement the specific actions and strategies
include in the LCAP based upon projections of the costs included in the plan
(EC Section 52070(d)(2)), and
The LCAP or annual update adheres to the expenditure requirements
adopted pursuant to EC 42238.07 for funds apportioned on the basis of the
number and concentration of unduplicated pupils. (EC Section 52070(d)(3))

The expenditure regulations adopted by the SBE address county superintendents’
responsibilities in reviewing LCAPs for adherence to the requirements of EC Section
52070(d)(3). (5 CCR Section 15497.) The county superintendent is required to review
any descriptions in the LCAP of districtwide or schoolwide services to determine whether
the district has “fully demonstrated that it will increase or improve services for
unduplicated pupils pursuant to Section 15496(a).” If a county superintendent
determines a district has failed to increase or improve services for unduplicated pupils as
described in 5 CCR Section 15497, the county superintendent must provide technical
assistance to the district, as specified in the statute.

Analysis
Special Education Expenditures in Determining MPP
The central issue in this complaint is the meaning of the “second step” in the calculation
required by 5 CCR Section 15496(a) to determine the “percentage by which services for
unduplicated pupils must be increased or improved above services for all pupils [the
MPP]. Step two requires a district to:
“Estimate the amount of LCFF funds expended by the LEA on services for
unduplicated pupils in the prior year that is in addition to what was expended on

13

 services provided for all pupils. The estimated amount of funds expended shall
be no less than the amount of Economic Impact Aid expended in the 2012–2013
fiscal year.”
In this case, LAUSD asserts special education services are clearly not “services for all
pupils” because such services are provided only to those pupils who meet the eligibility
criteria specified in statute. Building on its view that special education services are not
provided to all pupils, LAUSD performs a straightforward calculation applying 79% (the
percentage of pupils receiving special education who are also unduplicated pupils) to the
bulk of its general fund expenditures for special education, resulting in $450 million in
special education expenditures being included as part of its estimate of “prior year
expenditures” in the MPP calculation. 9
LAUSD does exclude from its calculation some of its expenditures for special education.
(See exclusions identified at p. 3-4 above.) However, based on the information provided
by LAUSD in response to the Complaint, those exclusions are not based on any
distinctions between expenditures on special education services for unduplicated pupils,
and expenditures on special education services for all pupils receiving special education,
including unduplicated pupils. Rather than making such a distinction, the district derives
a proportional expenditure amount and identifies that amount as expenditures for
unduplicated pupils “in addition” to expenditures for all pupils. As was noted previously,
the bulk of expenditures coded to Resource Code 6500 were included in the proportional
calculation. The programs identified to Resource Code 6500 reflect a broad array of
program services available to special education pupils generally. (Exhibit F.) 10
LAUSD’s approach does, as Complainants argue, give a strained construction to the
meaning of the regulation. It focuses on the plain meaning of “all,” as is evident from its
framing the question: “Are special education ‘services provided to all pupils’ under
section 15496 of the California Code of Regulations?” (District Report, p. 14.) It
construes the regulation to permit inclusion of any expenditures for services in programs
that serve both unduplicated and duplicated pupils as expenditures on services for
unduplicated pupils, even when the services are provided without regard to pupils’
unduplicated status.
The above approach is not consistent with the LCFF statute and regulations. EC Section
42238.07(a) requires that funds apportioned on the basis of the number and
concentration of unduplicated pupils be expended to “increase or improve” services for
unduplicated pupils in proportion to the increase in funds apportioned. (EC Section
42238.07; 5 CCR Section 15496.) The regulation at issue directs the manner in which
districts are to calculate the MPP during the transition period to full funding of the LCFF.
At step 2 in the calculation, the regulation directs the district to make a comparison
between expenditures on services provided for unduplicated pupils “in addition” to
9

Note the same figure is derived for 2013–14 and 2014–15, despite a difference to general fund
expenditures for special education services in the two years. (District Report, p 10.)
10

Schools districts utilize a standard chart of accounts to record and report financial information.
A “resource code” is used in schools’ accounting systems to track activities funded with revenues
that have special accounting or reporting requirements or are legally restricted. Resource Code
6500 is for special education. Districts often contribute unrestricted general fund resources to this
Resource Code 6500 when expenditures for special education exceed federal and state
categorical funding (see footnote 2).

14

 expenditures on services for “all” pupils. To be consistent with the statutory purposes,
the comparison must distinguish between services directed to unduplicated pupils based
on that status, and services available for all pupils, without regard to their status as
unduplicated pupils or not.
Not only is the above approach the directive of the statutory language, the regulations
demonstrate that legislative purpose, in part, by specifying a floor for “prior year
expenditures” in the first year in which the formula was operative consisting of a district’s
2012–13 expenditures of Economic Impact Aid (the pre-LCFF categorical program
providing supplemental funds to serve pupils who were low-income or English learners).
Thus, in calculating the MPP under 5 CCR Section 15496, the regulation requires that
expenditures on services for unduplicated pupils made without regard to pupils’
unduplicated status be excluded from the estimate of prior year expenditures (5 CCR
Section 15496(a)(2)). With regard to expenditures for special education, prior year
expenditures on special education services directed to unduplicated pupils based on
their status as unduplicated may be included when estimating prior year expenditures
under 5 CCR Section 15496(a)(2). But, in addition, expenditures for special education
services that are for duplicated and unduplicated pupils generally, without regard to
pupils’ unduplicated status, may not be included in estimating such prior year
expenditures.
The Significance of Districtwide Expenditure
In support of its position that it acted consistent with 5 CCR Section 15496(a)(2) and in
arguing rejection of Complainants’ demand to remove $450 million of special education
expenditures from its estimate of prior year expenditures, LAUSD argues that the
regulations grant districts, such as it, with high enrollments of unduplicated pupils the
highest level of flexibility. (District Response, p. 17.) The district further states
“[b]ecause the overwhelming majority of LAUSD’s pupils (84%) are unduplicated, the
district-wide core program is itself ‘principally directed towards…meeting the district’s
goals for its unduplicated pupils,’” citing, in part 5 CCR Section 15496(b)(1)(B). (District
Response, p. 18.) While it is the case that LAUSD has flexibility to the extent afforded by
the regulations, we do not find its argument persuasive on the issues raised by this
appeal.
First, LAUSD’s argument appears to conflate the threshold that permits districtwide use
of funds apportioned on the basis and numbers of unduplicated pupils with the
justification required when a district decides to proceed districtwide. The 55 percent or
more qualifies a district to use funds on a districtwide basis, but it must then identify in its
LCAP those services provided on such basis and describe how they are “principally
directed towards and are effective in “meeting the district’s goals for its unduplicated
pupils in the state and any local priority areas. (5 CCR Section 1549(b)(1)(B).)
In accordance with the regulation, LAUSD has flexibility to expend supplemental and
concentration grant funds on a districtwide basis, as circumscribed by the actions
necessary to justify such expenditure. The required articulation of reasons supporting
districtwide use is critical to meeting the statutory requirement that such funds be used
to “increase or improve” services for unduplicated pupils in proportion to the amount of
the increase in funding. (EC Section 42238.07(b).) In addition, the requirement to
articulate in the LCAP how districtwide expenditures are “…principally directed towards,
and effective in…” meeting goals for unduplicated pupils is a critical step that should

15

 reflect the culmination of the significant stakeholder engagement called for by the LCFF,
and is essential to transparency.
In addition, the authority to expend supplemental and concentration grant funds for
services provided on a districtwide basis under EC Section 42238.07(b) and 5 CCR
Section 15496(b) is an alternative to expenditure of such for services for unduplicated
pupils on a targeted basis (EC Section 44238.07(a).) 11 Accordingly, districtwide
expenditure is not, necessarily, determinative of whether such expenditure qualifies as a
“prior year expenditure” under 5 CCR Section 15496(a)(2), though it may qualify as such
(see below).
MPP is a “Proportional” Spending Requirement
We must also note a point of disagreement with the position asserted by Complainants
as expressed in their requested remedy. Complainants request that LAUSD be directed
to revise its proportionality calculation and its LCAP to insure that it spends the
appropriate amount of money on increased and improved services for High Needs
Students in FY 2015–16, and in future years.” The expenditure requirement for
supplemental and concentration grant funding is a requirement to increase or improve
services for unduplicated pupils in proportion to the increase in funding received based
on the number and concentration of unduplicated pupils with the proportional increase
determined by the MPP calculation set forth in the regulations. Thus, it is a “proportional”
spending requirement, and not a requirement for a “dollar-for-dollar” spending, such as
might exist with a restricted, categorically funded program. Accordingly, it is inconsistent
with the regulatory framework to state that LAUSD’s calculation of its MPP deprived
unduplicated pupils of a specific dollar amount of increased or improved services, as
alleged in the Complaint. (Complaint, p. 2.)
Some Special Education Expenditures for Unduplicated Pupils May Count as Prior
Year Expenditures
In addition, we do not conclude that any and all expenditures of a district’s general fund
for special education purposes must be excluded from its estimate of “prior year
expenditures” under 5 CCR Section 15496(a)(2). A district may, in fact, make
expenditures for special education services that are for unduplicated pupils that are “in
addition” to special education services that are provided to unduplicated pupils and all
other pupils receiving special education services. As noted above, prior year
expenditures on special education services provided to pupils based on their status as
unduplicated pupils may be included when estimating prior year expenditures under 5
CCR Section 15496(a)(2). In that case, such expenditures could be considered “prior
year expenditures” and included in the required calculation of the MPP.
But, in addition, expenditures for special education services that are made available to
duplicated and unduplicated pupils generally, without regard to pupils’ unduplicated
status, may not be included in estimating such prior year expenditures under 5 CCR
Section 15496(a)(2). These expenditures must be excluded when calculating the MPP
for the LCAP year.

