california state board of education september 2005 agenda

CA Dept of EDUCATION mobile 

Agenda--September 7- 8, 2005 

California State Board of Education (SBE) meeting agenda. 

State Board Members 

Ruth E. Green, President 

Glee Johnson, Vice President 

Alan Bersin 

Ruth Bloom 

Yvonne Chan 

Don Fisher 

Kenneth Noonan 

Joe Nuñez 

Bonnie Reiss 

Johnathan Williams 

Vacant, Student Member 

Secretary & Executive Officer 

Hon. Jack O’Connell 

Executive Director 

Vacant 

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 

9:00 a.m. ± 

SCHEDULE OF MEETING LOCATION 

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 

Closed Session – IF NECESSARY 

(The public may not attend.) 

California Department of Education 

1430 N Street, Room 1101 

Sacramento, California 

916-319-0827 

The Closed Session (1) may commence earlier than 9:00 a.m.; (2) may begin at or before 9:00 a.m., be recessed, and then be 

reconvened later in the day; or (3) may commence later than 9:00 a.m. 

CLOSED SESSION AGENDA 

Under Government Code section 11126(e)(1), the State Board of Education hereby provides public notice that some or all of the 

pending litigation which follows will be considered and acted upon, as necessary and appropriate, in closed session: 

Acevedo, et al. v. State of California, et al., Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 03CS00827 

Adkins, et al. v. State of California, et al., Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 03CS00938 

Aguayo, et al. v. State of California, et al., Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 03CS00825 

Amy v. California Dept. of Education, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 99CV2644LSP 

Boyd, et al. v. State of California, et al., Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 01CS00136 

Brian Ho, et al., v. San Francisco Unified School District, et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, 

Case No. C-94-2418 WHO 

Buckle, et al. v. State of California, et al., Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 03CS00826 

California Association of Private Special Education Schools, et al., v. California Department of Education, et al., Los Angeles 

County Superior Court, Case No. BC272983 

California Department of Education, et al., v. San Francisco Unified School District, et al., San Francisco Superior Court, 

Case No. 994049 and cross-complaint and cross-petition for writ of mandate and related actions 

California State Board of Education v. Delaine Eastin, the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of California, 

Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 97CS02991 and related appeal 

Californians for Justice Education Fund, et al. v. State Board of Education, San Francisco City/County Superior Court, Case

No. CPF-03-50227 

Campbell Union High School District, et al. v. State Board of Education, et al., Sacramento Superior Court, Case No. 

99CS00570 

Centinela Valley Union High School District v. State Board of Education, et.al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 

S093054 

Centinela Valley Union High School District v. State Board of Education, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 

S093483 

Chapman, et al. v. California Department of Education, et al., Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. 2002-049636 

Chapman, et al. v. California Department of Education, et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, 

Case No. C-01-1780 BZ 

City Council of the City of Folsom v. State Board of Education, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 96-CS00954 

Coachella Valley Unified School District, et.al., v. State of California, et.al. Case No. CPF-05-505334 

Coachella Valley Unified School District, et al. v. State of California, et al., Case No. C-05-2657 WHA 

Coalition for Locally Accountable School Systems v. State Board of Education, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case 

No. 96-CS00939 

Comité de Padres de Familia v. Honig, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 281124; 192 Cal.App.3d 528 (1987) 

Crawford v. Honig, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. C-89-0014 DLJ 

CTA, et al. v. Wilson, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 98-9694 ER (CWx) and related 

appeal 

Daniel, et al. v. State of California, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC214156 

Donald Urista, et al. v. Torrance Unified School District, et al., United States District Court, Central District of California, Case 

No. 97-6300 ABC 

Dutton v. State of California, et al. Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 03CS01723 

Educational Ideas, Inc. v. State of California, et al., Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 00CS00798 

Emma C., et al. v. Delaine Eastin, et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. C 96 4179 

EMS-BP, LLC, Options for Youth Burbank, Inc. et al. v. California Department of Education, et al., Sacramento County 

Superior Court, Case No. 03CS01078 / 03CS01079 

Ephorm, et al. v. California Board of Education, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. TC013485 

Grant Joint Union High School District v. California State Board of Education, et al. Sacramento County Superior Court, 

Case No. 03 CS 01087 

Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F.Supp 926 (N.D. Ca. 1979) aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 793 F.2d 969 (9th Cir. 1986) 

Maureen Burch, et al. v. California State Board of Education, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BS034463 and 

related appeal 

McNeil v. State Board of Education, San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. 395185 

Meinsen, et al. v. Grossmont Unified School District, et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. C 96 

1804 S LSP (pending) 

Miller, et al. v. California Department of Education, et al., San Diego Superior Court, North District, Case No. GIN036930 

Ocean View School District, et al. v SBE, et al., Superior Court of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-02-406738 

Pazmiño, et al. v. California State Board of Education, et al., San Francisco City/County Superior Court, Case No. CPF-03- 

502554 

Porter, et al., v. Manhattan Beach Unified School District, et al., United States District Court, Central District, Case No. CV- 

00-08402 

Renaissance Academy Charter School, et al. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, et al., Los Angeles County Superior 

Court, Case No. BS090869 

Roxanne Serna, et al., v. Delaine Eastin, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, et al., Los Angles County Superior 

Court, Case No. BC174282 

San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified School District, et al., United States District Court, Northern District of 

California, Case No. 78-1445 WHO 

San Mateo-Foster City School District, et al., v. State Board of Education, San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. 

387127 

San Rafael Elementary School District v. State Board of Education, et al., Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 98- 

CS01503 and related appeal 

Shevtsov v. California Department of Education, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CV 97- 

6483 IH (CT) 

Sonoma County Superintendents of Schools, et. al. v. Special Education Hearing Office, et.al. Sacramento County Superior 

Court, Case No. 04AS0393 

Valeria G., et al. v. Wilson, et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. C-98-2252-CAL; 

Angel V. v. Davis, Ninth Circuit No. 01-15219 

Tinsley v. State of California, San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. 206010 

Wilkins, et al., v. California Board of Education, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. TC014071

Williams, et al. v. State of California, et al., San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 312236 

Wilson, et al. v. State Board of Education, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC254081 

Under Government Code section 11126(e)(2), the State Board of Education hereby provides public notice that it may meet in 

closed session to determine whether, based on existing facts and circumstances, any matter presents a significant exposure to 

litigation [see Government Code section 11126(e)(2)(B)(ii)] and, if so, to proceed with closed session consideration and action on 

that matter, as necessary and appropriate [see Government Code section 11126(e)(2)(B)(i)]; or, based on existing facts and 

circumstances, if it has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation [see Government Code section 11126(e)(2)(C)]. 

Under Government Code section 11126(c)(14), the State Board of Education hereby provides public notice that it may meet in 

closed session to review and discuss the actual content of pupil achievement tests (including, but not limited to, the High School 

Exit Exam) that have been submitted for State Board approval and/or approved by the State Board. 

Under Government Code section 11126(a), the State Board of Education hereby provides public notice that it may meet in closed 

session regarding the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, or dismissal of employees exempt from civil service 

under Article VII, Section 4(e) of the California Constitution. 


Wednesday, September 7, 2005 

9:00 a.m. ± (Upon Adjournment of Closed Session, if held) 


Public Session 




916-319-0827 

Please see the detailed agenda for more information about the items to be considered and acted upon. The public is welcome. 

Thursday, September 8, 2005 

8:00 a.m. ± 


Closed Session – IF NECESSARY 

(The public may not attend.) 





916-319-0827 

Please see Closed Session Agenda above. The Closed Session (1) may commence earlier than 8:00 a.m.; (2) may begin at or 

before 8:00 a.m., be recessed, and then be reconvened later in the day; or (3) may commence later than 8:00 a.m. 


Thursday, September 8, 2005 

8:00 a.m. ± (Upon Adjournment of Closed Session, if held) 






916-319-0827 

Please see the detailed agenda for more information about the items to be considered and acted upon. The public is welcome. 

ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE PROVIDED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY 

ALL ITEMS MAY BE RE-ORDERED TO BE HEARD 

ON ANY DAY OF THE NOTICED MEETING 

THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED WITHOUT NOTICE 

Persons wishing to address the State Board of Education on a subject to be considered at this meeting, including any matter that 

may be designated for public hearing, are asked to notify the State Board of Education Office (see telephone/fax numbers below) 

by noon of the third working day before the scheduled meeting/hearing, stating the subject they wish to address, the organization 

they represent (if any), and the nature of their testimony. Time is set aside for individuals so desiring to speak on any topic NOT 

otherwise on the agenda (please see the detailed agenda for the Public Session). In all cases, the presiding officer reserves the

ight to impose time limits on presentations as may be necessary to ensure that the agenda is completed. 

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY 

Pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, any individual with a disability who 

requires reasonable accommodation to attend or participate in a meeting or function of the California State Board of Education 

(SBE), may request assistance by contacting the SBE Office, 1430 N Street, Room 5111, Sacramento, CA, 95814; telephone, 916- 

319-0827; fax, 916-319-0175. 

CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 

FULL BOARD 


AGENDA 

September 7-8, 2005 

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 – 9:00 a.m.± 

California Department of Education, 1430 N Street, Room 1101, Sacramento, California 

Call to Order 

Salute to the Flag 

Approval of Minutes (July 2005 and August 12, 2005 Meetings) 

Announcements 

Communications 

REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT 

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 

Public notice is hereby given that special presentations for informational purposes may take place during this session. 

NOTE: Items not heard or completed on September 7, 2005, will be carried over to September 8, 2005. 

ITEM 1 (DOC; 

175KB; 9pp.) 

ITEM 2 (DOC; 

57KB; 1pp.) 

STATE BOARD PROJECTS AND PRIORITIES. 

Including, but not limited to, future meeting plans; agenda items; State 

Board office budget; staffing, appointments, and direction to staff; 

declaratory and commendatory resolutions; update on litigation; bylaw 

review and revision; review of the status of State Board-approved charter 

schools as necessary; Board Liaison Reports; and other matters of interest. 

PUBLIC COMMENT. 

Public Comment is invited on any matter not included on the printed 

agenda. Depending on the number of individuals wishing to address the 

State Board, the presiding officer may establish specific time limits on 

presentations. 

***PUBLIC HEARINGS*** 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

Public Hearings on the following agenda item will commence no earlier than 9:00 a.m. The Public Hearings will be held after 9:00 

a.m. as the business of the State Board permits. 

ITEM 3 (DOC; 

80KB; 8pp.) 

2005 Follow-Up Adoption of Kindergarten through Grade Eight Instructional 

Materials in Foreign Language: Curriculum Development and Supplemental 

Materials Commission Recommendations. 

INFORMATION 

ACTION

ITEM 4 (DOC; 

101KB; 10pp.) 

ITEM 5 (DOC; 

111KB; 12pp.) 

ITEM 6 (DOC; 

67KB; 3pp.) 

ITEM 7 (DOC; 

67KB; 3pp.) 

ITEM 8 (DOC; 

53KB; 1pp.) 

ITEM 9 (DOC; 

58KB; 1pp.) 


Materials in Mathematics: Curriculum Development and Supplemental 

Materials Commission Recommendations. 


Materials in Reading Language Arts/English Language Development: 

Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission 

Recommendations. 

***END OF PUBLIC HEARINGS*** 

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001- Including, but Not Limited To, an 

Update on Approval from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) of 

Amendments to California’s Accountability Workbook, Including the State’s 

Application for NCLB Flexibility Regarding Students with Disabilities; the 

Status of Required Submissions to the California Department of Education 

(CDE) from Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) Identified for Program 

Improvement (PI) and an Update on ED’s September 2004 Title I Monitoring 

Visit. 

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Results from the 2005 

Accountability Progress Reports. 

Item 7 Last Minute Memorandum (DOC; 219KB; 19pp.) 

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Approve Supplemental 

Educational Services (SES) Providers for 2005-07. 


No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Approve Local Educational 

Agency Plans (Title 1 Section 1112). 

