CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION SUBJECT TO EVIDENCE CODE § 1152 Ella T. v. California Settlement Term Sheet I. Block Grant to Support Literacy in Primary Grades Defendants will propose legislation that includes the following elements, all of which is subject to approval by the Legislature: Block Grant Amount: $50 million over 3 years, less no more than $3 million in administrative costs for CDE to administer grants and review and approve plans. Grant Eligibility: 75 schools, including charter schools, with the highest percentage of students scoring Level 1 on Grade 3 ELA SBAC, based on a two-year weighted average of results from 2018 and 2019 Grade 3 ELA SBAC.  Eligibility list includes schools designated as “Traditional” for their “Educational Option Type,” as found in the CALPADS UPC Source File 201819.  Eligibility list excludes schools who report valid Grade 3 ELA SBAC scores for fewer than 11 students. Individual Grant Amounts: Defendants will propose legislation that specifies that grant amounts are determined based on the school’s grade 3 enrollment, with three tiers (small, medium, large) based on school size.  The final grant awards will be set based on the final list of eligible schools and distribution across the three funding tiers. Grant Requirements: Defendants will propose legislation that defines the following requirements for use of grant funds.  School-Level Root Cause Analysis/Needs Assessment: The LEA for each eligible school shall conduct a root cause analysis/needs assessment for each eligible school (except as provided in the final sub-bullet below). o The root cause analysis/needs assessment shall examine school-level and LEA-level practices or unmet needs, including school climate, factors related to social-emotional learning, and the experience of students who are below grade-level standard on the California State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy and their families, that have contributed   sf‐4148732  1 to low student outcomes on the grade 3 English Language Assessment (ELA) of the SBAC at the eligible school. o The needs assessment shall identify the school/LEA’s strengths and weaknesses with regard to K-3 literacy instruction. The LEA shall review all relevant diagnostic measures, including but not limited to, student performance data, data on effective and ineffective practices, and equity and performance gaps. o The LEA shall consult with stakeholders, including school staff, school leaders, parents, and community members, at each eligible school around the root cause analysis/needs assessment and proposed expenditures of the grant funds. The LEA may use the applicable school site council for this purpose. If the school site council is used for this purpose, the school shall provide public notice of meetings and shall conduct meetings as required by Education Code section 35147. o The LEA shall partner with staff with expertise in literacy at the relevant COE, Geo Lead, or Expert Lead on Literacy in the development of the root cause analysis/needs assessment and Literacy Action Plan. In addition, the LEA may partner with a member of an institution of higher education or non-profit with expertise in literacy for this purpose, and may also involve experts in participatory design and meaningful community involvement. o If an LEA/eligible school has completed a root cause analysis/needs assessment that complies with all of the requirements listed above within the last two years, it may use that analysis and assessment for purposes of developing and adopting a Literacy Action Plan.  Development and Adoption of Literacy Action Plan for Eligible Schools: Defendants will propose legislation that specifies that, based on the root cause analysis/needs assessment, the LEA shall develop a three-year LEA Literacy Action Plan. o The LEA shall provide a copy of the draft LEA Literacy Action plan to each eligible school to share with the school community before it is finalized for presentation to the LEA’s governing board. o The Plan shall be adopted at a regularly scheduled, publicly noticed meeting of the governing board, as a non-consent agenda item. o The Plan shall include goals and actions to improve literacy instruction based on the root cause analysis/needs assessment and shall include a section reflecting the input received from stakeholders at each eligible school as part of the root cause analysis/needs assessment.   sf‐4148732  2 o The Plan shall identify metrics to measure progress toward the goals and actions. o The Plan shall identify planned expenditures by selecting one or more of the acceptable uses detailed in the Framework for Literacy Education, set forth below. o Grant funds may be used only to fund supplemental activities targeted at Grades K-3 and shall not supplant already existing activities being provided by the LEA or at the school. The money shall be targeted for improvement strategies for K-3 students at eligible schools. o An LEA that has more than one eligible school may develop one Plan addressing all of its eligible schools and the allocated funds can be combined to maximize results at the eligible schools, so long as that Plan is specifically responsive to the root cause analysis specific to the school.  Framework for Literacy Education: Defendants will propose legislation that specifies four categories of programs/services for which grants may be expended. 