11 The LCFF does not, however, include a “do not supplant” mandate, as noted by LAUSD.
(District Report, p. 17.)

16

 In this case, some of the expenditures identified as being included in the $450 million
LAUSD identifies as being spent for special education services may, in fact, be special
education services provided on the basis of pupils’ unduplicated status. However, based
on the information provided and the legal theory articulated by LAUSD in connection with
the complaint and appeal, it is not possible to make that determination.

VI. REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
In this case, based on the information provided, LAUSD does not demonstrate that the
$450 million consists of expenditures on special education services provided to pupils
based on their status as unduplicated pupils, in addition to special education services
provided to all pupils, as required by 5 CCR Section 15496(b)(2). Based on the above
analysis, beginning with the 2016–17 LCAP, LAUSD must revise its calculation practice
of “prior year expenditures” as set forth in 5 CCR Section 15496(b)(2) to exclude any
special education expenditures which are not for expenditures for special education
services provided for unduplicated pupils that are in addition to expenditures on services
for all special education pupils, and ensure its MPP is consistent with its estimate of
“prior year expenditures”. In future years, LAUSD must calculate MPP consistent with
the above analysis, and reflect that MPP in its LCAPs, for so long as 5 CCR Section
15496(b)(2) is applicable.

VII. CONCLUSION
The CDE has investigated the complaint initially filed on September 9, 2015, with the
Los Angeles Unified District. This district is required to implement the Required
Corrective Actions. The CDE will monitor LAUSD’s compliance with the required actions
of this report for two years from LAUSD’s receipt of this report.
Pursuant to 5 CCR Section 4665, within 35 days of receipt of this investigation report,
either party may request reconsideration.

17

 VIII. APPENDIX 1: EXHIBITS

Exhibit A: Original Complaint
Exhibit B: District Report of Findings
Exhibit C: Appeal Letter
Exhibit D: LAUSD 2015-16 Local Control and Accountability Plan
Exhibit E: LAUSD Special Education Expenditures in SACS Resource 6500

18

 Exhibit A: Original Complaint

19

ATTACHMENT 1 - UCP COMPLAINT

September 9, 2015
Julie Hall-Panameno, Director
Educational Equity Compliance Office
Los Angeles Unified School District
333 South Beaudry Avenue, 20th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
julie.hall@lausd.net
Superintendent Ramon Cortines
Office of the Superintendent
Los Angeles Unified School District
333 S. Beaudry Ave., 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
ramon.cortines@lausd.net
Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail
Re:

Uniform Complaint Procedure Complaint Re Superintendent Cortines and
LAUSD’s Failure to Comply with Legal Requirements Pertaining to LCAP

Dear Ms. Hall-Panameno,
We submit the following Uniform Complaint Procedure (“UCP”) complaint on behalf of
Ms. Reyna Frias and Community Coalition of South Los Angeles (“Community Coalition”)
regarding Los Angeles Unified School District and Superintendent Cortines’s (collectively
“LAUSD”) failure to comply with the legal requirements pertaining to its Local Control and
Accountability Plan (“LCAP”). Specifically, LAUSD has violated its legal obligations under
Education Code § 42238.07 and 5 C.C.R. § 15496 by including special education spending as
part of its estimate of prior year expenditures for services for foster youth, low income students,
and English learners (collectively “High Need Students”) in its 2014-15 and 2015-16 LCAPs.
We have brought the issues in this complaint to the district’s attention through multiple
letters and conferences and most recently in a legal complaint filed with the LA Superior Court
on July 1, 2015. LAUSD filed a demurrer on the ground that Ms. Frias and Community
Coalition cannot seek judical relief until they exhaust the administrative remedies provided under
section 52075 of the Education Code and file a complaint pursuant to the UCP. While we do not
believe that filing a UCP complaint is a prerequiste to filing our lawsuit, out of an abundance of
caution and because of the considerable delay before we expect the Court to reach a decision on

20

 the district’s demurrer motion, we now file this UCP complaint. Given our prior dealings with
the district in attempts to resolve this matter, we maintain that the filing of this complaint is not
mandatory and is futile, as we do not expect it to change the district’s clear refusal to correct its
erroneous calculations in its LCAP and ensure that it increases and improves services for High
Need Students in accordance with LCFF regulations.
As a result of this error in LAUSD’s LCAP, the district deprived High Need Students of
roughly $126 million in increased or improved services in Fiscal Year 2014-15 and roughly $288
million in increased or improved services in FY 2015-16. Over the course of LCFF
implementation, LAUSD’s improper inflation of its baseline starting point of supplemental and
concentration funding will deprive High Need Students of more than $2 billion in increased or
improved services between now and FY 2020-21, and $450 million in services every year
thereafter.
Accordingly, we request that LAUSD revise its 2015-16 LCAP to remove special
education funding as part of its prior year spending for High Need Students and revise its
proportionality calculation to ensure that the district spends the proper amount of money on
increased and improved services for High Need Students.
We initially brought this error to LAUSD’s attention in April 2014 when LAUSD
released the first draft of its proposed 2014-15 LCAP. We subsequently engaged in negotiations
for over a year with LAUSD personnel to attempt to resolve the dispute, but the district refused
to amend its LCAP to comply with its obligations under the Education Code and relevant
regulations. We also sent a letter to the District in December 2014 on behalf of Ms. Frias and
Community Coalition raising these same issues. On July 1, 2015, we filed a Petition for Writ of
Mandate in Los Angeles Superior Court (No. BS 156259) (the “Action”), which included the
same claims we are asserting in this UCP complaint. A copy of the Petition is enclosed as
Attachment 1 for your reference.
Because we have already discussed these issues at length with LAUSD and the district
has made clear that it will not amend its LCAP, and because none of the underlying facts are in
dispute, we trust that LAUSD will be able to conclude its investigation and render a decision in
an expeditious manner.
I.

Complainants

Ms. Reyna Frias is the mother of two children, both of whom attend public schools in
LAUSD. Ms. Frias’s youngest child is a third grade student and is classified as an English
learner. He also receives special education services to address a speech or language impairment.
Ms. Frias’s oldest child is a seventh grade student. Both of Ms. Frias’ children are eligible to
receive a free or reduced-price meal and thus qualify as low-income students.1
Community Coalition is a non-profit organization that works to transform the social and
economic conditions in South Los Angeles that foster addiction, crime, violence and poverty.

1

For more information regarding Ms. Frias or her children, please contact counsel listed on this letter.

21

 For purposes of investigating this complaint and reporting any findings or decision, both
complainants can be contacted through counsel listed on this letter.
II.

Attempts to Resolve the Dispute with LAUSD Personnel

LAUSD released a proposed LCAP in early April 2014 that included in its calculation of
prior year expenditures for High Need Students approximately $450 million of expenditures for
special education services. Attorneys from Public Advocates and the ACLU reached out to
LAUSD staff within days of this release to discuss the improper inclusion of special education
expenditures and informed LAUSD’s chief operating officer that its proposal would violate the
regulation.
On June 6, 2014, Public Advocates and the ACLU contacted LAUSD’s thenSuperintendent John Deasy by letter, copying staff at LACOE involved in reviewing LCAPs, and
cautioned the District that its “improper inclusion of special education funding as part of its
estimate of prior year (FY 2013-14) services for unduplicated pupils . . . resulted in a significant
under-calculation of the funds allocated to ‘increase or improve services for unduplicated pupils’
in the district’s LCAP.” Public Advocates and the ACLU requested that the district remove the
$450 million in special education expenditures from its estimate of prior year services for High
Need Students, and increase the proposed supplemental and concentration spending for FY
2014-15 accordingly.
In response, on June 13, 2014, counsel for LAUSD stated that the District “believes it is
justified in its approach” but failed to explain the basis for this belief other than to state that the
LCFF expenditure regulations “do not preclude the District from including special education
expenditures as part of the prior year services for unduplicated pupils.” Two weeks later, the
LAUSD Board of Education adopted the draft LCAP, which included the inflated and incorrect
figures. On September 5, 2014, LACOE approved LAUSD’s LCAP without modification.
On December 19, 2014, on behalf of the complainants, Public Advocates and the ACLU
sent a letter to LAUSD’s new interim Superintendent, Ramon Cortines to “reiterate [their]
serious concerns regarding LAUSD’s Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and to
advise you that we will pursue legal action” unless “LAUSD . . . agree[s] immediately to correct
the decision to impermissibly include special education services as prior year spending on
unduplicated students in LAUSD’s initial LCAP.”
Between January and July 2015, Public Advocates and the ACLU conducted various
meetings and telephone calls with LAUSD personnel—including Gregory McNair, the district’s
Chief Business & Compliance Counsel, and Megan Reilly, the district’s Chief Financial
Officer—in a final attempt to convince LAUSD to revise its LCAP to comply with the Education
Code and regulations. During these negotiations, LAUSD continued to refuse to amend its
LCAP to allocate the correct amount of supplemental and concentration funds to increase and
improve services for High Need Students. On June 23, 2015, LAUSD’s Board of Education
approved the 2015-16 LCAP, which again included the erroneous prior year expenditure
calculation and deprived High Need Students of hundreds of millions of dollars in increased and
improved services.