PUBLIC 

HEARING 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

PUBLIC 

HEARING 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

PUBLIC 

HEARING 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION

ITEM 10 (DOC; 

63KB; 3pp.) 

ITEM 11 (DOC; 

75KB; 5pp.) 

ITEM 12 (DOC; 

66KB; 3pp.) 

ITEM 13 (DOC; 

54KB; 2pp.) 

ITEM 14 (DOC; 

75KB; 5pp.) 

ITEM 15 (DOC; 

55KB; 2pp.) 

ITEM 16 (DOC; 

213KB; 10pp.) 

Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program: Work Plan for a 

36-month Review of State-Monitored Schools that May Be Subject to 

Additional Sanctions. 

Item 10 Attachment 1 (XLS; 15KB; 1pp.) 

Item 10 Attachment 2 (XLS; 19KB; 1pp.) 

Item 10 Last Minute Memorandum (DOC; 30KB; 1p.) 

Item 10 Last Minute Memorandum Attachment 1 (XLS; 16KB; 

1p.) 

Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) and High 

Priority Schools Grant Program (HPSGP): Proposed Intervention for Cohort 

1, 2, and 3, II/USP Schools and Cohort 1 HPSGP Schools that Failed to 

Show Significant Growth. 


Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) and High 

Priority Schools Grant Program: School Assistance and Intervention Team 

(SAIT): Approval of Expenditure Plan to Support SAIT Activities and 

Corrective Actions in State-Monitored Schools. 

Last Minute Memorandum (DOC; 60KB; 4pp.) 

Consolidated Applications 2004-05: Approval. 

Item 14 Attachment 1 (PDF; 10KB; 2pp.) 

Consolidated Applications 2005-06: Approval. 

Item 14 Attachment 1 (PDF; 127KB; 48pp.) 

Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: Including, but Not 

Limited To, Report on the 2005 Results. 

California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE): Including, but Not 

Limited To, CAHSEE Program Update on 2004-05 Test Administrations and 

the Release of Summary Test Results. 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION

ITEM 17 (DOC; 

53KB; 2pp.) 

ITEM 18 (DOC; 

59KB; 2pp.) 

ITEM 19 (DOC; 

152KB; 11pp.) 

ITEM 20 (DOC; 

123KB; 17pp.) 

ITEM 21 (DOC; 

59KB; 3pp.) 

ITEM 22 (DOC; 

55KB; 2pp.) 

ITEM 23 (DOC; 

114KB; 5pp.) 

California English Language Development Test (CELDT): Including, but Not 

Limited To, Update on CELDT Program, New Contract Status, Assessment 

of Reading and Writing in Kindergarten and Grade One and a Report from 

the Bureau of State Audits. 

Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: Approval of the 2005- 

06 Contract for the Aprenda, 3rd Edition (Aprenda 3) with Harcourt 

Assessment, Inc. 

Item 18 Last Minute Memorandum (DOC; 2.23MB; 132pp.) 

Report on Alternative Schools Accountability Model Pre-Post Test Review 

Process. 

Physical Fitness Test (PFT): Approve Commencement of the Rulemaking 

Process for Amendments to Title 5 California Code of Regulations. 


Item 20 Last Minute Memorandum Attachment 1 (PDF; 740KB; 

12pp.) 

Revised Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) Regulations: Proposed Title 5 

Regulations – Approve Proposed Amendments and Circulate for the Third 

15-Day Public Comment Period. 

Item 21 Attachment 1 (DOC; 136KB; 33pp.) 


Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program, Assembly 

Bill 466 (Chapter 737, Statues of 2001): Approval of Training Providers and 

Training Curricula. 

Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program, Assembly 

Bill 466 (Chapter 737, Statues of 2001): Approve Reimbursement Requests 

from Local Educational Agencies. 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION

ITEM 24 (DOC; 

70KB; 4pp.) 

ITEM 25 (DOC; 

272KB; 30pp.) 

ITEM 26 (DOC; 

123KB; 17pp.) 

ITEM 27 (DOC; 

68KB; 4pp.) 

ITEM 28 (DOC; 

99KB; 8pp.) 

ITEM 29 (DOC; 

68KB; 3pp.) 

ITEM 30 (DOC; 

62KB; 3pp.) 

ITEM 31 (DOC; 

80KB; 6pp.) 

The Principal Training Program, Assembly Bill 75 (Chapter 697, Statutes of INFORMATION 

2001): Approval of Applications for Funding from Local Educational Agencies ACTION 

and Consortia. 

Gifted and Talented Education: Approval of Applications for Funding from 

Local Educational Agencies. 

Instructional Materials Fund – Approve Tentative Encumbrances and 

Allocations for Fiscal Year 2005-06. 

Implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 1113, Chapter 208, Statutes of 2004, 

Item 6110-189-0001: Approve Release of Funds for Supplementary 

Materials for English Learners. 


Item 27 Last Minute Memorandum Attachment 1 (PDF; 198KB; 

29pp.) 

Item 27 Last Minute Memorandum Attachment 3 (PDF; 1.78MB; 

70pp.) 

Legislative Update, Including, but Not Limited To, Information on Legislation 

Introduced in the 2005-06 Session. 


INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

State Board-Approved Charter Schools: Update. INFORMATION 

ACTION 

Assignment of Numbers for Charter School Petitions. 


Charter Schools: Determination of Funding Requests for 2004-05 and 2005- 

06 for Nonclassroom-based Charter Schools. 

***PUBLIC HEARING*** 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

INFORMATION 

ACTION

Public Hearing on the following agenda item will commence no earlier than 2:00 p.m. The Public Hearing will be held after 2:00 

p.m. as the business of the State Board permits. 

ITEM 32 (DOC; 

89KB; 10pp.) 

ITEM 33 (DOC; 

89KB; 5pp.) 

CONSENT MATTERS 

Request by High Tech High Learning to Become a Statewide Benefit 

Charter School Under the Oversight of the State Board of Education. 



***END OF PUBLIC HEARING*** 

Second Regional Occupational Program within the San Joaquin County 

Office of Education: Action on Request for Establishment. 

WAIVER REQUESTS 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

PUBLIC 

HEARING 

INFORMATION 

ACTION 

The following agenda items include waivers and other administrative matters that California Department of Education (CDE) staff 

have identified as having no opposition and presenting no new or unusual issues requiring the State Board’s attention. 

CARL D. PERKINS VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION ACT 

ITEM WC-1 Request by Templeton Unified School District for a waiver of Section 

131(d)(1) of the Carl D, Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 

1998 (Public Law 105-332) 

Waiver Number: Fed-7-2005 

(Recommended for APPROVAL) 

CHARTER SCHOOL ATTENDANCE 

ITEM WC-2 Request by Nevada County Office of Education to waive California Code of 

Regulations (CCR), Title 5, Section 11960 to allow the charter school 

attendance to be calculated as if it were a "regular" multi-track school for 

Muir Charter School. 

Waiver Number: 7-7-2005 

(Recommended for APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS) 

EC 33051(c) will apply 

RESOURCE SPECIALIST CASELOAD 

ITEM WC-3 Requested by San Francisco Unified School District to waiver Education 

Code (EC) Section 56362(c); allowing the caseload of the resource 

specialist to exceed the maximum caseload of 28 students by no more 

than four students (32 maximum). Julian Kim assigned at Marshall and 

Fairmont Elementary Schools. 


ACTION 

ACTION 

ACTION

SAFE AND DRUG FREE 


ITEM WC-4 Request by Ventura Unified School District to waive No Child Left Behind 

Act (NCLB); Title IV, Part A, Section 4115 (a)(1)(c) to use Safe and Drug 

Free Schools and Communities funds to support the cost of The Great 

Body Shop, a Comprehensive Health, Substance Abuse, Violence 

Prevention Program pre-school through eighth grade. 

NON-CONSENT (ACTION) 



ACTION 

The following agenda items include waivers and other administrative matters that CDE staff have identified as having opposition, 

being recommended for denial, or presenting new or unusual issues that should be considered by the State Board. On a case by 

case basis public testimony may be considered regarding the item, subject to the limits set by the Board President or the 

President’s designee; and action different from that recommended by CDE staff may be taken. 

BOARD APPOINTMENT 

ITEM W-1 Request by West Fresno Elementary School District to waive portions of 

Education Code (EC) Section 5091, which will allow the district’s state 

administrator to make a provisional appointment to a vacant board position 

past the 60 day statutory deadline. 

COMMUNITY DAY 



ITEM W-2 Request by the Newark Unified School District for a waiver of portions of 

Education Code (EC) Section 48661(a) relating to the placement of a 

community day school (CDS), New Beginnings Academy, on the same site 

(the former MacGregor Junior High School facility) as a continuation high 

school (Bridgepoint) and an adult school. 

EQUITY LENGTH OF TIME 



ACTION 

ACTION 

ITEM W-3 Request by Rocklin Unified School District for a renewal to waive Education ACTION 

Code (EC) Section 37202, the equity length of time requirement, to allow 

Rock Creek Elementary School to operate grades 1-3 with longer 

instructional days than the rest of the district schools. 



EC 33051(c) will apply

ITEM W-4 Request by Rocklin Unified School District to waive Education Code (EC) 

Section 37202, the equity length of time requirement, to allow Ruhkala 

Elementary School to operate grades 1-3 with longer instructional days 

than the rest of the district (other schools are on early-late schedule). 



INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS FUNDING REALIGNMENT PROGRAM 

ITEM W-5 Request by Rio Linda Union School District under the authority of 

Education Code (EC) Section 60422(c) to waive the purchasing priority 

order established in EC Section 60422(b) to allow the district to purchase 

state-adopted health textbooks in 2005-06 with Instructional Materials 

Funding Realignment Program (IMFRP) monies before purchasing historysocial 

science textbooks (Grades Kindergarten through sixth grade). 

PETITION 



ITEM W-6 Petition request under Education Code (EC) sections 60421(d) and 

60200(g) by El Segundo Unified School District to purchase Instructional 

Resources (Everyday Mathematics, Kindergarten through Grade Six) using 

Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Program (IMFRP) monies. 




60200(g) by Lake Tahoe Unified School District to purchase Instructional 

Resources (Everyday Mathematics, c. 2001, kindergarten through grade 

three, and c. 2002, grades four through six) using Instructional Materials 

Funding Realignment Program (IMFRP) monies. 



ACTION 

ACTION 

ACTION 

ACTION 


60200(g) by Pleasant Ridge Union School District to purchase specified 

non adopted instructional materials (Houghton-Mifflin, Spelling and 

Vocabulary, Grades 7-8, 2000 edition) using Instructional Materials Funding 

Realignment Program (IMFRP) monies. 

ACTION 

Waiver Number: 10-6-2005

PRINCIPAL TRAINING PROGRAM 


ITEM W-9 Request by Sanger Unified School District to waive Education Code (EC) 

sections 44512(c) and 44515(b) regarding the timelines for twelve school 

administrators involved in the principal training program, established by 

Assembly Bill 75 (Statutes of 2001). 

NONPUBLIC SCHOOL 



ITEM W-10 Request by Department of Developmental Services Special Education Local 

Plan Area (SELPA) to waive Education Code (EC) Section 56366.1(k)(1) 

and (2), the requirement for a nonpublic school to notify the County 

Superintendent of Schools and the SELPA no later than December 1 prior 

to the new fiscal year in which the nonpublic school (Altus Academy) 

proposes to initiate/expand services. 

PHYSICAL EDUCATION 



ITEM W-11 Request by San Luis Coastal Unified School District to waive portions of 

Education Code (EC) Section 51222(a) related to the statutory minimum of 

400 minutes of physical education required each ten days for grades nine 

through twelve in order to continue the trimester block schedule at San 

Luis Obispo High School. 



ITEM W-12 Request by San Jose Unified School District for a waiver of the elementary 

Physical Education statute, Education Code (EC) Section 51210(g) so that 

a portion of the lunch period for grades one through five may be used for 

physical education for Almaden Elementary School, which was designated 

as a School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) School in November 

2004. 