1. Access to High-Quality Literacy Teaching:  Hiring of literacy coaches or instructional aides to provide supports to struggling students, which may include bilingual reading specialists to support EL programs.  Development of strategies to provide culturally responsive curriculum.  Evidence-based professional development for teachers, instructional aides, and school leaders regarding literacy instruction and literacy achievement and the use of data to help identify and support struggling students.  Professional development for teachers and school leaders regarding implementation of the ELA/ELD framework and the use of data to support effective instruction. 2. Support for Literacy Learning:    sf‐4148732  Purchase of literacy curriculum resources and instructional materials aligned with the ELA/ELD standards and framework. This would be a permissible use of funds only if the literacy plan also includes professional development for staff on effective use of these materials. 3  Purchase of diagnostic assessment instruments to help assess student needs and progress and training to school staff regarding the use of such assessments. 3. Student Supports:  Expanded learning programs, such as before and after school programs or summer school, to improve students’ access to literacy instruction.  Extended school day to enable implementation of Breakfast in the Classroom or Library model to support expanded literacy instruction.  Strategies to improve school climate, student connectedness, and attendance and to reduce exclusionary discipline practices, including in-school suspensions, that may limit student’s time in school.  Strategies to implement research-based social-emotional learning approaches, including restorative justice.  Expanded access to the school library. 4. Families and Community:  Development of trauma-informed practices and supports for students and families.  Provision of mental health resources to support student learning.  Strategies to implement MTSS and RTI.  Development of literacy training and education for parents to help develop a supportive literacy environment in the home.  Strategies to improve parent and community engagement and to improve communications to parents regarding how to address students’ literacy needs. Grant Administration: The block grant funds would be administered as follows:    sf‐4148732  LEAs would receive up to $50,000 for each eligible school for purposes of conducting the root cause analysis/needs assessment for each eligible school, and preparing the LEA’s Literacy Action Plan. 4  Submission of Literacy Action Plan to CDE: CDE or its designee shall review the Literacy Action Plan to determine if: o The LEA consulted with each eligible school site and stakeholders in the development of the root cause analysis/needs assessment. o The LEA identified the COE, Geo Lead, or Expert Lead on Literacy with which they partnered in the development of the root cause analysis/needs assessment and Literacy Action Plan. o The Literacy Action Plan was approved by the governing board at a publicly noticed meeting. o The planned expenditures are authorized by the Framework for Literacy Education. o The Literacy Action Plan clearly articulates that the use of funds are for supplemental activities.    Upon approval of the Literacy Action Plan by CDE or its designee, the LEA would receive the balance of the first-year allocation to begin implementing the plan at eligible schools.  The LEA shall provide CDE, the school site council at each eligible school, and the LEA’s governing board with quarterly reports demonstrating that it has made expenditures consistent with the applicable Literacy Action Plan. These reports shall also be publicly posted on the LEA’s website.  On an annual basis, each LEA shall submit to CDE, the school site council at each eligible school, and the LEA’s governing board a report of achievement towards the actions and goals, and an assessment of progress made on the metrics identified in its Literacy Action Plan. These reports shall also be publicly posted on the LEA’s website.  At the end of the second year of grant eligibility, each LEA with an eligible school shall, as a non-consent agenda item at a regularly scheduled, publicly noticed meeting of the governing board, provide an update on progress implementing the Literacy Action Plan. The LEA may modify the Literacy Action Plan based on this update, consistent with the permitted uses of the funds.   Upon submission of required reports, the LEA shall receive the second- and third-year allocations. sf‐4148732  5 Independent Evaluation:  CDE will give good faith consideration to any proposal to evaluate literacy outcomes for grantee schools that (a) is submitted by an independent evaluator recommended by Plaintiffs and (b) does not require funding, staffing or budgetary resources by the State or CDE. The purpose of the evaluation will be to conduct a study of the effectiveness of the grant, identify effective practices and responses to common challenges, and to make recommendations that can be used for continuous improvement by other schools or LEAs. Following consideration, CDE will have the discretion to approve, reject, or request modifications to the evaluation proposal. Prior to rejecting or requesting modifications, the CDE will meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel. The parties agree that CDE’s ultimate decision to approve or reject the evaluation proposal, or its reasons or basis for doing so, is not subject to judicial review or a claim for breach of the settlement agreement.  