22

 On July 1, 2015, Public Advocates, the ACLU, and Covington & Burling LLP filed the
Action in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Ms. Frias and Community Coalition alleging
that LAUSD violated its mandatory duties to use appropriate supplemental and concentration
funds to increase or improve services for High Need Students in accordance with Education
Code § 42238.07 and 5 C.C.R. § 15496. On August 3, 2015, LAUSD filed a demurrer, arguing
that the plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative remedies by filing a UCP complaint
with the relevant governmental entities before filing suit.2
III.

Basis for the UCP Complaint

The Local Control Funding Formula (“LCFF”) requires school districts to “increase or
improve services for [High Need Students] in proportion to the increase in funds apportioned on
the basis of the number and concentration of [High Need Students] in the school district[.]”
Educ. Code § 42238.07. In early February 2014, the emergency regulations for implementing
LCFF went into effect and are set forth in 5 C.C.R. §§ 15494-97. To ensure the requisite
proportional increase in services for High Need Students, the regulations set forth a duty for
school districts to engage in a seven-step process to “determine the percentage by which services
for [High Need Students] must be increased or improved above services provided to all pupils”
in a fiscal year. 5 C.C.R. § 15496(a).
The proportionality calculation is at the heart of LCFF’s equity requirement that school
districts must increase or improve services for High Need Students in proportion to the additional
dollars those students generate. See Educ. Code § 42238.07; 5 C.C.R. § 15496(a). The second
step requires school districts to estimate the expenditures of supplemental and concentration
funding in the initial “prior year” (i.e., FY 2013-14) and every prior year thereafter. Under the
second step of the calculation, school districts may only count as prior year expenditures “funds
expended by the LEA on services for [High Need Students] in the prior year that is in addition to
what was expended on services provided for all pupils.” 5 C.C.R. § 15496(a)(2). The regulation
thus distinguishes between two types of spending: (1) spending on services for High Need
Students and (2) spending on services for all students.
The LCAP that LAUSD’s Board of Education approved for FY 2014-15 violates the
Education Code and regulations because it includes $450 million in special education spending
as part of the $700 million it claimed as prior year services for High Need Students. Special
education services cannot be counted as spending on prior-year expenditures on services for
High Need Students because these services are available to all students—regardless of whether
To be clear, we do not agree that filing a UCP complaint is a prerequisite to challenging LAUSD’s LCAP through
litigation. Neither the statute setting forth the LCFF UCP complaint procedure nor its legislative history evidences
an intent by the legislature to make the regulatory process the exclusive recourse to vindicate rights. See, e.g., Kemp
v. Nissan Motor Corp., 57 Cal. App. 4th 1527, 1531 (1997). Further, it is unnecessary to file a UCP complaint to
LAUSD or the State Superintendent of Public Instruction based on these claims because such a complaint would be
both futile and inadequate. See Huntington Beach Police Officers Ass’n v. City of Huntington Beach, 58 Cal. App.
3d 492, 499 (1976); Unfair Fire Tax Comm. v. Oakland, 136 Cal. App. 4th 1424, 1430 (2006). We reserve all rights
to continue to assert the non-applicability of exhaustion to the pending Petition for Writ of Mandate. Nonetheless,
we are filing this UCP complaint to obviate the need to litigate the demurrer in the interest of judicial economy and
to conserve the resources of all parties in this Action.
2

23

 they are low-income, English Learners, or foster youth—who are eligible to take advantage of
special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20. U.S.C. §
1400 et seq. All pupils may request an Individual Education Plan to seek special education
services, and the district must provide such services to all who qualify, regardless of whether
they are High Need Students. Thus, dollars spent on special education services are not
expenditures on services targeted for High Need Students and may not be counted as a prior year
expenditure for High Need Students.
Moreover, LAUSD was already required to provide special education under federal and
state law. Continuing to provide what LAUSD was already obligated to provide to each eligible
student cannot plausibly be viewed as an “increase or improvement” in services.
This error has already had, and will continue to have, a significant detrimental impact on
the amount of services High Need Students in LAUSD receive. As a result of the error in
LAUSD’s 2014-15 LCAP, the district shortchanged High Need Students $126 million in
increased or improved services in FY 2014-15. On June 23, 2015, LAUSD’s Board of Education
approved the district’s 2015-16 LCAP, which included the same erroneous prior year
expenditure calculation. During FY 2015-16, this miscalculation will deprive High Need
Students of $288 million on programs counting towards its goal for increasing and improving
services for High Need Students. This deficit to High Need Students will continue to build year
after year until it grows to $450 million annually at full implementation (projected for FY 202021). Altogether, LAUSD’s inclusion of special education expenditures as a prior year
expenditure will cost High Need Students—including Ms. Frias’s children and the constituents
Community Coalition serves—over $2 billion in increased or improved services between now
and FY 2020-21.
(continued on next page)

24

 IV.

Remedy Requested

For the reasons described in this UCP complaint, we request that LAUSD revise its 201516 LCAP to remove special education funding as part of its prior year spending for High Need
Students and revise its proportionality calculation and its LCAP to ensure that it spends the
appropriate amount of money on increased and improved services for High Need Students in FY
2015-16 and in future years. For any questions related to this complaint or to contact the
complainants, please contact the attorneys listed below.
Sincerely,

John Affeldt
Managing Attorney/Education Program Director
Public Advocates, Inc.
131 Steuart Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105-1241
(415) 431-7430
jaffedlt@publicadvocates.org

25

Dave Sapp
Director of Education Advocacy/Legal Counsel
ACLU of California
1313 West Eighth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017-9639
(213) 977-5220
dsapp@aclusocal.org

 Laura Muschamp
Partner
Covington & Burling, LLP
2029 Century Park East Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3044
(858) 678-1803
lmuschamp@cov.com
Enclosure

26

 Exhibit B: District Report of Findings

27

ATTACHMENT 2 - LAUSD DETERMINATION

Los Angcles Unified School District (7- 
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL Supermiemem 9?7 Schools
EDUCATIONAL EQUITY COMPLIANCE OFFICE

333 s. Beaudry Avenue, 20th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 DAVID R- 
TELEPHONE (213) 241??682; FACSIMILE (213) 241-3312 Come"

BELINDA STITH
interim Chief?ducotioo Litigation
Comrsei

 

JULIE HALL-PANAMENO
Director
Educationoi Equity Compiionce Of?ce

November 9, 2015

Mr. Victor Leung

Staff Attorney

ACLU of Southern California
1313 West Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Re: Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) Case 
Parent and Non-Pro?t Organization

Dear Mr. Leung,

The Los Angeles Uni?ed School District (the District) has completed its investigation of the
above-referenced complaint alleging that LAUSD violated its legal Obligations under Education
Code 42233.0? and 5 OCR. 15496 by including special education spending on foster youth,
low income students, and English learners (collectively "High Need Students") as part of its
estimate of prior year expenditures for services for High Need Students in its 2014-15 and 2015?
16 LCAPs. Enclosed is a copy of the ?nal report that includes details of the investigation,
conclusions, and, if necessary, corrective actions.

Please be assured of the con?dential treatment of this complaint and accompanying report.
Information is only being provided to those persons within the District on a need to know basis
within the confines Of the District?s reporting procedures and investigative process. You are
advised that the District prohibits retaliation against you or anyone who ?les a complaint, anyone
who requests an appeal or anyone who participates in any complaint investigation process. You
are also advised that civil law remedies may be available to you.

Apnea] lgformation

If you disagree with the ?ndings and conclusions presented to you by this office you have the
right to appeal within ?fteen days of the receipt of this letter. Such an appeal should specify the



should be included. Send your appeal to:

28

California Department of Education
1430 Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

If yen have any questions or need more information pertaining to the complaint process or the
enclosed report, please feel free to call me at (213) 241-7682.

Sincerely,

am 9- 
. 

Julie Hall-Panameno, Director

Educational Equity Compliance Of?ce

C: Sharyn Howell, Associate Superintendent, Division of Special Education
Megan Reilly, Chief Financial Officer, Los Angeles Uni?ed School District
John Walsh, Deputy Chief Financial Of?cer
Nargis Merchant, Deputy Budget Director, Budget Services Financial Flaming Division
Tony Atienza, Director, Finance Policy
Cheryl Simpson, Director, Budget Services Financial Planning Division
Nirupama ayaraman, Asst. Budget Director, Budget Services Financial Planning Division
Pedro Salcido, Accountability Adviser, Of?ce of Government Relations
Edgar Zazueta, Chief of External Affairs
Vibiana Andrade, General Counsel, Los Angeles County of Education
Gregory McNair, Chief Business Cempliance Counsel
Mary Kellogg, Assistant General Counsel
Sungyon Lee, Assistant General Counsel
Gregory Luke, Attorney, Strumwasser Woocher LLP

 

29

Los Angeles Uni?ed School District
Uniform Complaint Procedure Case 
Parent and Non-Pro?t Organization

Background:

In 2013, the Legislature adopted a comprehensive reform of the rules governing the
?nancing of schools in California, known as the Local Control Funding Formula 
The LCFF directs state funding to schools under three new ?grants? (base, supplemental, and
concentration) and delegates broad discretion over the spending of those funds to local
educational agencies. The Legislature set a long?term target for the increased funding of public
education throughout California and provided for yearly incremental increases in spending over
the course of ?ve ?scal years to reach the ultimate LCFF funding goal.