END OF WAIVER REQUESTS 

ADJOURNMENT OF DAY’S SESSION 

Thursday, September 8, 2005 – 8:00 a.m.± (Upon adjournment of Closed Session if held) 

ACTION 

ACTION 

ACTION 

ACTION

California Department of Education, 1430 N Street, Room 1101, Sacramento, California 

REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT (unless presented on the preceding day) 

ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PRECEDING DAY 

Any matters deferred from the previous day’s session may be considered. 

CLOSED SESSION 

***ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING*** 

For more information concerning this agenda, please contact the State Board of Education at 1430 N Street, Room 5111, 

Sacramento, CA, 95814; telephone 916-319-0827; fax 916-319-0175. To be added to the speaker’s list, please fax or mail your 

written request to the above-referenced address/fax number. This agenda is posted on the State Board of Education’s Web site 

[http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/]. 

Questions: State Board of Education | 916-319-0827 

Last Reviewed: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 


Mobile site | Full site


SBE-003 (REV 05/17/04) 

SBE 

SUBJECT 

ITEM 1 


SEPTEMBER 2005 AGENDA 

STATE BOARD PROJECTS AND PRIORITIES. 

Including, but not limited to, future meeting plans; agenda items; 

State Board office budget, staffing, appointments, and direction 

to staff; declaratory and commendatory resolutions; update on 

litigation; bylaw review and revision; review of the status of State 

Board-approved charter schools as necessary; Board Liaison 

Reports; and other matters of interest. 

Action 

Information 

RECOMMENDATION 

Take action (as necessary and appropriate) regarding State Board Projects and 

Priorities. 

Public Hearing 

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION AND ACTION 

At each regular meeting, the State Board has traditionally had an agenda item under 

which to address “housekeeping” matters, such as agenda planning, non-closed session 

litigation updates, non-controversial proclamations and resolutions, bylaw review and 

revision, Board liaison reports; and other matters of interest. The State Board has asked 

that this item be placed appropriately on each agenda. 

SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES 

Board Member Liaison Reports 

Board Members serve as liaisons to various committees, organizations, and issue areas. 

When appropriate, the Liaisons provide short oral reports on issues of interest to the 

State Board. At this time, there are several vacant liaison positions that Board Members 

may wish to accept. 

FISCAL ANALYSIS (AS APPROPRIATE) 

Not applicable for this “housekeeping” item. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1 State Board Bylaws (as amended July 9, 2003) (10 pages) 

Attachment 2: Agenda Planner 2005-2006 (6 Pages) 

Attachment 3: Acronyms Chart (3 Pages)

AGENDA PLANNER 2005-2006 

AUGUST 2005 ..................................................................... NO MEETING SCHEDULED 

Dates of Interest to the State Board: 

• Academic Performance Index (API) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) data 

releases 

SEPTEMBER 7-8, 2005 .......................................................................... SACRAMENTO 

Board Meeting 

• STAR, update/action as necessary 

• CAHSEE, update/action as necessary 

• CELDT, update/action as necessary 

• No Child Left Behind Act, update/action as necessary 

• Consolidated Applications for 2005-06, for approval 

• Instructional Materials Fund budget, for approval 

• Follow-Up Adoptions in Mathematics, Reading/Language Arts/English Language 

Development, and Foreign Language, Public Hearing and Board action on 

Curriculum Commission recommendations 

Other Dates of Interest to the State Board: 

• Advisory Commission on Charter Schools, Sacramento, September 21 

• Advisory Commission on Special Education, Sacramento, September 22-23 

• Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission, Sacramento, 

September 29-30 

• 2005 History-Social Science Adoption, Public Hearings at Curriculum Commission 

meeting, Sacramento, September 29-30 

OCTOBER 2005 .................................................................. NO MEETING SCHEDULED 


To be determined 

NOVEMBER 9-10, 2005 .......................................................................... SACRAMENTO 

Board Meeting 




• Consolidated Applications for 2005-06, for approval 


• 2005 History-Social Science Adoption, Public Hearing and Board action on 

Curriculum Commission recommendations 

• 2006 Visual and Performing Arts Primary Adoption, appointment of IMAP and CRP 

members 

• 2006 Science Primary Adoption, appointment of IMAP and CRP members 

• Student Advisory Board on Education, presentation of recommendations 

• Interviews of candidates for 2006-07 Student Member of the State Board 

Agenda Planner May 2005 Page 1


• Presentation of Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science 

Teaching 

• Screening Committee paper screens applications for Curriculum Commission 

• Nominations for 2006 State Board Officers 


• Advisory Commission on Special Education, Sacramento, November 17-18 

• Advisory Commission on Charter Schools, Sacramento, November 29 

DECEMBER 2005 ............................................................... NO MEETING SCHEDULED 


Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission, Sacramento, 

December 1-2 

JANUARY 11-12, 2006 ........................................................................... SACRAMENTO 

Board Meeting 

• Election of 2006 Board Officers 

• Appointment of four members to the Curriculum Commission 

• Presentation of the California Teacher of the Year Awards 

• United States Senate Youth, presentation of awards 





• 2006 Visual and Performing Arts Primary Adoption, appointment of IMAP and CRP 

members 

• 2006 Science Primary Adoption, appointment of IMAP and CRP members 


• Advisory Commission on Charter Schools, Sacramento, January 18 

• Advisory Commission on Special Education, Sacramento, January 19-20 


January 25-27 

• Contract expires for physical fitness test, January 31, 2006 

FEBRUARY 2006 ................................................................ NO MEETING SCHEDULED 


• Advisory Commission on Special Education, Sacramento, Sacramento, February 

23-24 

MARCH 8-9, 2006 ................................................................................... SACRAMENTO 

Board Meeting 

• Consolidated Applications, report on districts that received conditional approval, 

including their progress toward compliance 








• Advisory Commission on Special Education, Sacramento, Sacramento, March 23- 

24 

• 2006 Science Primary Adoption, training for IMAP and CRP members, 

Sacramento, March 27-30 

APRIL2006 .......................................................................... NO MEETING SCHEDULED 



April 3 (if necessary) 

• 2006 Visual and Performing Arts Primary Adoption, training for IMAP and CRP 

members, Sacramento, April 4-7 

MAY 10-11, 2006 ..................................................................................... SACRAMENTO 

Board Meeting 

• No Child Left Behind Act, approve supplemental educational service providers 







May 18-19 

• Advisory Commission on Special Education, Sacramento, Sacramento, May 25-26 

JUNE 2006 .......................................................................... NO MEETING SCHEDULED 



JULY 12-13, 2006 .................................................................................... SACRAMENTO 

Board Meeting 






• 2006 Science Primary Adoption, IMAP/CRP deliberations, Sacramento, 

July 10-13 

• 2006 Visual and Performing Arts Primary Adoption, IMAP/CRP deliberations, 

Sacramento, July 31 – August 3 

• Biennial Report to the Governor on the State Board’s Actions and Operations for 

the Years 2004-2006. 



AUGUST 2006 ..................................................................... NO MEETING SCHEDULED 


• 2006 Visual and Performing Arts Primary Adoption, IMAP/CRP deliberations, 

Sacramento, July 31 – August 3 

SEPTEMBER 6-7, 2006 .......................................................................... SACRAMENTO 

Board Meeting 

• Consolidated Applications for 2006-07, for approval 





• Instructional Materials Fund budget, for approval 


• Biennial report from State Board of Education due to State Legislature 


September 28-29 

• 2006 Science Primary Adoption, Curriculum Commission action on IMAP/CRP 

recommendations, Sacramento, September 28-29 

• 2006 Visual and Performing Arts Primary Adoption, Curriculum Commission action 

on IMAP/CRP recommendations, Sacramento, September 28-29 

OCTOBER 2006 .................................................................. NO MEETING SCHEDULED 



NOVEMBER 8-9, 2006 ............................................................................ SACRAMENTO 

Board Meeting 

• Consolidated Applications for 2006-07, for approval 





• 2006 Science Primary Adoption, Curriculum Commission action on IMAP/CRP 

recommendations, Sacramento, September 28-29 

• 2006 Visual and Performing Arts Primary Adoption, Public Hearing and action on 

Curriculum Commission adoption recommendations 



November 30 – December 1 



DECEMBER 2006 ............................................................... NO MEETING SCHEDULED 



November 30-December 1 

• California High School Proficiency Exam contract expires, December 31 


ACRONYMS CHART 

ACRONYMS 

AB Assembly Bill 

ACCS Advisory Commission on Charter Schools 

ACES Autism Comprehensive Educational Services 

ACSA Association of California School Administrators 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

ADA Average Daily Attendance 

AFT American Federation of Teachers 

AP Advanced Placement 

API Academic Performance Index 

ASAM Alternative Schools Accountability Model 

AYP Adequate Yearly Progress 

BTSA Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment 

CAHSEE California High School Exit Examination 

CAPA California Alternate Performance Assessment 

CASB0 California Association of School Business Officials 

CASH Coalition for Adequate School Housing 

CAT/6 California Achievement Test, 6 th Edition 

CCSESA California County Superintendents Educational Services Association 

CDE California Department of Education 

CELDT California English Language Development Test 

CFT California Federation of Teachers 

CHSPE California High School Proficiency Exam 

CNAC Child Nutrition Advisory Council 

COE County Office of Education 

ConAPP Consolidated Applications 

CRP Content Review Panel 

CSBA California School Boards Association 

CSIS California School Information System 

CST California Standards Test 

CTA California Teachers Association 

CTC California Commission on Teacher Credentialing 

Acronyms Chart, Page 1


ACRONYMS 

EL English Learner 

ELAC English Learner Advisory Committee 

ESL English as a Second Language 

FAPE Free and Appropriate Public Education 

FEP Fluent English Proficient 

GATE Gifted and Talented Education 

GED General Education Development 

HPSGP High-Priority School Grant Program 

HumRRO Human Resources Research Organization 

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

IEP Individualized Education Program 

II/USP Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program 

IMAP Instructional Materials Advisory Panel 

IMFRP Instructional Materials Fund Realignment Program 

LEA Local Educational Agency 

LEP Limited English Proficient 

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress 

NEA National Education Association 

NCLB No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

NPS/NPA Non Public Schools/Non Public Agencies 

NRT Norm-Referenced Test 

OSE Office of the Secretary for Education 

PAR Peer Assistance and Review Program for Teachers 

PSAA Public School Accountability Act 

ROP Regional Occupation Program 

RLA/ELD Reading/Language Arts/English Language Development 

SABE/2 Spanish Assessment of Basic Education, 2 nd Edition 

SAIT School Assistance and Intervention Team 

SARC School Accountability Report Card 

SAT 9 Stanford Achievement Test, 9 th Edition 



ACRONYMS 

SB Senate Bill 

SEA State Educational Agency 

SELPA Special Education Local Plan Area 

SBCP School Based Coordination Program 

SBE State Board of Education 

SSPI State Superintendent of Public Instruction (Jack O’Connell) 

STAR Standardized Testing and Reporting Program 

TDG Technical Design Group (PSAA Advisory Committee) 

USD Unified School District 

USDE United States Department of Education 

UTLA United Teachers-Los Angeles 

WIA Workforce Investment Act 



SBE-003 (REV 05/17/04) 

SBE ITEM 2 

SUBJECT 



PUBLIC COMMENT. 

Public Comment is invited on any matter not included on the 

printed agenda. Depending on the number of individuals wishing 

to address the State Board, the presiding officer may establish 

specific time limits on presentations. 


Listen to public comment on matters not included on the agenda. 

Action 

Information 



N/A 


N/A 


N/A 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

None


SBE-003 (REV 05/2005) 

cib-cfir-sep05item03 

SUBJECT 

ITEM #3 



2005 Follow-Up Adoption of kindergarten through grade eight 

Instructional Materials in Foreign Language: Curriculum 

Development and Supplemental Materials Commission 

Recommendations 


Action 

Information 


The California Department of Education (CDE) recommends that the State Board of 

Education (SBE) hold a public hearing, review, and take action on the recommendations 

of the Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission (Curriculum 

Commission) for the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption for kindergarten through grade eight 

Instructional Materials in Foreign Language. 