CDE and Plaintiffs agree that any written report arising from the evaluation will be made publicly available. 30 days prior to publication, the independent evaluator shall provide a copy of the report to the Plaintiffs and Defendants for review.  The block grant will include a term requiring LEAs who receive grant funds to provide reasonable access to data collected during the implementation of the grant, to school sites, and to personnel involved in the implementation of the grant in the event CDE approves the independent evaluation proposal. Any collection shall be subject to the laws governing student and employee privacy, including Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. Section 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99), The National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758; 7 CFR Section 245.6), California Information Practices Act (Civil Code Section 1798.24), and Education Code sections 49079.5, 47079.7, 49558 and 60607.  If the evaluator seeks data from the CDE pursuant to this section, it must comply with the CDE’s established procedures for data requests through the data request portal. Proposed Timing:  January 2020: Block grant included as part of Governor’s Budget Proposal.  July 2020: Deadline for adoption of State Budget. ● August 2020: If block grant is approved as part of State Budget, CDE notifies eligible schools and their LEAs of eligibility for block grant.   sf‐4148732  6  II. Fall 2020: Initial $50,000 allocation released to eligible schools that agree to grant conditions to conduct root cause analysis/needs assessment and to develop LEA Literacy Action Plan. Creation of Expert Lead on Literacy Defendants will propose legislation that includes the following elements, all of which is subject to approval by the Legislature: III. IV.    Creation of expert lead at the CCEE, collaborating with CDE and SBE through the system of support.  Three years/$3 million.  The expert lead on literacy will help the relevant COE and LEAs build capacity around literacy instruction and may assist in the development of the root cause analysis/needs assessment and Literacy Action Plans.  As part of the system of support, the expert lead on literacy will create professional learning networks to help build capacity statewide. Community Engagement Initiative  Defendants will request that the CCEE add Stockton USD to the 2nd cohort of LEAs participating in the Community Engagement Initiative.  Stockton USD may apply, and if it applies, it shall agree to Initiative requirements.   State Guidance: New Laws on Discipline  Guidance from the SBE President/SPI on two new laws regarding discipline: SB 419 prohibition on suspension for willful defiance in Grades K-8 and AB 983 requiring LEAs to provide suspended students with homework assignments. The guidance will also (1) address existing requirements related to “other means of correction” under Education Code Section 48900.5, including clarification that “other means of correction” includes additional academic supports, and (2) identify resources and strategies to reduce or eliminate racially disproportionate suspensions.  SBE/CDE will provide a draft of the proposed guidance to Plaintiffs’ counsel at least six weeks prior to publishing the guidance. Plaintiffs’ counsel may provide written feedback on the draft for consideration, and the parties will meet and confer, if requested by Plaintiffs’ counsel, about the written feedback prior to the planned date of publication. SBE/CDE will consider in sf‐4148732  7 good faith any suggestions proposed by Plaintiffs’ counsel, but SBE/CDE shall retain final editorial control regarding the guidance. V. Blue Ribbon Commission/Expert Panel on Exclusionary Discipline  VI. State Official Visit to Stockton USD  VII. CDE/SPI will host an expert panel to discuss strategies to limit exclusionary discipline practices. Meeting with Stockton USD and community members Settlement and Dismissal Process Settlement Process  Following agreement on this Settlement Term Sheet, the parties will promptly begin work on a settlement agreement and proposed legislation.The Parties agree that any announcement or public statements by the parties disclosing the terms of the settlement or proposed legislation will not occur until after the Governor’s 2020-21 Budget proposal is released. o Defendants agree to promptly notify Plaintiffs’ counsel as soon as the release time and date for the Governor’s 2020-21 Budget proposal are announced. o The parties agree to give each other no less than 24 hours’ notice before they make a public announcement of the proposed legislation and/or terms of the settlement. This does not include the announcement of the Governor’s 2020-21 Budget proposal, for which Defendants agree to promptly notify Plaintiffs’ counsel as soon as the release time and date are announced.    sf‐4148732  Following agreement on this Settlement Term Sheet, the parties shall jointly inform the Court that they have reached an agreement in principle to settle the case, are working on a formal settlement agreement, are suspending all discovery in light of the agreement and will provide a further written update to the Court regarding settlement by January 13, 2020, and, at the Court’s option, will also appear at a status conference to be scheduled during the week of January 13, 2020 to update the Court on the settlement. The parties will also jointly request that the Court vacate the Final Status Conference scheduled for January 10, 2020, and the requirement to submit pretrial filings, currently due on January 3, 2020. 