The LCF provides that schools districts, charter schools, and county of?ces of education
must generate Local Control Accountability Plans for each ?scal year during the
period leading up to the full funding of the LCFF. The Legislature did not itself enact mics
governing the contents of LCAPs, but instead delegated authority to the State Board of
Education to adopt appropriate regulations to ensure that local educational agencies would
increase and improve services for unduplicated pupils foster youth, English learners, and
low-income pupils in proportion to the supplemental and concentration dollars those students
generate during the intervening years leading up to the full funding of LCFF. To that end, the
regulations governing LCAPs, codi?ed at Cal. Code Regs, tit, 5, 15494-154915, require
local educational agencies to ?[e]stimate the amount of LCFF funds expended by the LEA on
services for unduplicated pupils in the prior year that is in addition to what was expended on
services provided for all pupils? as part of the calculation of ?the percentage by which services
for unduplicated pupils must be increased or improved above services provided to all pupils? in
each ?scal year. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 5, 15496, subd. [emphasis added].)

The LCAP regulations grant schools that serve high concentrations of unduplicated
pupils the highest level of ?exibility in demonstrating compliance with these ?proportionality?
requirements, in recognition of the special expertise those schools have acquired in the provision
of education to high needs students. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 5, 15496, subd. The Los
Angeles Uni?ed School District or ?the District?) serves, by far, the largest
aggregation of pupils of any school in the state, over 84% of whom are unduplicated. After
consultation with the counsel and staff of the State Board of Education, LAUSD issued its initial
LCAP in June of 2014, identifying over $700 million of varied LCFF expenditures on services
for unduplicated pupils, which ?gure included $450 million of District general fund expenditures
on Individualized Education Programs for the many thousands of unduplicated pupils who also
meet the eligibility criteria to receive Special Education services under federal and state law. On

 

30

September 5, 2014, the Los Angeles County Office of Education approved the
initial LAUSD LCAP.

On or about July 1, 2015, Complainants ?led a lawsuit against LAUSD and LACOE (the
?Petition?) seeking a writ of mandate and declaratory relief to remedy alleged District violations
of the LCFF and the LCAP regulations arising from the inclusion of Special Education
expenditures in the calculation of prior-year expenditures under section 15496. LAUSD
demurred to the Petition on the ground that Complainants had failed to exhaust the
administrative remedies provided in the LCFF for stakeholders aggrieved by any aspect of an
LCAP, which include appeal to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. (Educ. Code,
52075.) In response, the Complainants ?led the subject Complaint, reserving their argument
that exhaustion was not required. The Complaint attaches and incorporates the Petition.

PclicyfAuthoritg:

a Title 5, Code Cal. Regs, 15494-154975
I Education Code 2574, 2575, 42238.01, 42238.02, 42238.03, 42238.07, 47605,
47605.5, 47606.5, 48926, 52052, 52060-52077, and 64001.

Method of Investigation:

I The investigation was conducted at the direction of Julie Hall-Paname?o, Director of the
Educational Equity Compliance Of?ce. Information was gathered from interviews to
investigate the allegations made in the complaint. Additionally, the correspondence
between the counsel for Complainants and counsel for the District that preceded the ?ling
of the Petition and the instant Complaint was reviewed.

I Persons interviewed:

0 Megan Reilly, Chief Financial Of?cer, LAUSD

0 John Walsh, Deputy Chief Financial Of?cer

0 Tony Atienza, Director, Finance Policy

0 Cheryl Simpson, Director, Budget Services Financial Planning Division

0 Nargis Merchant, Deputy Budget Director, Budget Services Financial Planning
Division

0 Nirupama ayaraman, Assistant Budget Director, Budget Services Financial
Flaming Division

0 Pedro Salcido, Accountability Adviser, Office of Government Relations

0 Sharyn Howell, Associate Superintendent, Division of Special Education
Edgar Zazueta, Chief of External Affairs

 

31

Allegationts]:

The Complainant alleges that LAUSD has violated its legal obligations under Education
Code section 42238.07 and title 5, section 15496 of the California Code of Regulations by
including special education spending on foster youth, low income students and English learners
in its estimate of prior year expenditures on services for unduplicated pupils in its 2014-15 and
2015-2016 LCAPs. There does not appear to be any difference between the allegations of the
Complaint and the allegations of the antecedent Petition ?led by Complainants in the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County.

Legal Framework:

The relevant provision of the Code of Regulations on which Complainants rely directs
local agencies to do the following when preparing an LCAP each ?scal year:

?[e]stimate the amount of LCFF funds expended by the LEA on services for
unduplicated pupils in the prior year that is in addition to what was expended
on services provided for all pupils. The estimated amount of funds expended
in 2013-14 shall be no less than the amount of Economic Impact Aid ?mds
the LEA expended in the 2012-13 ?scal year.? (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 5,
?15496, subd. 

Notably, this regulation does not require local agencies determine the actual expenditures on
services for unduplicated pupils in any given ?scal year, but rather to ?estimate the amount? of
such expenditures. Complainants contend that LAU SD violated this regulation by including that
portion of LCFF funding budgeted for the Individualized Education Programs provided to
unduplicated pupils in its LCAP estimate of prior year spending.

Complainants also claim that the District has violated Education Code section 42238.07.
However, that statute does not impose any duties upon local educational agencies, but rather
comprises a directive to the State Board of Education. In its entirety, it reads:

On or before January 31, 2014, the state board shall adopt regulations that
govern the expenditure of funds apportioned on the basis of the number and
concentration of unduplicated pupils pursuant to Sections 2574, 2575,
42238.02, and 42238.03. The regulations shall include, but are not limited to,
provisions that do all of the following:

(1) Require a school district, county of?ce of education, or charter
school to increase or improve services for unduplicated pupils in proportion
to the increase in funds apportioned on the basis of the number and

 

32

concentration of unduplicated pupils in the school district, county of?ce of
education, or charter school.

(2) Authorize a school district, county of?ce of education, or charter
school to use funds apportioned on the basis of the number of unduplicated
pupils for schoolwide purposes, or, for school districts, districtwide purposes,
for county of?ces of education, countywide purposes, or for charter schools,
charterwide purposes, in a manner that is no more restrictive than the
restrictions provided for in Title I of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301, et seq.).

The state board may adopt emergency regulations for purposes of this
section.

The Complaint does not identify any speci?c element of this statute that LAUSD is alleged to
have violated, or any clear, present ministerial duty imposed by this statute on LAUSD.
Complainants reference this statute solely as authority for the proposition that ?school districts
must increase or improve services for High Need Students in proportion to the additional dollars
those students generate.? (Complaint, at p. 4.) Because a statute expressly and solely directed
at the State Board of Education does not impose duties upon local educational agencies, this
statute does not provide authority for the issuance of a writ or declaratory relief against LAU SD,
but, at most, may provide an interpretive aide if the regulations adopted by the State Board of
Education are determined to be ambiguous.

Findings:
(1) SPECIAL EDUCATION Is NOT a SERVICE Pnovmso To ALL STUDENTS.

a. Special Education is provided only to pupils who satisfy detailed criteria
regarding recognized disabilities and who are not subject to speci?c
exclusionary factors.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act codi?ed at 20
U.S.C. 1400 et seq., imposes duties on states and local educational agencies to provide an
Individualized Education Program to students who meet the speci?c eligibility
requirements.1 Accordingly, Special Education services are by de?nition not services provided

 

1 The IDEA contains multiple parts. Direct services to children are codi?ed in Parts and of
the IDEA. Part of the IDEA covers school aged children (ages 3-22). Part of the IDEA
covers infants and toddlers (ages birth to 3). In California, Part IDEA services are carried out
primarily by local educational agencies, such as the District; Part IDEA services are carried

 

out primarily by regional centers. (Educ. Code, 5600]; Gov. Code 95004; see also, Educ.
Code, 56000 et seq. and Gov. Code, 95000 et seq.) While California school districts may

33

to all students, but rather specialized services provided to individual students who have
qualifying disability and satisfy the related test for eligibility. In 2013-2014, only 12 percent of
student population quali?ed to receive some form of specialized instruction or
assistance under an IEP.

Only children of certain ages, with qualifying disabilities who, by reason thereof, require
special education intervention are eligible for and entitled to services under the IDEA. (See, 20
U.S.C. 1400 (3) [de?nition of ?child with a Special education eligibility is
limited in many ways, including by (1) qualifying disability, (2) need for special education, and
(3) age.