At the SBE meeting on November 13, 2003, the SBE completed the 2003 Primary 

Adoption of kindergarten through grade eight Instructional Materials in Foreign 

Language by adopting a total of 14 foreign language programs; 3 French programs, 3 

Latin programs, 6 Spanish programs, and 1 program each for German and Japanese. 

On May 10, 2004, the SBE conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments to 

Title 5, Sections 9515 and 9517, and addition of Section 9517.1, for kindergarten 

through grade eight Follow-Up Adoptions, and adopted the regulations. The regulations 

took effect January 7, 2005. The regulations aided in the implementation of Senate Bill 

(SB)1058 (Torlakson), which established that CDE could assess publisher fees for 

follow-up adoptions. Education Code (EC) Section 60227, added by SB 1058, defines 

the purpose of follow-up adoptions. 

Follow-up adoptions expand the number of adopted programs available to school 

districts. The follow-up adoptions use the same evaluation criteria as the last primary 

adoption. Programs adopted under a follow-up adoption are added to the list of 

materials adopted in the last primary adoption. The follow-up materials list expires at the 

same time as the primary adoption list. For foreign language, both the 2003 primary 

adoption list and the 2005 follow-up adoption list will expire June 30, 2012. 

On November 9, 2004, the SBE approved the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption Schedule of 

Significant Events, establishing the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption in Foreign Language. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:47 PM


Page 2 of 3 

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION . . . (Cont.) 

At the March 9-10, 2004, SBE meeting, the SBE approved the appointment of Content 

Review Panel (CRP) members, and Instructional Materials Advisory Panel (IMAP) 

members to review instructional materials for the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption. 

Publishers Briefing: 

On Friday, December 3, 2004, a Publishers Preliminary Briefing on SB 1058 was held. 

The purpose of the briefing was to provide publishers with an overview of the processes 

and procedures that would be used to implement SB 1058 (EC Section 60227). 

Representatives of publishers of kindergarten through grade eight instructional 

materials in foreign language were in attendance. 

Publishers Invitation to Submit Meeting: 

On February 8, 2005, a formal Publishers Invitation to Submit meeting was held. The 

purpose of this meeting was to outline the pertinent parts of the EC and explain the 

regulatory requirements for participation in the follow-up adoption process. 

Training: 

On March 16-18, 2005, CRP and IMAP members received training in the evaluation 

criteria, content standards, and legal and social compliance. One CRP and seven 

IMAPs were trained for foreign language. 

Deliberations: 

Deliberations for the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption in Foreign Language were held June 13- 

15, 2005. One IMAP/CRP panel met at 1500 Capitol Mall in Sacramento, to conduct 

deliberations and produce reports of findings for each of the three programs submitted 

for review and adoption. 

Legal and Social Compliance Review: 

Legal and social compliance review for the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption in Foreign 

Language was conducted both by the three Learning Resource Display Centers 

(LRDCs) which regularly conduct out-of-cycle legal and social compliance reviews, as 

well as by the IMAP/CRP panel members. On June 29, 2005, a Curriculum 

Commissioner and CDE staff reviewed legal and social compliance citations submitted 

by IMAP/CRP members, compared the citations to those processed through the LRDCs 

and submitted the citations to publishers for response. Six citations were sent forward to 

foreign language publishers. 

July 15, 2005, Curriculum Commission Meeting: 

At the July 15, 2005, Curriculum Commission meeting, the Commissioners reviewed the 

IMAP/CRP Reports of Findings for each of the submitted programs, held two public 

hearings, one during the Subject Matter Committee meeting, and one during the full 

Commission meeting, and took action on the three programs submitted for review and 

adoption. Programs are recommended for adoption pending the resolution of legal and 

social compliance citations. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:47 PM

SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES (Cont.) 



Edits and Corrections Meeting: 

An Edits and Corrections meeting has been scheduled for October 7, 2005. Programs 

are recommended for adoption pending the resolution of minor edits and corrections. 


The legislation establishing the follow-up adoption included a provision for establishing 

publisher fees to offset the costs of the adoption. For this adoption, $180,000.00 in fees 

were generated. Final costs of the adoption will not be known until all travel and 

expense invoices have been processed. Fee revenue and adoption costs are expected 

to be approximately equal. 

ATTACHMENT (S) 

Attachment 1: Curriculum Commission’s Recommendations for the 2005 Follow-Up 

Adoption in Foreign Language. (5 Pages) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:47 PM

2005 Follow-Up Adoption 

FOREIGN LANGUAGE 

Curriculum Commission Recommendations* 

Recommended Programs 

PUBLISHER PROGRAM TITLE Grade Level and 

LLC Stages** 

EMC/Paradigm 

Publishing 

Navegando 1A and 1B 

Seven and Eight 

Stages I & II 

Wright Group ¡Viva el español! One through Six 

Stages I & II 

Santillana USA 

Publishing 

Nuevo ¡Bravo, bravo! 

System 

Program not Recommended 

Kindergarten 

through Five 

Stages I, II & III 


Attachment 1 


Commission 

Recommendation 

to State Board 

Recommend 

adoption 

Recommend 

adoption 

Do not recommend 

adoption 

* Note: these programs have not been adopted by the State Board of Education 

** Language Learning Continuum 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:47 PM

2005 Follow-Up Adoption – Foreign Language 

Publisher: EMC/Paradigm Publishing 

Title of Program: Navegando 1A and 1B 

Grade Level: Seven and Eight 


Attachment 1 


Recommended Language Learning Continuum Stage(s): I & II 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

The components of this program include 1A and 1B Textbooks (TB-1A, TB-1B), an 

Interactive Textbook (IT) (Navegando electrónico) and workbooks (WB), Listening 

Activities on Audio CDs (LACD), and a set of Materiales para hispanohablantes natives 

(MPH). Also included are Communicative Activities (CA), Activities for Proficiency, and 

Grammar (GR) and Vocabulary Exercises (VOC). Teacher materials include Annotated 

Teacher’s Editions for 1A and 1B (TE-1A, TE-1B) (also on CD-ROM) (TE-1A-CD, TE- 

1B-CD), Student Editions (SE), 1A and 1B Workbook Teacher’s Editions (TEW-1A, 

TEW-1B,), 1A and1B Middle School Resources Manual (RM-1A, RM-1B), 1B Middle 

School Bridge Program Grammar (MSGR) and Vocabulary Exercises Teacher’s Edition 

(VOC-TE), TPR Storytelling Manual (SM), Overhead Transparencies (OT), a 

Testing/Assessment Program (TA), and a Test Generator CD (TG-CD), Universal 

Access Handbook (UAH), Blackline Master Resources (BMR), V. 


The EMC/Paradigm program Navegando 1A and 1B (grade seven and eight) is 

recommended for adoption for Language Learning Continuum Stages I & II, because it is 

aligned with the evaluation criteria. 

Foreign Language Content/Alignment with Curriculum: 

The program addresses all the evaluation criteria in this category and is aligned with the 

Language Learning Continuum, Stages I & II. 

Program Organization: 

The program addresses the evaluation criteria in this category. 

Assessment: 

The program addresses the criteria in this category. 

Universal Access: 


Instructional Planning and Support: 


Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:47 PM

Publisher: Wright Group 

Title of Program: ¡Viva el español! 


Grade Level: Grade one through six 


Attachment 1 


Recommended Language Learning Continuum Stage(s): I & II 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

The components of this program for all six levels include Lesson Planner Cards (LPC), 

Teacher Resource Books (TR), Assessment Book (AB) and Audio CD (AACD), Cultural 

Resource Book (CRB), Heritage Speaker Activity Book (HSA), Vocabulary Flashcards 

(VF), Audio CDs (VACD), Big Books (BB), Little Books (LB), Hand Puppets (HP), and 

Workbook (WB). For the three upper levels, ¡Hola!, ¿Qué Tal? and ¡Adelante! Teacher 

Wraparound Editions (TWE), ¡Hola!, ¿Qué Tal? and ¡Adelante! Student Editions (SE), 

and Overhead Transparencies (OT) are included. 


The Wright Group program ¡Viva el español! (grade one through six) is recommended 

for adoption for Language Learning Continuum Stages I & II because it is aligned with 

the evaluation criteria. 


The program addresses all the evaluation criteria in this category and is aligned with 

Language Learning Continuum Stages I & II. 



Assessment: 






Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:47 PM

Publisher: Santillana USA 


Title of Program: Nuevo ¡Bravo,bravo! System 

Grade Level: Kindergarten through grade five 


Attachment 1 


Recommended Language Learning Continuum Stage(s): I, II & III 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

This program is composed of two tracks; Nuevo ¡Bravo, bravo! (NBB) is designed 

for English speakers learning Spanish, kindergarten through grade five, and Nuevo 

Siglo de español (NSE), a parallel track designed for heritage language learners of 

Spanish, kindergarten through grade five. Each level of both tracks contain a 

student book (SB), a teacher guide (TG), an assessment component (AC), a CD 

(CD) with songs and music, and a classroom library (CL). La Cartilla is a phonics 

program for kindergarten through grade one designed to be used with both tracks. 

La Cartilla components include Activity Book K (AB-K) and Activity Book 1 (AB-1), 

for students. Teacher components include a classroom poster book (CP) 

kindergarten through grade one, and User’s Guides (UG) kindergarten through 

grade one. Classroom components include alphabet picture cards (APC), alphabet 

poster (AP), alphabet game (AG), alphabet flash cards (AFC), syllabic game (SG), 

syllabic flash cards (SFC), and Richmond Picture Dictionary (RPD), Videos - Viajes 

al Español A & B (V), Cuaderno de enlace (CE), Workbook (WB). 


The Santillana USA Publishing program Nuevo ¡Bravo,bravo! System (kindergarten 

through grade five), Language Learning Continuum Stages I, II & III, is not 

recommended for adoption because it is not aligned with the evaluation criteria for 

Criteria Category 4, Universal Access and Criteria Category 5, Instructional Planning 

and Support Criteria. 





Assessment: 


Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:47 PM


Attachment 1 



The program does not meet the evaluation criteria in this category. The program does 

not provide teachers with suggestions and strategies to adapt the curriculum to meet 

the needs of all students, including those below grade level in reading-language arts. 


The program does not meet the evaluation criteria in this category. The instructional 

materials do not provide a clear road map for teachers to follow when planning 

language instruction base on the Language Learning Continuum Stages of the Foreign 

Language Framework. The program does not provide strategies to address and correct 

common student errors. A variety of pedagogical strategies for flexible grouping of 

students were not evident. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:47 PM




SUBJECT 

ITEM #4 




Instructional Materials in Mathematics: Curriculum Development 

and Supplemental Materials Commission Recommendations 


Action 

Information 






Instructional Materials in Mathematics. 


At the January 2001 meeting, the SBE completed the 2001 Primary Adoption of 

kindergarten through grade eight Instructional Materials in Mathematics by adopting 12 

programs. 



through grade eight Follow-Up Adoptions, and adopted the regulations. The regulations 

took effect January 7, 2005. The regulations aided in the implementation of Senate Bill 

(SB) 1058 (Torlakson), which established that CDE could assess publisher fees for 


the purpose of follow-up adoptions. 

Follow-up adoptions expand the number of adopted programs available to school 

districts. The follow-up adoptions use the same evaluation criteria as the last primary 

adoption. Programs adopted under a follow-up adoption are added to the list of 

materials adopted in the last primary adoption. The follow-up materials list expires at the 

same time as the primary adoption list. For mathematics, both the 2001 primary 

adoption list and the 2005 follow-up adoption list will expire June 30, 2007. 

On November 9, 2004, the SBE approved the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption Schedule of 

Significant Events, establishing the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption in Mathematics. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:56 PM




At the March 9-10, 2005, SBE meeting, the SBE approved the appointment of Content 

Review Panel (CRP) members, and Instructional Materials Advisory Panel (IMAP) 

members to review instructional materials for the 2005 Follow-up Adoption. 







materials in mathematics were in attendance. 