8  Following action by the State Board of Education at its meetings scheduled January 8 or 9, 2020, and signature of the settlement agreement by all defendants, the parties shall file a notice of conditional settlement and request that the Court vacate the trial date, stay the case, and set a hearing on an Order to Show Cause regarding why the case should not be dismissed in light of the settlement for September 2020.  As a part of the 2020-21 budget process, the Defendants shall propose legislation as reflected in Sections I and II of this Settlement Term Sheet.  Defendants shall provide electronic notice to Plaintiffs’ counsel and copies of any enacted and signed legislation that Defendants believe suffice to satisfy the requirements of Sections I and II of the Settlement Term Sheet.  If Plaintiffs agree that legislation enacted as part of the 2020-21 budget process substantially conforms with the parties’ agreed-upon proposals, Plaintiffs shall dismiss the litigation with prejudice within 15 days of receipt of the proposed notice.  If a party believes that the Legislature has passed legislation as part of the 2020-21 budget process that does not substantially conform to the proposed legislation, the parties agree to meet-and-confer within 5 days of Defendants’ notice (or within 5 days of a notice or request sent by Plaintiffs following final passage of the legislation by the Legislature) and advise the other parties whether they would seek to void settlement if the legislation is signed into law. If Defendants become aware prior to the passage of the legislation that it may not substantially conform to the proposed legislation, they will provide notice to plaintiffs as soon as possible prior to passage of the legislation. Following meet and confer, Plaintiffs may dismiss with prejudice or move the Court to lift the stay of the litigation and submit a proposed timeline for further proceedings. Defendants may oppose a motion to lift the stay on any legal ground, including but not limited to, opposition on the ground that the legislation substantially conforms to the parties’ agreed-upon proposals, or based on Plaintiffs’ requested proceedings.  If the proposed legislation is dropped from consideration by the Legislature, or finally rejected during the legislative session without passing any part of it, Defendants will inform Plaintiffs and the parties will jointly move the Court to lift the stay that is being applied in light of the settlement. Covenants Regarding Conduct After Settlement and Before Enactment    sf‐4148732  Plaintiffs agree that neither they nor their counsel will support any alternative to the proposed legislation included in Sections I and II in the 2020-21 budget process or a competing legislative proposal to the proposed legislation included in Sections I or II in the 2019-20 legislative session. Defendants 9 agree that neither they nor their counsel will support any alternative to the proposed legislation in Sections I and II in the 2020-21 budget process or a competing legislative proposal to the proposed legislation included in Sections I or II in the 2019-20 legislative session.   The parties will engage in good faith efforts to obtain the enactment of legislation implementing the agreed-upon proposals.  The parties understand and acknowledge that a member or members of the legislature may seek to modify the legislative proposal after it is proposed. The Defendants are not covenanting to pass the legislative proposal. Failure of the proposed legislation is not a breach of the settlement and Plaintiffs’ sole remedy is to move to lift the stay of the case as described above. No oral or written statement made by the parties (Plaintiffs or Defendants), their agents, their counsel, or in the case of Defendants, other State officials, as a part of the process of introducing, seeking, testifying or advocating the proposed legislation shall be submitted to the court in briefs, oral argument, or trial, or otherwise used by either party in support of liability, any defenses, or any relief in the course of litigation if the case is not dismissed with prejudice. If the parties dispute whether legislation passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor substantially conforms to the terms of this Settlement Term Sheet, nothing in the foregoing shall preclude the Court from comparing the legislation to the settlement for the purpose of resolving that dispute..    sf‐4148732  Defendants shall have unilateral discretion to proceed with or delay performance on the terms stated in Sections III, IV, V and VI so long as the proposed legislation reflected in Sections I and II remain pending. Defendants shall not be required to perform on the terms stated in Sections III, IV, V and VI unless and until Plaintiffs dismiss their claims with prejudice. 10 Dated: December 13 2019 Dated: December 11 2019 Dated: December 2019 sf?4148732 MORRISON 8: FOERSTER LLP MICHAEL A. JACOBS ERIK J. OLSON ROBIN STAFFORD ROMAN A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs PUBLIC COUNSEL MARK ROSENBAUM ALISA HARTZ ANNE RUTH CUSICK MARK ROSENBAUMW Attorneys for Plaintiffs ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA By: SUSAN M. CARSON Supervising Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants 11