The ?rst limiting criterion is qualifying disability. In order to qualify as a ?child with a
disability? under IDEA the student must ?rst meet the de?nition of one or more of the categories
of disability eligibility. These include: intellectual disability, hearing impairment (including
dea?iess), speech or language impairment, visual impairment (including blindness), serious
emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health
impairment, speci?c learning disability, and (for certain age groups) developmental delay. (20
U.S.C. 1400 see also, Educ. Code, 56026 

It is important to note that some children may have a qualifying disability but, regardless,
may still be ineligible for special education under the IDEA. This second exclusionary factor
dictates that disability, or even diagnosis of a disability/2, is insuf?cient in and of itself to qualify
a child for special education services under the IDEA. Rather, a child must demonstrate a need
for special education and related services.3 (20 U.S.C. 1400 California law further
explains this standard as a child whose disability (or impairment) ?requires instruction and
services which cannot be provided with modi?cation of the regular school program.? (Educ.

 

have some limited involvement in Part IDEA services, this response addresses only Part 
IDEA services.

2 A diagnosis of a potentially disabling condition is ?neither required not suf?cient? to establish
eligibility under the IDEA. (Lakeside Joint School District, (OAH 2010), Case No.
2009090504.)

3 ?Special education? itself is narrowly de?ned by Califomia law as something above and
beyond what is available in the regular school program. Education Code section 56031 de?nes
?special education? as ?specially designed instruction . . . to meet the unique needs of individuals
with exceptional needs.? In addition, certain related services are speci?cally de?ned as special
education, including: speech and language pathology services, travel training, and vocational
education. (Educ. Code, 56031, subd. see also 34 C.F.R. 300390).) A child who needs
only a related service which is not otherwise classi?ed as ?Special education? will not meet

 

IDEA eligibility criteria. (34 C.F.R. 300.8 

34

Code, 56026, subd. As the Ninth Circuit has con?rmed, a child will not be eligible for
special education, even with a qualifying disability, if the impact of the disability can be
addressed through regular education programming. (Hood v. Encinitos Union Sch. Dist, 486
F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. Cal. 2007).)

Even where a need for Specialized services is indicated, exclusionary factors may still
prevent special education eligibility under the IDEA. To wit, a child will not be eligible for
services under the IDEA if the need for special services is due to either of the following: 
limited English pro?ciency; lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math; temporary
physical disability; social maladjustment; or, environmental, cultural, or economic factors.
(34 C.F.R. 300.306 see also Educ. Code 56026, subd. For example, a student
with ADHD was found not to be eligible for special education during a period of time when it
was reasonable to conclude that his school issues were caused primarily by his unstable home
life, rather than a qualifying disability andior the impact of his ADHD. (Oceanside Uni?ed
School District, (OAH 2010) Case No. 2010071003.) The exclusionary factor related to limited
English pro?ciency is quite signi?cant in the context of the instant Complaint. If Special
Education services were indeed a ?service provided to all pupils? then all English learner
unduplicated pupils would necessarily qualify for Special Education. The fact that the IDEA
expressly prohibits any such conclusion amply demonstrates that Special Education services are
not ?services provided to all pupils.?

Finally, the third broad factor which could limit a disabled child?s eligibility for special
education under the IDEA is age. Part of the IDEA narrowly de?nes qualifying students as
those ?between the ages of 3 and 21.? (20 U.S.C. 1412 Educ. Code, 56026

subd. Further, even within this age span, other limitations apply, as follows:

a Children incarcerated in an adult correctional facility who were not
identi?ed as a ?child with a disability? or did not have an
individualized education program [the plan implementing special
education) prior to incarceration will be ineligible for services
under the IDEA. (20 U.S.C. 1412 Educ. Code,
56040.)

I Children who have received a regular high school diploma will be
ineligible for services under the IDEA. (20 U.S.C. 1414
34 C.F.R. 300.102 see oiso Educ. Code,
56026.1.)

 

35

I Children who did not receive special education prior to their 18lh
birthday will not be eligible for services under the IDEA. (20
U.S.C. 1412 Educ. Code, 56026.)

Special education eligibility is not conferred In order to qualify, a child must ?rst
undergo an extensive formal assessment of his/her abilities and needs. {20 U.S.C. 1414 
With that information, a team of quali?ed professionals, along with the child?s parents, then
determine whether the assessment and other data warrant a ?nding of IDEA eligibility. (20
use. 1414 

b. Special Education personnel are not permitted to provide services to the
general student population.

Both federal and state law prohibit the instructors, assistants, and therapists that provide
Special Education services to LAUSD pupils from providing services to general education
students. Special Education service providers are not certi?ed to operate as teachers in LAUSD
classrooms, as recognized in the collective bargaining agreement between LAUSD and the
United Teachers of Los Angeles 

Special Education teachers, including Resource Specialists and Special Day
Program providers are funded and allocated to provide services according to stated
caseloads and norms, in accordance with the services listed on a students? Individualized
Education Program. Certi?cated assignments for RSP teachers are based on caseload allocations
and guidelines referenced in Education Code section 56362. SDP teacher allocations are
determined based upon norms negotiated with UTLA. These teachers are assigned solely for the
purpose of improving performance outcomes for students with disabilities.

Special Education teachers, trainees, and assistants may not be allocated for teaching non-
disabled students, nor may they be re-allocated during the school day for non-special education
responsibilities. They may not serve as coordinators, coaches, athletic directors or other non-
special education instructional assignments during the school day. They are required to directly
support the instructional program for students with disabilities during the entire school day.

If a school wishes to assign a Special Education teacher to act as a coordinator, coach, or
perform any other such duties not related to Special Education, the school must budget for this
position through grants or other funding sources. It is a misuse of Special Education resources to
assign personnel funded to support the instructional program for students with disabilities to any
other duties.

 

36

 

(2) LAUSD ESTIMATED PRIOR-YEAR SPECIAL EDUCATION SPENDING ON
UNDUPLICATED PUPILS

a. The LCFF Calculation

The District?s General Fund contribution to Special Education (net of the Revenue Limit
and af?liated charters) was estimated at $653.4 million for 2013-14 and $633.9 million for 2014-
15. Seventy nine percent 09%) of the District?s students with disabilities are identi?ed as low
income, English learners, or foster youth. The District identi?ed the subset of Special Education
programs that bene?t these targeted student populations and applied 7'9 percent to the
expenditures of those programs to estimate the share that would bene?t these high needs
students. This calculation totals to $449.88 million for 2013-14 and 2014-15, thereby re?ecting
the estimated share of General Fund expenditures for services that bene?t low income, English
learners, or foster youth with an Individualized Education Progam. In addition to this amount,
$22.2 million was allocated in supplemental ?Jnds for Special Education teachers and assistants
in 2014-15, and an additional $3 million for anticipated cost increases.

These expenditures include initiatives addressing integration of students with disabilities
into general education settings, and reducing disproportionality among subgroups identi?ed for
special education. Furthermore, the District has increased support services to advance the
academic achievement of every English Learner with Disabilities (ELD). The District aligns
IEPs with the English Learner Master Plan for each English learner with disabilities. Each IEP is
required to include goals for English pro?ciency, and the ELD present level of performance for
each student.

1). Budget and Expenditures used in the Initial Prior Year for 2013-2014

Table 1 shows that the District?s Maintenance of Effort (MOE) for Special Education was
$1.5 billion in 13-14. This includes $178 million in unassigned support costs, known as PCRA.
In addition, expenditures in General Fund programs that support Special Education, including
administrative and transportation costs, amounted to $25 million for that year. This re?ects a
grand total of $1.6 billion in expenditures. The LCFF supplemental amount of $449.88 million
re?ects only 28.9 percent of these expenditures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lahlc  Mill: and Support to Special litl Amount LL14


$177,894,43 0
Special Ed Portion of MOE $1,354,331,202
Total MOE $1,532,225,632
Expenditures in Pro grams that Support Special

Ed? $25,401,341
Grand Total, MOE and Support to Special Ed

Prog $557,626,973

n- "u I Hui" ?e i011

Procedure 910 of the California Scho

 

01 Accounting anual provides a method of

10

37

 

distributing unassigned support costs to different user programs such as special
education. The calculation is performed in state provided SACS software.

?These are expenditures in Programs 13232 and 13233. They are part of the General
Fund and are not included in the MOE.

Note: Special Ed Portion of MOE also includes Specially Funded Programs. The MOE is
calculated using all expenditures in SACS Goal 5000.

Table 2 shows that the District?s Special Education program had an authorized budget of $1.36
billion and expenditures of $1.34 billion. This excludes amount for Specially-Funded Programs
and General Fund pro grams that support Special Ed.

Table 2: Special Education Burlch and

 

 

 

 

 

. . Amount. l3? I 4

Authorized CMO Budget $1,361,780,338
Expenditures 1,335,666,481
Difference, Budget Less Expenditures $26,113,857

 

 

Note: Excludes Specially-Funded Programs and General Fund programs that support
Special Education.

Table 3 shows ecial Education revenues for 2013-14.

Federal Revenues $110.9
State Revenues $3 5 3 .2

Local Revenues 

SELPA Charter Schools Revenue $59.7

Contribution-Unrestricted Pro ams $727.6

Contribution-Fair Share $1 1.4

Total Revenue $1 2.9
Note: Excludes Specially-Funded Programs and General Fund programs that support
Special Education.