Training: 


criteria, content standards, and legal and social compliance. Five CRPs and 12 IMAPs 

were trained for mathematics. 


Deliberations for the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption in Mathematics were held June 13-15, 

2005. Two IMAP/CRP panels for mathematics met at the CDE, 1430 N Street, in 

Sacramento, to conduct deliberations and produce reports of findings for each of the six 

programs submitted for review and adoption. 


Legal and social compliance review for the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption in Mathematics 

was conducted both by the three Learning Resource Display Centers (LRDCs) which 

regularly conduct out-of-cycle legal and social compliance reviews, as well as by the 

IMAP/CRP panel members. On June 29, 2005, a Curriculum Commissioner and CDE 

staff reviewed legal and social compliance citations submitted by IMAP/CRP members, 

compared the citations to those processed through the LRDCs and submitted the 

citations to publishers for response. No citations were sent forward to mathematics 

publishers. 




hearings, one during the Subject Matter Committee meeting, and one during the full 

Commission meeting, and took action on the six programs submitted for review and 

adoption. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:56 PM






are recommended for adoption, pending the resolution of minor edits and corrections. 


SB 1058 included a provision for establishing publisher fees to offset the costs of the 

adoption. For this adoption, $180,000 in fees were generated. Final costs of the 

adoption will not be known until all travel and expense invoices have been processed. 

The fee revenue and costs of the adoption are expected to be approximately equal. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment: Curriculum Commission’s Recommendations for the 2005 Follow-Up 

Adoption in Mathematics (7 Pages) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:56 PM


MATHEMATICS 


PUBLISHER PROGRAM TITLE GRADE 

LEVEL 

CGP CGP California Standards-Driven 

Algebra I Program 

Glencoe/ 

McGraw-Hill 

Glencoe/ 

McGraw-Hill 

Glencoe/ 

McGraw-Hill 

McDougal 

Littell 

Glencoe/ 

McGraw-Hill 

Glencoe Mathematics: Applications and 

concepts, California Edition ©2006 

Glencoe Pre-Algebra California Edition 

©2006 

Glencoe Algebra I California Edition 

©2006 

McDougal Littell Pre-Algebra 

Program not Recommended 

Glencoe Algebra: Concepts and 

Applications California Edition©2005 

Eight 

Six 

Seven 

Eight 

Seven 

Eight 


Attachment 1 


Commission 



Recommend 

adoption 

Recommend 

adoption 

Recommend 

adoption 

Recommend 

adoption 

Recommend 

adoption 

Do not 

recommend 

adoption 

* Note: these programs have not been adopted by the State Board of Education 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:56 PM

Publisher: CGP 

2005 Follow-Up Adoption – Mathematics 

Title of Program: CGP California Standards-Driven Algebra 1 Program 


Attachment 1 


Grade Level: Eight 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

The program consists of a Student Textbook, Homework Book, Teacher’s Textbook, a 

Helping You Teach Booklet, and a Teacher Solution Guide. Assessment materials 

include: Preprogram Benchmark Test, Section Assessment Tests Set A and Set B, 

Chapter Tests, End of Course Test and an Assessment Test Generator CD-ROM. Also 

included is a Reteaching Resources CD-ROM. 


The Curriculum Commission recommends the CGP California Standards-Driven 

Algebra I Program (grade eight), for adoption with minor edits and corrections. 

Mathematics Content/Alignment with Curriculum: 

The program meets all the evaluation criteria in this category, and covers the content 

outlined in the Mathematics Content Standards. 


The program meets the evaluation criteria in this category. 

Assessment: 






Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:56 PM

Publisher: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill 



Attachment 1 


Title of Program: Glencoe Mathematics: Applications and Concepts, California 

Edition ©2006 

Grade Level: Six 

____________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

The student components of this program include; a Student Edition, California Student Works 

CD-ROM, California Noteables Interactive Study Notebook, a Skills Workbook, Word Problems 

Workbook, Math Skills Maintenance Workbook, Reading to Learn Mathematics Workbook, 

Quick Review Math Handbook, a Study Guide and Intervention Workbook, and Mastering the 

California Standards: Diagnose-Prescribe-Practice Workbook. Teacher materials include 

California Teacher Wraparound Edition, California Teacher Works CD-ROM, and Mastering the 

California Standards: Diagnose-Prescribe-Practice Teacher Annotated Edition. Other classroom 

resources include a Teacher Classroom Resources Collection. The collection includes blackline 

masters, guides, use of the internet and a teacher’s edition of the Math Skills Maintenance 

Workbook. Other program components are: California ExamView ®Pro Testmaker CD-ROM, 

Real Life Video/MindJogger DVD, California Intervention Planner, Quick Review Math 

Handbook, Book 2 Teacher’s Guide, 5-Minute Check Transparencies w/Standardized Test 

Practice, Key Teaching Transparencies and Answer Key, Solutions Manual, Teacher’s Edition 

and Transparencies of Noteables Intensive Study Notebook w/ Foldables, MathPASS: Tutorial 

Plus CD-ROM, Interactive Chalkboard CD-ROM, Virtual activities for Middle School Math, CD- 

ROM, Answer Key Maker CD-ROM, California Test Prep CD-ROM, and a Skills Intervention 

Binder for Middle School. 


The Curriculum Commission recommends Glencoe Mathematics: Applications and Concepts, 

California Edition ©2006 (grade six) for adoption with minor edits and corrections. 


This program meets all the evaluation criteria in this category and covers the content outlined in 

the Mathematics Content Standards. 



Assessment: 






Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:56 PM



Title of Program: Glencoe Pre-Algebra California Edition ©2006 


Attachment 1 


Grade Level: Seven 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

The student components of the program include a California Student Edition, California 

StudentWorks CD-ROM, California Noteables Interactive Study Notebook, a Skills Practice 

Workbook, Practice Workbook, Study Guide & Intervention Workbook, Reading to Learn 

Mathematics Workbook, and Mastering The California Standards: Diagnose-Prescribe- 

Practice Workbook. Teacher resources include the California Teacher Wraparound Edition, 

California TeacherWorks CD-ROM, Teacher’s Edition of Mastering the California 

Standards: Diagnose-Prescribe-Practice workbook, and California Intervention Planner. 

Also included is a Teacher Classroom Resources collection which consists of blackline 

masters, workbooks, teacher’s guides to workbooks, and information on using the internet. 

Other program components are: California ExamView®Pro Testmaker CD-ROM, 

Transparencies and Masters, MindJogger, DVD, 5 –Minute Check Transparencies w/ 

Standardized Test Practice, Answer Key Transparencies, Solutions Manual, Teacher 

Edition and Transparencies for Noteables Interactive Study Notebook, Pre-AlgePASS: 

Tutorial Plus CD-ROM, vocabulary PuzzleMaker CD-ROM, Interactive Chalkboard CD- 

ROM, Virtual Activities CD-ROM, Answer Key Maker CD-ROM, California Test Prep CD- 

ROM, and a Skills Intervention Binder for Pre-Algebra. 


The Curriculum Commission recommends the Glencoe Pre-Algebra California Edition © 

2006 (grade seven) for adoption with minor edits and corrections. The program is aligned 

with the evaluation criteria, the Framework and grade seven mathematics standards. 


The program meets the evaluation criteria in this category and covers the content outlined 

in the grade seven standards. 



Assessment: 






Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:56 PM



Title of Program: Glencoe Algebra I California Edition ©2006 


Attachment 1 



______________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

The student components of this program are: California Student Edition, California 

StudentWorks CD-ROM, California Noteables Interactive Study Notebook, Skills 

Practice Workbook, Practice Workbook, Study Guide & Intervention Workbook, and a 

Reading to Learn Mathematics Workbook. Teacher components include: California 

Teacher Wraparound Edition, California TeacherWorks CD-ROM, California 

Intervention Planner, and a Teacher Classroom Resources collection. The collection 

consists of blackline masters, Reading and Writing in the Mathematics Classroom, a 

Guide to Daily Intervention, information on using the internet, and a teacher’s guide and 

student workbook. Other components include: California ExamView® Pro Testmaker 

CD-ROM, Real World Application Transparencies and Masters, MindJogger DVD, 5- 

Minute Check Transparencies w/Standardized Test Practice, Answer Key 

Transparencies, Solutions Manual, a Teacher Edition, and Transparencies for 

Noteables Interactive Study Notebook, PASS: Tutorial Plus CD-ROM, Vocabulary 

PuzzleMaker CD-ROM, Interactive Chalkboard CD-ROM, Virtual Activities CD-ROM, 

Answer Key Maker CD-ROM, and California Test Prep CD-ROM. 


The Curriculum Commission recommends Glencoe Algebra I California Edition ©2006 

(grade eight) for adoption with minor edits and corrections. The program meets the 

evaluation criteria and covers the content for Algebra I as outlined in the Mathematics 

Framework. 


The program meets the evaluation criteria in this category and supports teaching the 

mathematics content standards. 



Assessment: 






Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:56 PM

Publisher: McDougal Littell 


Title of Program: McDougal Littell Pre-Algebra 


Attachment 1 


Grade Level: Seven 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

The program components include: a California Pupil’s Edition, a California Teacher’s 

Edition, and a Teacher’s Resource Package. The Resource package includes a 

resource book for each chapter, a notetaking guide, posters, Teacher Edition of the 

Practice Workbook, a Professional Development Book, Activities book, Poster package, 

Warm-up Transparencies and Daily Homework Quiz, and a Worked-Out Solution Key. 

Other components include a MultiLanguage Visual Glossary, tutor Place, Notetaking 

Pupil’s edition, Practice Workbook Pupil’s Edition, Answer Transparencies for Checking 

Homework, English-Spanish Problem Solving transparencies, Notetaking guide 

Transparencies, Spanish Study Guide, Exercises in Spanish, English & Spanish 

Chapter Reviews and Tests, Pre-Algebra eEdition CD-ROM, eTutorial CD-ROM, 

EasyPlanner CD-ROM, Power Presentations, California Pre-Algebra Test and Practice 

Generator CD-ROM, Chapter Audio Summaries in English and Spanish CD-ROM, 

eWorbook Plus Online, Pre-Algebra eEdition Plus Online, and one year license for 

eEdition Plus Online. 


The Curriculum Commission recommends McDougal Littell Pre-Algebra (grade seven) 

for adoption with minor edits and corrections. The program is aligned with the evaluation 

criteria, the Mathematics Framework and content standards. 





Assessment: 






Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:56 PM




Attachment 1 


Title of Program: Glencoe Algebra: Concepts and Applications California Edition © 

2005 


______________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

The program components for students include: California Student Edition, California 

StudentWorks CD-ROM, California Noteables Interactive Study Notebook, Practice 

Workbook, and Study Guide Workbook. Teacher components include: California 

Teacher Wraparound Edition, California TeacherWorks CD-ROM, A Teacher Resource 

Collection consisting of blackline masters, workbooks, a two year planning guide, 

information on using the internet, and Reading and Writing in the Mathematics 

Classroom. Additional components are: California ExamView®Pro Testmaker CD-ROM, 

5-Minuite Check Transparencies, Teaching and Answer Key Transparencies, Answer 

Key Masters, Solutions Manual, Teacher Edition and Transparencies for Noteables 

Interactive Study Notebook, PASS:Tutorial Plus CD-ROM, Vocabulary PuzzleMaker 

CD-ROM, Interactive Chalkboard CD-ROM, Virtual Activities CD-ROM, Answer Key 

Maker CD-ROM, California Intervention Planner, and California Test Prep CD-ROM. 


The Curriculum Commission does not recommend Glencoe Algebra: Concepts and 

Applications California Edition ©2005 (grade eight) for adoption, because it does not 

meet the evaluation criteria for Criteria Category 1. 


The program does not meet the content standards and evaluation criteria as outlined in 

Chapters 2 and 3 in the California Mathematics Framework. 



Assessment: 



This program does not meet the evaluation criteria in this category. Alternatives for 

gifted and talented students, or special education students are lacking. There is no 

evidence about how teachers might use the results of assessment to differentiate 

curriculum and instruction. Evidence of how complex understanding can be gained is 

not provided. 



Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14:56 PM




SUBJECT 

ITEM #5 




Instructional Materials in Reading Language Arts/English 

Language Development: Curriculum Development and 

Supplemental Materials Commission Recommendations 


Action 

Information 






Instructional Materials in Reading Language Arts/English Language Development 

(RLA/ELD). 


At the January 2002 meeting, the SBE completed the 2002 Primary Adoption of 

kindergarten through grade eight instructional materials in RLA/ELD by adopting two 

kindergarten through grade six Basic programs, four grade six through eight Basic 

programs, and six grade four through eight Intervention and grade four through eight EL 

Intervention programs. 



through grade eight Follow-up Adoptions and adopted the regulations. The regulations 

took effect on January 7, 2005. The regulations aided in the implementation of Senate 

Bill (SB) 1058 (Torlakson), which established that CDE could assess publisher fees for 


the purpose of follow-up adoptions. Follow-up adoptions expand the number of adopted 

programs available to school districts. The follow-up adoptions use the same evaluation 

criteria as the last primary adoption. Programs adopted under a follow-up adoption are 

added to the list of materials adopted in the last primary adoption. The follow-up 

materials list expires at the same time as the primary adoption list. For RLA/ELD, both 

the 2002 primary adoption list and the 2005 follow-up adoption list will expire on June 

30, 2008. 

On November 9, 2004, the SBE approved the Follow-Up Adoption Schedule of 

Significant Events, establishing the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption in RLA/ELD. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15:07 PM




At the March 2005 meeting, the SBE approved the appointment of Content Review 

Panel (CRP) members, and Instructional Materials Advisory Panel (IMAP) members to 

review instructional materials for the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption. 







materials in RLA/ELD were in attendance. 





Training: 


criteria, content standards, and legal and social compliance. Five CRPs and 31 IMAP 

members were trained for RLA/ELD. 


Deliberations for the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption in RLA/ELD were held June 13-15, 2005. 

Four panels met at 1500 Capitol Mall, in Sacramento, to conduct deliberations and 

produce reports of findings for each of the seven programs submitted for review and 

adoption. 


Legal and social compliance review for the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption in RLA/ELD was 

conducted both by the three Learning Resource Display Centers (LRDCs) which 

regularly conduct out-of-cycle legal and social compliance reviews, as well as by the 

IMAP/CRP panel members. On June 29, 2005, a Curriculum Commissioner and CDE 

staff reviewed legal and social compliance citations submitted by IMAP/CRP members, 

compared the citations to those processed through the LRDCs and submitted the 

citations to publishers for response. Four citations were forwarded to publishers for 

RLA/ELD. Publishers were given until August 2, 2005, to respond. Meetings to appeal 

citations were scheduled on August 17, 2005. Programs are recommended for adoption 

pending the resolution of legal and social compliance citations. 

Submissions and Recommendations: 

For RLA/ELD, both Basic and Intervention programs were submitted for review. Basic 

programs are designed to provide full instruction in all the standards for a specific grade 

level. Publishers provided standards maps showing how the program aligned to the 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15:07 PM




standards for the grade level(s). Intervention programs were also reviewed. Publishers 

of Intervention programs completed Intervention standards maps for their programs. 

These programs are not grade level specific, but include some standards from grade 

levels below fourth grade, as well as some standards from upper grade levels. Two 

types of Intervention programs were submitted. The grade four through eight 

Intervention program is designed as a stand-alone program for students in grade four 

through eight who are reading two or more years below grade level. The program is 

designed to accelerate learning. 

The second type of Intervention program is the grade four through eight English 

Language (EL) Intervention program. This program is specifically designed to 

accelerate learning for English learners who are reading below grade level two or more 

years. Some programs were submitted and reviewed for both the grade four through 

eight Intervention and the grade four through eight EL Intervention. For those programs 

submitted for consideration as both grade four through eight Intervention and grade 

four through eight EL Intervention, and recommended for both, the Commission 

provided one report. For programs submitted for both, but only recommended for one, 

the Commission provided two reports. 




hearings; one during the Subject Matter Committee meeting, and one during the full 

Commission meeting, and took action on the seven programs submitted for review and 

adoption. 



are recommended for adoption, pending the resolution of minor edits and corrections. 


The legislation establishing the follow-up adoption included a provision for establishing 

publisher fees to offset the costs of the adoption. For this adoption, $180,000.00 in fees 

were generated. Final costs of the adoption will not be known until all travel and 

expense invoices have been processed. Fee revenue and adoption costs are expected 

to be approximately equal. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: Curriculum Commission’s Recommendations for the 2005 Follow-Up 

Adoption in Reading Language Arts/English Language Development 

(9 Pages) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15:07 PM

PUBLISHER 

Pearson 

Longman 

Sopris West 

Voyager 

Expanded 

Learning, Inc. 


Reading Language Arts/English Language Development 


PROGRAM TITLE 

Recommended Programs 

PROGRAM TYPE 

The Shining Star Program Grades four through 

eight EL 

Intervention 

Language! 

(3rd Edition) 

Grades four through 

eight Intervention 

and grades four 

through eight EL 

Intervention 

Voyager Passport Grades four through 


Wright Group Fast Track Grades four through 


Great Source 

Education Group 

Pearson 

Longman 

Thomson Heinle Visions 

Voyager 

Expanded 

Learning, Inc. 

Programs not Recommended 

Reading Advantage Grades four through 


The Shining Star Program Grades four through 


Universal Learning System 

(ULS) 

* Note: these programs have not been adopted by the State 

Grades four through 

eight EL Intervention 

Kindergarten, grades 

one, two, and three 

Basic 


Attachment 1 


Commission 



Recommend 

adoption 

Recommend 

adoption for both 

Recommend 

adoption 

Recommend 

adoption 

Do not 

recommend 

adoption 

Do not 

recommend 

adoption 

Do not 

recommend 

adoption 

Do not 

recommend 

adoption 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15:07 PM

Publisher: Pearson Longman 

2005 Follow-Up Adoption – RLA/ELD 

Title of Program: The Shining Star Program 


Attachment 1 


Program Type: Grades four through eight EL Intervention 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

The program consists of five levels. Components of the first level, Keys to Learning 

(KTL), include; Student Book (SE), Workbook (Wrkbk), Workbook Package, 

Teacher’s Manual (TE), a CD-ROM, 2 Audiocassettes, 2 Audio CDs, 

transparencies, ExamView Test Generator, and Learning Placement Test. The 

second through fifth levels include all of the components listed above. Beginning 

with the second level, Introductory (Intro), components include Resources for 

Teachers a video, and Six Traits of Writing. The third level, Level A, through the fifth 

level, Level C, adds Resources for Students. 


The Curriculum Commission recommends Pearson Longman’s The Shining Star 

Program for adoption as grade four through eight EL Intervention program because it is 

aligned with the content standards and addresses the evaluation criteria. 

Alignment with English-Language Arts Content Standards: 

The program addresses all the evaluation criteria in this category. 



Assessment: 






Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15:07 PM

Publisher: Sopris West 



Attachment 1 


Title of Program: Language! (3rd Edition) The Comprehensive Literacy Curriculum 

Program Type: Grade four through eight Intervention 

Grade four through eight EL Intervention 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

The components of this program include a Training Kit/Teacher Resource Kit. Included 

in the kit are Teacher’s Editions (A), Student Texts (A) Interactive Text Book A, CD 

ROM Instructional Planning tool (A) Assessment Content Mastery Book, Summative 

Tests and Progress Indicators, Student Placement Booklet and Teacher’s Guide, 

Sortegories CD-ROM Books A-C, Words for Teachers (A-C), Letter Cards Books A-C, 

Morpheme for Meaning Cards Books A-C, Transparencies Books for A-C, 

manipulatives, Speaking and Listening to the English Language Book and Card Set, a 

one – year subscription to the Online Assessment System, Teacher Resource Guide, 

and Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) BookLink Version. Additional Components 

include a Teacher Book Set for each level, B-C, and Student Book Set for levels B-D. 


The Curriculum Commission recommends Sopris West’s Language! (3rd Edition) The 

Comprehensive Literacy Curriculum for adoption as both a grade four through eight 

Intervention program and a grade four through eight El Intervention program with minor 

edits and corrections, because it is aligned with the content standards and addresses all 



The program addresses all of the evaluation criteria in this category and is designed to 

accelerate student grade level mastery of content standards. 



Assessment: 



The program addresses the evaluation criteria for providing access to high-quality 

curriculum and instruction to all students. 


The program addresses the evaluation criteria for this category. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15:07 PM


Publisher: Voyager Expanded Learning 

Title of Program: Voyager Passport 


Attachment 1 



______________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

The components of this program include Assessment, Targeted Word Study 

(TWS), Comprehension and Vocabulary (C/V), Fluency, and Writing. A Student 

Resource Pack for each of the levels C-G is included. The Student Resource Pack 

includes Fluency Readers, Word Study and Comprehension Book, a Student 

Assessment Book, Writing Book and Comprehension Book. A Teacher’s Resource 

Kit for each level, C-G, includes two Writing Book Teacher’s Guides, Assessment 

Guide, Word Study, Vocabulary and Comprehension Teacher’s Guide (WS/V/C), 

Fluency Guide, Writing Book Guide, and Benchmarks. 


The Curriculum Commission recommends Voyager Expanded Learning’s Voyager 

Passport for adoption as a grade four through eight Intervention program with minor 

edits and corrections, because it is aligned with the content standards and the meets 



The program addresses all of the evaluation criteria in this category. 



Assessment: 



The program provides access to high quality curriculum and instruction to all students. 



Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15:07 PM

Publisher: Wright Group 

Title of Program: Fast Track Reading 



Attachment 1 



______________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

This intervention program consists of three program strands: the Word Work Strand, a 

Comprehension Strand, and a Fluency Strand. The fluency strand includes fluency 

cards and teacher’s guides with audio CD. The Comprehension Strand includes 

teacher’s guides and comprehension evaluation teacher’s guides (levels two through 

seven). Also included are magazine anthologies for levels two through seven, 30 

chapter books, and a program guide. 


The Curriculum Commission recommends Wright Group’s Fast Track Reading for 

adoption as a grade four through eight Intervention program with minor edits and 

corrections, because the program is aligned with the content standards and meets the 

evaluation criteria. 





Assessment: 






Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15:07 PM

Publisher: Great Source 

Title of Program: Reading Advantage 



Attachment 1 



______________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

The program consists of four kits labeled A, B, C and D. All kits include a Teacher’s 

Edition, Word Study Manual, Placement Book, and an Assessment Book. Kit A includes 

an Inside Writing Sentences Teacher’s Edition, an Inside Writing Narrative Teacher 

Edition, and an Inside Writing Descriptions Teacher’s Edition. Kit B includes an Inside 

Writing Paragraphs Teacher’s Edition, an Inside Writing Letters Teacher’s Edition, and 

an Inside Writing Responses to Literature Teacher’s Edition. Kit C includes an Inside 

Writing Sentences Teacher’s Edition, and Inside Writing Letters Teacher’s Edition, and 

an Inside Writing Expository Essay Teacher’s Edition. Kit D includes an Inside Writing 

Paragraphs Teacher’s Edition, Inside Writing Research Reports Teacher’s Edition, and 

an Inside Writing Persuasive Essays Teacher’s Edition. Additional components of the 

program include Student books for writing, and theme Magazine six-packs. 


The Curriculum Commission does not recommend Great Source Education Group’s 

Reading Advantage for adoption as a grade four through eight Intervention program 

because it does not meet Criteria Category I. It is not fully aligned with the content 

standards required for a grade four through eight Intervention program. 

Alignment with English-Language Arts Content Standards Content: 

The program does not include some strands of the content standards. There is 

insufficient instructional support for the foundational English Language Arts Content 

Standards. 


The program meets the criteria in this category. 

Assessment: 



The program does not provide all of the necessary content and pedagogical tools to 

meet the needs of the intensive student. 