 

The District?s General Fund contribution to Special Education (net of the Revenue Limit and of
af?liated charters) was estimated at $653.4 million for 2013-14. Of this amount, supplemental
and concentration funds was estimated at $449.88 million and base funds was estimated at
$203.5 million.

c. Identifying Unduplicated Pupils who Receive Special Education Services

The table below shows how LAUSD determined that 79% of its students who receive


which was used for the District?s overall unduplicated calculation, to the 2012-13 CASEMIS

ll

38

?le. There were 65,589 students with disabilities (3WD) identified on the 2012-13 CALPADS
?le. Of this count, 61,265 students were identi?ed as not attending af?liated charter schools.
(Af?liated charter students must be excluded from the unduplicated calculation as these schools
receive their LCFF allocation independent from the District.) Of the 61,265 students with
disabilities in CALPADS not attending af?liated charter schools, 48,633 students were identi?ed
as being either EL, Foster, or Low-Income. This computes to an unduplicated percentage of
79.38% for students with disabilities (48,633i6l ,265).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4: SWD Indenti?ed as Unduplicated Pupils

Count of SWD on CALPADS ?le, 12-13 65,589
Count of SWD on CALPADS ?le not attending charter schools,

12-13 61,265
Count cfunduplicated SWD on CALPADS ?le not attending

charter schools, 12-13 48,633
Percent unduplicated SWD, 12-13 79.38%

 

d. LAUSD excluded from its prior year calculation all categories of Special
Education expenditures that did not provide direct services to pupils.

The LCAP regulations broadly de?ne ?services?, without limitation, to include ?services
associated with the delivery of instruction, administration, facilities, pupil support services,
technology, and other general infrastructure necessary to operate and deliver educational
instructions and related services.? (Cal. Code Regs, 5, 15495, subd. Though the
regulations thus clearly permit school districts to include a wide array of expenditures in the
calculation of prior-year expenditures on unduplicated pupils, LAU SD conservativer limited the
calculation to the major spending groups within Special Education that provide direct services to
pupils. As a result, the calculation of Special Education expenditures on unduplicated pupils is
substantially smaller than permitted under the regulations.

In ?scal year 2014-2015, the total authorized budget for Special Education services in
LAUSD was in excess of 1.4 billion. The District estimated that $633.9 million (net of
Revenue Limit and af?liated charters) would be contributed towards this budget from the
District?s LCFF general fund. However, the District only counted $566 million of this general
fund encroachment towards the estimate of proportionality spending. In other words, despite the
broad de?nition of services in the LCAP regulations, the District did not consider $68 million in
Special Education expenditures as potential sources of proportionality expenditures on
undupiicated pupils. Of this amount, 33 million was excluded because it related to major
group categories of Special Education spending on pre-school and adult student populations. An
additional $6.5 million budgeted for the Career Transition Program? was excluded
because it served pupils from both the K-12 and adult student populations. In other words, the
District did not attempt to isolate how much of the expenditures in that major subgroup were

12

39

directed to the K-12 pupils that are targets of LCFF funding, but instead took the conservative
approach of excluding the major subgroup from the proportionality calculation altogether.

The remainder of the foregone $68 million excluded from proportionality $34.5 million
comprise major subgroup spending that clearly falls within the regulatory de?nition of
?services? in the proportionality calculations, but that the District conservatively opted to
exclude. Specifically, the District excluded from its proportionality calculations the following
major group categories of Special Education spending that otherwise satisfy the broad regulatory
de?nition of ?services? that may be considered to demonstrate proportionality compliance:

a Central Of?ce? ($11.15 million);

a IMA Equipment-Materials" ($4.56 million);

I Reimbursement Due Process? ($4.26 million);

I Allocation to Schools for Compliance? ($3.25 million);

I Program Specialists Certi?cated? ($2.94 million);

I IMA Allocation to Schools? ($1.05 million);

I Least Restrictive Environment Counselors? ($0.65 million); and
I Temporary Personnel Account? ($0.13 million).

Though all the subgroups comprise ?services associated with the delivery of instruction,
administration, facilities, pupil support services, technology, and other general infrastructure
necessary to operate and deliver educational instructions and related services? to pupils that is
permitted in the proportionality calculations under section 15495, the District opted not to rely
on those expenditures to demonstrate proportionality in order to ensure that its proportionality
calculations were based upon services geared directly to unduplicated pupils.

e. LAUSD excludes expenditures on services that may involve de minimis
contact with general education students from its proportionality calculations.

Finally, the District excludes expenditures on services that may involve de minimis
contact between Special Education personnel and the general education population from its
proportionality calculations. Speci?cally, with respect to the ?ve major budget subgroups that
fund salaries and health bene?ts for therapists and specialists who participate in assessments to
determine eligibility for Special Education, the District budgets the funding of those activities
through other state and federal funding sources, and does not include expenditures on those
services in its proportionality calculations.

 

13

40

Analysis:

The Complainants claim that the District?s LCAP violates a statute Education Code
section 4223 8.07 and a regulation adopted to implement that statute Cal. Code Regs, tit. 5,
15496, Subd. As discussed below, the statute in question does not purport to govern the
actions of local educational agencies, but is instead a delegation of authority to the State Board
of Education to adopt regulations governing LCAPs. The regulation adopted by the SBE
pursuant to this delegation of authority addresses the issue raised in the Complaint by requiring
local educational agencies to ?[e]stimate the amount of LCFF funds expended by the LEA on
services for unduplicated pupils in the prior year that is in addition to what was expended on
services provided for all pupils? as part of the calculation of ?the percentage by which services
for unduplicated pupils must be increased or improved above services provided to all pupils? in
each ?scal year. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 5, 15496, subd. [emphasis added].) The regulation
does not provide any other guidance regarding this aspect of the proportionality requirement for
LCAPs, except insofar as it de?nes ?services? broadly, and without limitation, to include
?services associated with the delivery of instruction, administration, facilities, pupil support
services, technology, and other general infrastructure necessary to operate and deliver
educational instructions and related services.? (Cal. Code Regs, tit., 5, 15495, subd. 
Thus, the sole source of a potential violation of law referenced in the Complaint is the regulatory
requirement that local educational agencies the amount of LCFF funds expended by
the LEA on services for unduplicated pupils in the prior year that is in addition to what was
expended on services provided for all pupil?s. 

Complainants contend that ?Special Education services cannot be counted as spending on
prior year expenditures on services for High Needs Students because these services are available
to all students . . . who are eligible to take advantage of special education services? and are not
?targeted for High Needs Students.? (Complaint, at pp. 4-5 [emphasis added].) But, the LCAP
regulations do not employ any of these locutions. The State Board of Education did not exclude
services that are ?available to all students . . . who are eligible? for those services from the prior-
year estimate of unduplicated spending. Nor did it exclude services that are not ?targeted for?
unduplicated students. To the contrary, section 15496 directs local educational agencies to
exclude from the prior year estimate of unduplicated spending only ?services provided to all
pupils.? Complainants do not address whether Special Education services constitute ?services
provided to all pupils? under section 15496, but instead introduce language into the regulation
that does not exist.

Accordingly, the Complaint presents a single mixed question of fact and statutory
interpretation: Are Special Education services ?services provided to all pupils? under section
15496 of title 5 of the California Code of Regulations?

 

14

41

As a factual matter, Special Education services are not services provided to all pupils, but
rather services provided to individual pupils who are eligible to receive those services.
Complainants do not present or identify any evidence to support a factual conclusion that Special
Education ?services are services provided to all students? or to otherwise contradict the express
import of the federal and state laws that set the exacting eligibility criteria for quali?ed students
to receive an Individualized Educational Program. The facts further con?rm that the Special
Education expenditures counted by the District towards its prior-year estimates of spending are
expenditures only on the individual students who have quali?ed to receive an IEP. Thus, the
facts do not support a conclusion that Special Education services are services provided to all
pupils.

The only remaining argument suggested in the Complaint is the contention that the
Legislature or the State Board of Education intended Special Education services to be exempt
from the plain meaning of the phrase ?services provided to all students.? Despite numerous
requests lodged by the District, Complainants have not identi?ed any authority in the LCFF and
its implementing regulations, nor any authority in the relevant legislative and regulatory
histories, to support a conclusion that the Legislature or the State Board of Education intended
Special Education to be deemed ?services provided to all students" despite the plain meaning of
that phrase.4

It bears noting that the LCFF, its implementing regulations, and the general law require
that the District?s quasi-legislative decisions regarding the interpretation and implementation of
section 15496 be accorded the most deferential level of judicial scrutiny. (See, American
Coatings Assn, Inc. v. South Coast Ail? Quality Dist. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 446, 461-462; Khan v.
Les Angetss City Employees? Retirement System (2010) 187f (3a1.t"ipp.4th 98, 106.) Mandate in
this context will only ?lie to correct abuses of discretion? and the courts ask whether the public
agency?s action was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support." (County of
Los Aageies v. City ofLos Angeies (2013) 214 Calnitpp?iEh 643, 

 

4 Notably, the correspondence between counsel for LAUSD and counsel for
Complainants contains numerous instances in which LAUSD counsel urged the Complainants to
identify any statutory, regulatory, or other authority in the legislative history of the LCFF and its
implementing regulations that re?ects any legislative intent to deem Special Education services
?services provided to all pupils? despite the plain meaning of that phrase. Complainants did not
identify any such authority, but instead relied solely on arguments that the District?s
proportionality calculations violated the ?spirit of the and arguments that interpolate
language into the relevant statutes and regulations that was neither enacted by the Legislature nor
adopted by the State Board of Education. LAUSD has not identi?ed any authority to support the



be deemed ?services provided to all pupils."

15

42

Alleged Violation of Education Code 42238. 07

Complainants allege a violation of Education Code section 42238.07, a statute that by its
plain language contains only directives addressed to the California State Board of Education,
speci?cally, directives to ?adopt regulations that govern the expenditure of funds apportioned on
the basis of the number and concentration of unduplicated pupils.? Standing alone, this statute
imposes no clear, present ministerial duties on local educational agencies and, accordingly, no
writ of mandate will lie to compel local educational agencies to comply with its terms.

As noted above, the Complaint does not identify any speci?c term of Education Code
section 42238.07 that LAUSD is alleged to have violated. Nor does it articulate how LAUSD
could have violated a statute expressly and solely directed at the State Board of Education.
Complainants reference this statute solely as authority for the proposition that ?school districts
must increase or improve services for High Need Students in proportion to the additional dollars
those students generate.? (Complaint, at p. 4.) Because the regulations adopted by the Board of
Education to govern the LCAP give express effect to this principle, and because Education Code
section 42238.07 does not contain any directives regulating the conduct of local educational
agencies, that provision does not provide any independent authority for the issuance of a writ of
mandate or declaratory relief.

Education Code section 42238.07 may be relevant only to the extent that the regulations
adopted by the State Board of Education are ambiguous and properly susceptible to the
application of extrinsic aids in support of statutory interpretation. The regulations adopted by the
State Board of Education, however, do not admit any ambiguity. Nor are those regulations
inconsistent with the Legislative directives set forth in Education Code section 42238.07. In
relevant part, the plain terms of the regulations direct local districts to perform two discreet tasks
with reSpect to the calculation of funds expended on services for unduplicated pupils. First,
subdivision of section 15496 requires local educational agencies to ?[e]stimate the amount
of LCFF funds expended by the LEA on services for unduplicated pupils in the prior year that is
in addition to what was expended on services provided for all pupils.? Second, that same
provision mandates that ?the estimated amount of funds expended in 2013-14 shall be no less
than the amount of Economic Impact Aid funds the LEA expended in the 2012- 13 ?scal year.?

With respect to the ?rst directive, the evidence clearly shows that LAUSD has properly
estimated the amount of funds expended on unduplicated pupils in addition to what was
expended on services provided to all pupils. Because Special Education services are not services
provided to all pupils, but rather services provided to a small subset of the LAUSD student
population under conditions that prohibit the comingling of Special Education expenditures and
activities with general education expenditures and activities, LAUSD has clearly acted well

16

43

With respect to the second directive, there is no allegation in the Complaint or Petition
that the District?s estimated amount of funds is less than the EIA funds expended in 2012-13.
Indeed, the District expended $125.2 from BIA funding in 2012-13, a number far below the
estimated amounts expended in 2013-14. There is, accordingly, no factual basis to allege a
violation of this directive.

Alleged Mutation of Cal. Code Regs, tt't. 5, 15496

Neither the Complaint nor the Petition points to any express language in any provision of
law that prohibits school districts from counting any category of expenditures made from their
general fund on unduplicated pupils in the calculation of prior year spending other than
?expenditures on services provided to all pupils,? nor to any provision that prohibits school
districts from including any category of expenditures in the account of increased and improved
spending on unduplicated pupils. (Cal. Code Regs, 15946, subd. To the contrary,
Complainants infer a prohibition from the allegedly ?absurd results? that they claim would ensue
if the LCAP is not implemented according to the strictures their legal counsel unsuccessfully
advocated before the Legislature and the State Board of Education. In its correspondence with
counsel, counsel to Complainants alternatively asserted that the District?s actions
violated the ?spirit? of the LCFF.

The LCFF returned control over the decisions regarding school spending to local districts
and their stakeholders, replacing the complex web of layered categorical funding programs that
had formerly constrained the discretion of local school administrators. Complainants? contention
that the ?spirit? of the LCFF prohibits supplantation of the funds that were formerly devoted to
spending on unduplicated pupils through categorical mandates appears to be contradicted in both
the text and legislative history of the LCFF. The original version of the LCFF, set forth in
Senate Bill 69, contained express ?do not supplant? provisions in the form of a draft Education
Code section 52062.5. The early committee reports on this bill expressly re?ect such an
intention. But none of this statutory and committee report language, and no similar mandate,
survived through the ensuing legislative process. Instead, the Legislature ultimately directed the
State Board of Education to adopt regulations that explicitly authorize school districts to use
regarding the expenditure of supplemental and concentration ?inds for ?school-wide" and
?district-wide? purposes in a manner that ?is no more restrictive? than Title 1. (Educ. Code, 
42238.07, subd. Both the emergency and the ?nal regulations adopted pursuant to this
directive consequently outline a more ?exible process for ensuring that supplemental and
concentration grant funding will be used to bene?t unduplicated pupils.

Notably, those regulations grant the highest level of ?exibility to school districts, like
LAUSD, that already serve high concentrations of unduplicated pupils. When those districts are

concentration grant funds on a districtwide basis, they are not required to ?[d]escribe how these
17

44

[district-wide] services are the most efective use of the funds to meet the district?s goals
for its unduplicated pupils in the state and local priority areas.? (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 5, 15496,
subd. [emphasis added].) Nor are they required to ?provide the basis for this
determination, including . . . any alternatives considered and any supporting research,
experience, or educational theory in defense of their district-wide spending.? (Haiti) Rather, the
regulations permit a school district like LAUSD to expend supplemental and concentration grant
funds on a districtwide basis as long as the LCAP describes ?how such services are principally
directed towards, and are effective in, meeting the district?s goals for its unduplicated pupils in
the state and any local priority areas." (Id, subd. [emphasis added].)

Likewise, on the input side of the equation, the LCFF funding formula itself recognizes
that the education of high concentrations of unduplicated pupils necessarily comports additional
expenditures by school districts, above and beyond the standard supplemental expenditures
required for unduplicated pupils. Districts receive a supplemental grant based on the number of
low-income students, English learners, and foster children they serve. But, districts in which
these students make up at least 55 percent of enrollment will be entitled to an additional
?concentration? grant, equaling an extra 50 percent of the base grant for each high-needs student
above the 55 percent threshold. The purpose of providing an additional per?pupil bonus grant
amount for districts with a greater the concentration of high-need students is clear: it is a
legislative recognition that the cost of servicing large numbers of unduplicated pupils is not
re?ected in simply by increasing the additional per-student grant amount, but that the greater
concentration of such students makes the costs of servicing those pupils even higher on a per-
pupil basis. In other words, the Legislature clearly recognizes that school districts like LAUSD
already incur substantial additional costs, and devote substantial additional resources, simply by
providing core educational programs to high concentrations of unduplicated students. This
express statutory formula, and the concomitant Legislative decision to reject ?do not supplant?
requirements to restrict the spending of LCFF supplemental and concentrated funds exclusively
on unduplicated pupils, together re?ect the manifest ?spirit? of ?exibility contained in the LCFF,
particularly regarding school districts that already serve high concentrations of unduplicated
pupils.

Because the overwhelming majority of pupils are unduplicated, the
district-wide core educational program is itself ?principally directed towards . . . meeting the
district?s goals for its unduplicated pupils.? (Cal. Code Regs, 5, 15496, subd. 
Complainants have nonetheless demanded that $450 million of expenditures on the provision of
special education services to unduplicated pupils be removed from the estimate of funds
expended on unduplicated pupils that is required in the LCAP subdivision of 5 Cal. Code
Regs, 15496. Complainantss demands are not supported in the law, nor are they consistent
with the core purpose of the LCFF to grant local districts greater discretion over the expenditure

 

of funds on unduplicated pupils.

18

45

Conclusions:

Complainants? legal contentions do not have any support in the law. The plain language
of the LCAP regulations directs local educational agencies to ?[e]sti1nate the amount of LCFF
funds expended by the LEA on services for unduplicated pupils in the prior year that is in
addition to what was expended on services provided for all pupils.? (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 5,
15946, subd. [emphasis added].) Special Education are not ?services provided for all
pupils,? but rather services provided to a small percentage of the student population that quali?es
to receive an individualized education program under the requirements set forth in federal and
state law. Complainants have not identi?ed any authority in the legislative history of the LCFF
or regulatory history of the LCAP regulations that suggests a legislative intent to deem Special
Education a service provided to all pupils. Accordingly, LAUSD acted well within its
considerable discretion to interpret subdivision of section 15496 according to its plain
meaning.