This program addresses the evaluation criteria in this category. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15:07 PM

Publisher: Pearson Longman 


Title of Program: The Shining Star Program 


Attachment 1 



______________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

The program consists of five levels. Components of the first level, Keys to Learning 

(KTL), include; Student Book (SE), Workbook (Wrkbk), Workbook Package, 

Teacher’s Manual (TE), a CD-ROM, two Audiocassettes, two Audio CDs, 

transparencies, ExamView Test Generator, and Learning Placement Test. The 

second through fifth levels include all of the components listed above. Beginning 

with the second level, Introductory (Intro), components include Resources for 

Teachers a video, and Six Traits of Writing. The third level, Level A, through the fifth 

level, Level C, adds Resources for Students. 


The Curriculum Commission does not recommend Pearson Longman’s The Shining 

Star Program for adoption as a grade four through eight Intervention program because 

the program does not meet Criteria Category 4, Universal Access. 





Assessment: 



The program does not meet the criteria of Universal Access and does not provide the 

necessary content and pedagogical tools to meet the needs of a full range of students. 


The program meets most of the criteria in this category. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15:07 PM

Publisher: Thomson Heinle 

Title of Program: Visions 



Attachment 1 


Program Type: Grade four through eight EL Intervention 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

The components of this four level grade four through grade eight EL intervention 

program include; Teacher’s Edition for each level, a Teacher Resource Book for each 

level, a California Lesson Planner, Assessment Program CD-ROM, Transparencies for 

levels A-C, California Correlation Reading Intervention Grades grade four through eight, 

Staff Development Video and Handbook, Student Handbook, and Assessment CD- 

ROM, Reading Library Mini-Readers, Student Books, Student Activity Book, a Student 

CD-ROM, and Audio CD for building listening/speaking skills and reading fluency. 


The Curriculum Commission does not recommend Thomson Heinle’s Visions for 

adoption as a grade four through eight EL Intervention program because the program 

does not meet evaluation criteria for Category 1, the English-Language Arts content 

standards as a stand-alone intervention program for grades four through eight English 

learners. When considered holistically, it also does not satisfy the evaluation criteria for 

categories 2 through 5. 


The program does not provide sufficient instruction designed to ensure that students 

master each of the English Language Arts standards. 


The program is not arranged for optimal rate of learning and appropriate pacing. 

Assessment: 

The program does not meet the evaluation criteria for this category. 


The program does not adequately provide access to high-quality curriculum and 

instruction to all students. 


The program does not provide a clear road map for teachers to follow when planning 

instruction. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15:07 PM


Publisher: Voyager Expanded Learning 

Title of Program: Universal Literacy System (ULS) 


Attachment 1 


Program Type: Kindergarten through grade three Basic 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Components 

The components of this program include Home Study Guides for each unit, one 

through six, Daily Reading Selections for units four through six, Take Home Library 

Books, a Student Resource Guide which includes Word Study Books, a Student 

Assessment Book and a set of Take Home Readers. Some levels include Writing 

and Spelling Books, magazines, and research projects. Also included is a Teacher 

Resource Kit. The kit includes Curriculum Guides for each unit, a Games Book, 

Classroom Management Guide and Packet, an audio CD, Assessment, cards and 

card box, Benchmarks and Read Aloud Vocabulary Books, a Vocabulary and 

Comprehension Teacher’s Guide, Manipulative Kits, Research Project books, and a 

Universal Literacy Game Kit. Other components include Literature Libraries, ELD 

Support Lessons and ELD Language Acquisition Teacher’s Edition and Read 

Alouds. 


The Curriculum Commission does not recommend Voyager Expanded Learning’s 

Universal Literacy System for adoption as a Kindergarten through grade three Basic 

program because it does not meet criteria category 1 and is not fully aligned with the 

content standards. When considered holistically, the program only satisfies criteria 

categories 2 and 3. 


The program missed opportunities to provide explicit, sequential, systematic instruction 

to satisfy many of the content standards. 


The program meets most of the evaluation criteria in this category. 

Assessment: 

The program meets most of the evaluation criteria in this category. 


The instructional materials do not guide teachers in providing effective, efficient, 

standards-based instruction to facilitate access for all students to the core curriculum. 


Teacher resource guides provide a description of all components, but fail to provide a 

clear road map for teachers to follow when planning for instruction. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15:07 PM



aab-sdad-sep05item01 

SUBJECT 

ITEM #6 



No Child Left Behind (NCLB Act of 2001 - Including, but not 

limited to, an update on approval from the U.S. Department of 

Education (ED) of amendments to California's Accountability 

Workbook, including the State's application for NCLB flexibility 

regarding students with disabilities; the status of required 

submissions to the California Department of Education (CDE) 

from local educational agencies (LEAs) identified for Program 

Improvement (PI) and an update on ED's September 2004 

Title I monitoring visit. 


Action 

Information 


The State Board of Education (SBE) will hear an update on current NCLB activities and 

take action as deemed necessary and appropriate. 


This standing item allows the CDE and SBE staff to brief the SBE on timely topics 

related to NCLB implementation. 


Update on approval from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) of amendments 

to California's Accountability Workbook, including the State's application for 

NCLB flexibility regarding students with disabilities. 

The SBE approved amendments to California's Accountability Workbook at its March 

2005 meeting (Item 15). The amendment request was sent to ED on March 31, 2005. 

At a special session of the SBE held on May 31, 2005, the SBE voted to approve a 

letter of intent to be sent to ED indicating California’s request to be considered for 

additional NCLB flexibility for students with disabilities, as outlined in the May 10, 2005, 

guidelines from ED. (Those guidelines can be viewed at 

http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/05/05102005.html.) The letter of intent was 

sent to Raymond Simon, Deputy Secretary, immediately following the SBE special 

session. During the special session, the SBE also approved the content of a follow-up 

letter that was subsequently submitted to ED on June 15, 2005. 

Revised 1/19/2012 1:15 PM




The state received a letter from ED, dated July 28, 2005, and signed by Deputy 

Secretary Ray Simon, approving certain requested amendments and California's use of 

the "proxy method" to take advantage of the flexibility regarding calculating AYP for 

students with disabilities subgroup. The letter is attached. 

Status of required submissions to CDE from LEAs identified for PI. 

In September 2004, ED conducted a review of the way in which the State administers 

Title I programs, as reauthorized by NCLB. In December 2004, the State received the 

results of that review. The report indicated that the State needed to amend the criteria 

by which it identified LEAs for PI to be consistent with federal law. The CDE and the 

SBE worked with ED to establish new criteria for identifying PI LEAs. On March 9, 2005, 

the SBE approved the revised criteria, which are described below: 

• The LEA received Title I, Part A funds in 2002-03 and 2003-04; and 

• The LEA, based on the aggregation of all student scores, did not make Adequate 

Yearly Progress (AYP) in the same content area in 2002-03 and 2003-04 

(i.e., English-language arts or math); and 

• The disaggregation of the LEA’s results by grade span (grades two through five, 

grades six through eight, and grade ten) resulted in each grade span not making 

AYP in the same content area in 2002-03 and 2003-04. 

Based on these criteria and after all appeals were reviewed, a total of 142 LEAs were 

identified for PI for the 2004-05 school year. The LEAs identified for PI at the beginning 

of 2004-05 school year, in addition to the LEAs identified subsequent to the March 2005 

SBE meeting, will continue their Year 1 PI status through the end of the 2005-06 school 

year. 

NCLB Section 1116 requires that LEAs identified for PI must: 

• Notify parents of the LEA’s PI status within 30 days. 

• Complete an addendum to the LEA Plan within 90 days of identification, in 

consultation with an external entity, parents, and school staff; and implement the 

amended Plan expeditiously. 

• Reserve at least ten percent of the LEA’s 2005-06 Title I allocation to provide 

professional development to teachers and administrators. 

LEAs identified for PI were required to submit a copy of the LEA Plan Addendum online 

to the NCLB Implementation and Coordination Office by August 1, 2005. In addition to 

the Addendum, LEAs were also required to send in a signed assurance page and 

copies of their parent notification letters by August 1. In preparing the Addendum, PI 

Revised 1/19/2012 1:15 PM




LEAs were required to analyze the reason(s) for PI identification, work with their 

external entity, and ensure that the Addendum: 

• Incorporates scientifically based research strategies that strengthen the core 

academic program in schools served by the LEA. 

• Identifies actions that have the greatest likelihood of improving the achievement 

of students in meeting state standards. 

• Addresses the professional development needs of the instructional staff. 

• Includes specific measurable achievement goals and targets for all students and 

subgroups, addressing all elements of AYP. 

• Addresses the fundamental teaching and learning needs in the schools of that 

LEA and the specific academic problems of low-achieving students, including a 

determination of why the prior LEA Plan failed to bring about increased student 

achievement. 

• Incorporates, as appropriate, activities before school, after school, during the 

summer, and during an extension of the school year. 

• Includes strategies to promote effective parental involvement in the schools. 

• Meets all requirements specified in NCLB Section 1116(c)(7)(A)(i) through (viii). 

CDE will submit an October 2005 Information Item to the SBE that will include a status 

report on the required submissions (Addendum, signed assurance page, parent 

notification letter) from each PI LEA. 


Any State or LEA that does not abide by the mandates and provisions of NCLB is at risk 

of losing federal funding. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: The letter from Deputy Ray Simon, dated July 28, 2005, is not available 

for Web viewing. A printed copy is available for viewing in the SBE 

Office. 

Revised 1/19/2012 1:15 PM



aab-ped-sep05item01 

SUBJECT 

ITEM #7 



No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Results from the 2005 

Accountability Progress Reports 


Action 

Information 


The California Department of Education (CDE) is providing the following item to the 

State Board of Education (SBE) for information and action as deemed necessary and 

appropriate. 


The SBE annually receives information on results of the Academic Performance Index 

(API) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) reports. 


The Policy and Evaluation Division is providing summary results from the 

August 31, 2005, release of the 2005 Accountability Progress Reports. Results include 

the proportion of schools that made school wide growth on the 2004-05 statewide API 

and the proportion of schools that made AYP. The Press Release provides more 

information and will be attached to the last minute memorandum. 

The targets for the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level or above on the 

statewide assessments used to determine AYP increased in 2005 by about ten 

percentage points for all school types. 


Fiscal impact will be minimal as the Accountability Progress Reports are posted on the 

CDE Web site at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

The Press Release will be provided as a last minute memorandum. Comment [A1]: Isn’t this information already 

available? Why do it as a LMM? 

Revised 1/19/2012 1:15 PM



blue-sep05item07 

State of California Department of Education 

LAST MINUTE MEMORANDUM 

DATE: August 31, 2005 

TO: MEMBERS, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 

FROM: Geno Flores, Deputy Superintendent 

Assessment and Accountability Branch 

RE: Item No. 7 

SUBJECT: No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Results from the 2005 

Accountability Progress Report 

The Policy and Evaluation Division is providing summary results from the 

August 31, 2005, release of the 2005 Accountability Progress Report. Results from the 

New Release include: 1) Percent of schools meeting 2005 state Academic Performance 

Index (API) criteria; 2) Median APIs; 3) Percent of schools meeting all 2005 federal 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) criteria; 4) Percent of schools meeting 2005 state API 

criteria but not making 2005 federal AYP; 5) Schools meeting/not meeting 2005 federal 

AYP criteria; and 6) Percent of LEAs meeting 2005 federal AYP criteria. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:11 PM

lue-sep05item07 


REL#05-103 CONTACT: Pam Slater 

For Immediate Release TELEPHONE: 916-319-0818 

August 31, 2005 E-MAIL: pslater@cde.ca.gov 

O’CONNELL ANNOUNCES SIGNIFICANT GAINS IN STATE API RESULTS, 

MIXED PROGRESS IN FEDERAL AYP RESULTS 

SACRAMENTO – State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell 

today announced that 81 percent of California’s public schools made significant gains 

this year in reaching their schoolwide growth targets, a 17-point increase over 2004. 

In addition, 83 percent of California schools posted increases in overall academic 

growth, compared to 64 percent last year. 