 

19

46

Exhibit C: Appeal Letter

47

November 12, 2015
State Superintendent Tom Torlakson
c/o Local Agency Systems Support Office
California Department of Education
1430 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
lcff@cde.ca.gov
Via E-Mail and U.S.P.S. Priority Mail
Re:

Appeal of Uniform Complaint Procedure Complaint Re Superintendent Cortines
and LAUSD’s Failure to Comply with Legal Requirements Pertaining to LCAP

Dear Superintendent Torlakson,
We submit this appeal of the determination of the Los Angeles Unified School District
with respect to the Uniform Complaint Procedure (“UCP”) complaint our firms filed on behalf of
Ms. Reyna Frias and Community Coalition of South Los Angeles (“CoCoSouthLA”). This
appeal is regarding Los Angeles Unified School District and Superintendent Cortines’s
(collectively “LAUSD” or the “District”) failure to comply with the legal requirements
pertaining to its Local Control and Accountability Plan (“LCAP”).
As discussed more fully in the attached UCP complaint (the “Complaint”), LAUSD has
violated its legal obligations under Education Code § 42238.07 and 5 C.C.R. § 15496 by
including special education spending as part of its estimate of prior year expenditures for
services for foster youth, low income students, and English learners (collectively “High Need
Students”) in its 2014-15 and 2015-16 LCAPs. Accordingly, we requested through a UCP
complaint that LAUSD revise its 2015-16 LCAP to ensure that the district spends the proper
amount of money on increased and improved services for High Need Students.1
On November 9, 2015, we received the attached determination and report of findings
from LAUSD in which the district concludes that the “[c]omplainants’ legal contentions do not
1

Please find the UCP complaint, dated September 9, 2015, as Exhibit 1 to this appeal. The document may be
downloaded electronically at https://www.dropbox.com/s/9pnqojfhbzk864k/Att%201%20-%202015-0909%20LAUSD%20UCP%20Complaint%20re%20LAUSD%20LCAP.pdf?dl=0.

1
48

 have any support in the law” and thus fails to provide the relief requested by Ms. Frias and
CoCoSouthLA in their Complaint.2 We now appeal LAUSD’s erroneous legal determination to
the Superintendent and request that the Superintendent correct this misapplication of the law for
the reasons described in the attached Complaint. We incorporate all arguments in the attached
Complaint into this appeal.
In addition to the bases set forth in the attached Complaint, LAUSD’s response
acknowledges several points warranting a determination from the Superintendent in favor of
Complainants:


There are no material facts in dispute here. We assert in the Complaint that “[b]ased on its
estimate that 79% of students who received special education services were unduplicated
pupils in 2013-14, LAUSD counted approximately $450 million of special education
expenses as prior year spending on services for unduplicated pupils.”3 LAUSD concedes in
its letter that “79%[ ] of the District’s students with disabilities are identified as low income,
English learners or foster youth” and that the District “identified the subset of Special
Education programs that benefit these targeted student populations and applied 79 percent to
the expenditures of those programs to estimate the share that would benefit these high need
students”— totaling $449.8 million.4 In sum, LAUSD acknowledges it is crediting as
baseline prior year supplemental and concentration spending a share of nearly all of its
special education “encroachment,” i.e., the general fund special education program costs not
covered by federal and state categoricals, proportional to the 79% representation of High
Need Students in its special education population.



The key question is purely one of legal interpretation. As the District emphasizes, at issue is
the regulation requiring the district to “[e]stimate the amount of LCFF funds expended by the
LEA on services for unduplicated pupils in the prior year that is in addition to what was
expended on services provided for all pupils.”5 Yet, LAUSD fails to respond substantively to
the Complaint’s arguments that its reading of “services provided for all pupils” to mean only
those services provided to precisely “100% of pupils” is unsupported by the regulatory and
statutory language; nor does LAUSD respond to the assertion that its reading would lead to
absurd results by allowing districts to apply its unduplicated pupil percentage to any program
that, “like special education services—are available to all students, but serve only a portion
of students, including summer school, after-school programs, sports and other extracurricular
activities, counseling and health services, and class-size reduction initiatives . . . to name a
few.”6 The District also fails to respond directly to the Complaint’s arguments as to why
“special education services” constitute “services provided for all pupils” as opposed to
“services for unduplicated pupils.”7



In addition, LAUSD wholly fails to refute the Complaint’s argument that its practice violates
the mandate to “increase or improves services for unduplicated pupils as compared to

2

See LAUSD Report of Findings, Exhibit 2, at page 19,
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3cdgl9bto1e0kpp/Att%202%20-%20LAUSD%20UCP%20Determination.pdf?dl=0.
3
Exhibit 1, Attachment 1 (Writ Petition) ¶58; see also id.at ¶73.
4
Exhibit 2 at p.10.
5
Exhibit 2 at p.14 (5 Cal. Code Regs. § 15496(a)).
6
Exhibit 1, Attachment 1 (Writ Petition) ¶¶74-76. See in general
7
Exhibit 1, Attachment 1 (Writ Petition) ¶¶66-73.

2
49

 services provided to all pupils,” as the statute and regulations require.8 To “increase” or
“improve” means to grow services in “quantity” or “quality.”9 Because special education
expenditures are incurred pursuant to preexisting legal mandates in federal and state law,
“and are used to maintain, not increase, legally required services, they cannot be included as
expenditures that ‘increase or improves services for unduplicated pupils as compared to
services provided to all pupils.’”10 Accordingly, LEAs are not permitted to subsidize the preexisting and ongoing costs of delivering Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) required by
federal law with LCFF supplemental and concentration funds.


Indeed, LAUSD concedes that special education services are not “services for unduplicated
pupils”—which are the only type of services that may be supported with supplemental and
concentration funds. As the District explains, a child will be excluded from special education
services for such factors as “limited English proficiency . . ., social maladjustment; or . . .
environmental, cultural or economic factors” that may include “unstable home life.”11 Yet
students who face such barriers are precisely the type of students who are targeted as
“unduplicated students” under LCFF—Enlish language learners, foster youth and lowincome students. LAUSD thus acknowledges that students with disabilities who are receiving
special education services do so not because of their unduplicated status, but in spite of that
status.

For all the reasons stated here and in the attached Complaint, the District has misapplied
the law to deny the Complaint and the Superintendent should overturn LAUSD’s determination.
Accordingly, the Superintendent must require the District to revise its 2015-16 LCAP to remove
special education funding as part of its prior year spending for High Need Students and revise its
proportionality calculation and its LCAP to ensure that it spends the appropriate amount of
money on increased and improved services for High Need Students in FY 2015-16 and in future
years. For any questions related to this appeal or to contact the complainants, please contact the
attorneys listed below.
Sincerely,

John Affeldt
Managing Attorney/Education Program Director
Public Advocates, Inc.
131 Steuart Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105-1241
(415) 431-7430
jaffeldt@publicadvocates.org

8

5 Cal. Code Regs. § 15496(a).
5 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15495(k) & (l).
10
Exhibit 1, Attachment 1 (Writ Petition) ¶¶86-90.
11
Exhibit 2 at p.8.
9

3
50

Dave Sapp
Director of Education Advocacy/Legal Counsel
ACLU of California
1313 West Eighth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017-9639
(213) 977-5220
dsapp@aclusocal.org

 Laura Muschamp
Partner
Covington & Burling, LLP
2029 Century Park East Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3044
(858) 678-1803
lmuschamp@cov.com
Enclosures
(For the electronic version of this appeal, click on the weblinks below to download attachments.)
Attachment 1: September 9, 2015 UCP Complaint re: LAUSD LCAP
Attachment 2: November 9, 2015 LAUSD Report of Findings re: UCP Complaint

4
51

 Exhibit D: LAUSD 2015-16 Local Control and Accountability Plan

Click Here for:
LAUSD 2015-16 LCAP

52

 Exhibit E: LAUSD Special Education Expenditures in SACS Resource 6500

53

LAUSD Special Education Programs in SACS Resource 6500
The below tables identify the programs in SACS Resource 6500 that were included in the LCFF
supplemental calculation of $450 million and those that were excluded.
Included in Supplemental Calculation
SPED-ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION
SPED-ADMINISTRATORS-SPED CENTERS
SPED-ASSISTANT OVERTIME-X & Z TIME/RENORMING
SPED-ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL ELEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONAL SPECIALIST
SPED-ASSISTANTS
SPED-ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY
SPED-CLERICAL SUPPORT-SPED CENTERS
SPED-DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING
SPED-EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR
SPED-NON PUBLIC SERVICES
SPED-NURSING SERVICES
SPED-OCCUPATIONAL & PHYSICAL THERAPY
SPED-OPTIONS
SPED-PSYCHIATRIC SOCIAL WORKERS
SPED-PSYCHOLOGISTS
SPED-SPEECH & LANGUAGE
SPED-TEACHER-ITINERANTS
SPED-TEACHER-RESOURCE SPECIALIST PROGRAM
SPED-TEACHER-SPECIAL DAY PROGRAM
SPED-TEACHER-SUPPL & SUB TIME/RENORMING/PROF DEVELOPMENT
SPED-VISUALLY IMPAIRED

Excluded from Supplemental Calculation
SPED-ALLOCATION TO SCHOOLS FOR COMPLIANCE
SPED-ASSISTANTS-PRESCHOOL
SPED-CAREER & TRANSITION PROGRAM
SPED-DONATIONS
SPED-EDUCATIONALLY RELATED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
SPED-IMA ALLOCATION TO SCHOOLS
SPED-IMA-EQUIP-MATERIAL
SPED-LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT COUNSELORS
SPED-PASS THROUGH FOR INDEPENDENT CHARTERS
SPED-PRESCHOOL PROGRAM SERVICES (INCLUDING ITINERANTS)

54

 SPED-PROGRAM SPECIALISTS-CERTIFICATED
SPED-REIMBURSEMENT-DUE PROCESS
SPED-TEACHER-SPECIAL DAY PROGRAM-PRESCHOOL
SPED-TEMPORARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNT

55