The results are part of the 2004-05 Academic Performance Index (API), the 

state’s accountability system that measures the academic success of a school on the 

basis of how much it improves. Also released today are the results of the Adequate 

Yearly Progress (AYP), the federal government’s accountability model, which show 56 

percent of California schools successfully met their AYP targets. Both the state API and 

the federal AYP are calculated using the annual results of students tested in the 

Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR) and the California High School 

Exit Exam (CAHSEE). 

“The outstanding API results reflect the tremendous success we celebrated 

earlier this month when our annual test scores showed widespread gains in nearly 

every subject and grade level,” said O’Connell. “With data showing six years of 

improved student achievement we know that California schools are headed in the right 

direction. We now need to maintain the focus on high standards to keep up the 

momentum for improved student achievement at all schools.” 

At each grade level tested, from grade two through grade eleven, schools are 

making increases toward the state’s API performance target of 800 (out of a possible 

1,000). In 2005, more than 27 percent of California schools attained or exceeded that 

mark, compared to 23 percent of schools in 2004. For elementary schools, 32 percent



are at or above 800, compared to 27 percent last year; 21 percent of middle schools are 

at or above that mark, compared to 18 percent last year; and 12 percent of high schools 

reached or passed 800, compared to 9 percent last year. 

When viewed over a six-year period a clear trend toward sustained improvement 

emerges. For example, from 1999-2005 California’s median elementary school API rose 

122 points from 629 to 751. In addition, the percentage of elementary schools reaching 

the state’s target goal of 800 grew by 19 percentage points, from 13 percent to 32 

percent. The six-year trend also shows that the base API for even the lowest performing 

schools is significantly higher than the base was in 1999. For example, a school ranked 

at the top of decile one this year would have been ranked in decile six if their current 

API score were used on the 1999 scale. 

“While we can celebrate the progress our schools are making, we cannot forget 

the significant work still ahead of us, specifically on closing the pernicious achievement 

gap,” O’Connell said. 

The progress report under the federal accountability system showed that fewer 

schools in 2005 met federal accountability targets, which nearly doubled this year. The 

percentage of schools making AYP fell to 56 percent in 2005 from 65 percent in 2004. 

Under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, schools must meet annual AYP targets, 

which increase over time, so that in 2013-14, 100 percent of students are expected to 

score at the proficient level or above. 

”It is important to remember the dramatic escalation in the AYP targets when 

viewing this year’s results,” O’Connell noted. “The dichotomy in the progress reports 

released today underscores why we support our state API growth model as a more 

accurate reflection of trends in our schools. 

“Under NCLB, each state defines what it considers a proficient level of 

performance for its students, “O’Connell continued. “In order to ensure our students are 

prepared to compete in a global economy, California has set our level for proficiency 

very high to reflect our world-class curriculum standards, which are some of the most 

rigorous in the nation." 

The 2005 API and AYP results are presented in the Accountability Progress 

Report (APR). Each school, school district, as well as the state as a whole has its own



individual report. The APR provides a comprehensive view of academic results on key 

indicators, such as state tests, graduation rates, and student subgroup performance. 

New this year, the 2005 APR consolidates a number of reports that were 

previously available separately into one report available at one Web site location. The 

various sections and elements of the APR are easily accessible through the use of 

navigation tabs. The 2005 APR is available at: http://ayp.cde.ca.gov. 

The 2005 APR will also include information about Program Improvement (PI). On 

September 15, PI data will be posted into the APR. A school that receives federal Title I 

funds may be identified for PI if it does not make AYP for two consecutive years within 

specific areas. However, CDE will also apply a Safe Harbor calculation that considers 

whether schools are making some progress based on decreasing the number of 

students below proficient. The Safe Harbor calculation will also be posted with the PI 

release in September. If a school is identified as PI, it must implement certain services, 

such as offering school choice with paid transportation or tutoring services to students 

at the school. Schools that continue in PI face escalating requirements, up to and 

including a change in governance. School districts and county offices of education that 

receive Title I funds also may be identified for PI. A school is eligible to exit PI if it 

makes AYP for two consecutive years. 

The complete 2004-05 API Growth results, which will include information on 

subgroups (not currently available in today’s report), will be incorporated into the 2005 

APR in October. 

# # # 

Attachments



2005 Accountability Progress Report 

State Accountability: Academic Performance Index (API) 

School Type 

Elementary 

Schools 

Middle 

Schools 

High Schools 

All Schools 

Total Number 

of Schools 

Percent of Schools Meeting 2005 State API Criteria 

(Schoolwide API Growth Only) 

Met State API 

Schoolwide 

Growth Target 

At or Above State 

API Performance 

Target of 800 

Increased API 

2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 

62% 

73% 

68% 

64% 

6,974 

81% 

81% 

83% 

81% 

7,196 

27% 

18% 

9% 

23% 

7,164 

32% 

21% 

12% 

27% 

7,196 

Median APIs 

(Schoolwide API Growth Only) 

School Type 

Elementary 

Schools 

Middle Schools 

High Schools 

All Schools 

Total Number 


All Schools 

2004 2005 

731 

697 

669 

718 

7,164 

751 

715 

692 

736 

7,302 

59% 

76% 

74% 

64% 

7,004 

81% 

85% 

87% 

83% 

7,196 

Note: For both tables, schools in the Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM) and small schools are excluded. A “small 

school” is a school with fewer than 100 valid test scores.



2005 Accountability Progress Report 

Federal Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 

Percent of Schools Meeting ALL 2005 Federal AYP Criteria (Making AYP) 

School Type 

Elementary 

Schools 

Middle 

Schools 

High Schools 

All Schools 

Total Number 


All Schools 

All Schools 

Title I-Funded 

Schools Only 

2004 2005 2004 2005 

75% 

44% 

53% 

65% 

9,206 

60% 

39% 

56% 

56% 

9,188 

69% 

31% 

50% 

61% 

5,712 

47% 

24% 

51% 

45% 

5,674 

Note: Schools in the Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM) and small schools are included. A “small school” is a school 

with fewer than 100 valid test scores. For 2005, the number of Title I schools statewide was taken from the 2005-06 Consolidated 

Application, Part 1, that each LEA is responsible for completing annually. As of August 22, 2005, 97.3 percent of the LEAs in 

California had completed the Consolidated Application. Safe harbor not applied. 

Percent of Schools Meeting 2005 State API Criteria (Schoolwide API Only) 

But Not Making 2005 Federal AYP 

All Schools 

Met State API 

Schoolwide Growth 

Target AND 

Missed AYP 

School Type 2004 2005 

Elementary 

Schools 

Middle 

Schools 

High Schools 

All Schools 

Total Number 


17% 

53% 

19% 

24% 

4,475 

37% 

60% 

31% 

40% 

5,724 

Note: Schools in the Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM) and small schools are excluded. A “small school” is a school 

with fewer than 100 valid test scores. Safe harbor not applied.




(continued) 

AYP Criteria by Component 

All Criteria 

Schools Meeting/Not Meeting 2005 Federal AYP Criteria 

All Schools 

Number of Number of 

Schools Schools Percent of Schools 

Number of Made AYP Missed AYP Made AYP Criteria 

Schools Criteria Criteria 

2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 

9,206 

9,188 

6,024 

5,133 

3,182 

4,055 

65.4% 

55.9% 

PARTICIPATION RATE, ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTS 

1. Schoolwide 

2. African American or Black 

9,206 9,188 8,875 8,965 331 223 96.4% 97.6% 

(not of Hispanic origin) 

3. American Indian or 

1,249 1,214 1,175 1,160 74 54 94.1% 95.6% 

Alaska Native 17 

16 16 

15 1 

1 94.1% 

93.8% 

4. Asian 1,216 1,237 1,206 1,234 10 3 99.2% 99.8% 

5. Filipino 195 199 195 199 0 0 100.0% 100.0% 

6. Hispanic or Latino 5,666 5,785 5,515 5,688 151 97 97.3% 98.3% 

7. Pacific Islander 

8. White (not of Hispanic 

2 2 2 2 0 0 100.0% 100.0% 

origin) 

9. Socioeconomically 

4,892 4,775 4,767 4,696 125 79 97.4% 98.3% 

disadvantaged 6,136 

6,172 5,963 

6,046 173 

126 97.2% 

98.0% 

10. English Learners 4,204 4,069 4,128 4,042 76 27 98.2% 99.3% 

11. Students with Disabilities 936 818 854 778 82 40 91.2% 95.1% 

PARTICIPATION RATE, MATHEMATICS 

12. Schoolwide 


9,206 9,188 8,839 8,942 367 246 96.0% 97.3% 



1,248 1,213 1,169 1,163 79 50 93.7% 95.9% 


16 16 

15 1 

1 94.1% 

93.8% 

15. Asian 1,216 1,236 1,206 1,233 10 3 99.2% 99.8% 

16. Filipino 195 199 194 199 1 0 99.5% 100.0% 

17. Hispanic or Latino 5,665 5,787 5,507 5,685 158 102 97.2% 98.2% 



2 2 2 2 0 0 100.0% 100.0% 

origin) 


4,894 4,777 4,758 4,691 136 86 97.2% 98.2% 


6,172 5,935 

6,047 201 

125 96.7% 

98.0% 

21. English Learners 4,204 4,069 4,125 4,038 79 31 98.1% 99.2% 

22. Students with Disabilities 936 819 808 765 128 54 86.3% 93.4%

AYP Criteria by Component 



Number of Number of 

Schools Made Schools Percent of Schools 

Number of AYP Criteria Missed AYP Made AYP Criteria 

Schools 

Criteria 

2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 

PERCENT PROFICIENT, ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTS 



9,206 9,188 8,761 7,976 445 1,212 95.2% 86.8% 



1,096 1,072 887 634 209 438 80.9% 59.1% 


13 12 

6 2 

7 85.7% 

46.2% 

26. Asian 1,192 1,178 1,140 1,094 52 84 95.6% 92.9% 

27. Filipino 193 197 193 196 0 1 100.0% 99.5% 

28. Hispanic or Latino 5,468 5,587 4,825 3,793 643 1,794 88.2% 67.9% 



2 2 1 0 1 2 50.0% 0.0% 

origin) 


4,757 4,625 4,752 4,606 5 19 99.9% 99.6% 


5,945 5,348 

4,167 612 

1,778 89.7% 

70.1% 

32. English Learners 4,012 3,990 2,602 1,447 1,410 2,543 64.9% 36.3% 


PERCENT PROFICIENT, MATHEMATICS 



9,206 9,188 8,824 8,376 382 812 95.9% 91.2% 



1,096 1,070 769 573 327 497 70.2% 53.6% 


13 10 

7 3 

6 76.9% 

53.8% 

37. Asian 1,188 1,178 1,174 1,155 14 23 98.8% 98.0% 

38. Filipino 191 197 191 196 0 1 100.0% 99.5% 

39. Hispanic or Latino 5,463 5,587 4,912 4,549 551 1,038 89.9% 81.4% 



2 2 2 0 0 2 100.0% 0.0% 

origin) 


4,748 4,621 4,718 4,542 30 79 99.4% 98.3% 


5,947 5,399 

4,912 557 

1,035 90.6% 

82.6% 

43. English Learners 4,009 3,990 3,375 2,977 634 1,013 84.2% 74.6% 


ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE INDEX AS ADDITIONAL INDICATOR FOR AYP 

45. API as additional indicator 9,206 9,188 8,340 8,672 866 516 90.6% 94.4% 

GRADUATION RATE 

46. Graduation Rate 2,156 2,288 1,930 1,906 226 382 89.5% 83.3% 

Graduation rate is calculated for all schools with any grade 9-12 students. 

Safe harbor not applied.




(continued) 

Percent of LEAs Meeting 2005 Federal AYP Criteria 

(Made AYP) 

School Type 

All LEAs 

2004 2005 

Elementary School 

Districts 

Unified School 

69% 66% 

Districts 

High School 

46% 38% 

Districts 

County Offices of 

53% 69% 

Education 

All LEAs Making 

22% 17% 

AYP 

Total Number of 

59% 56% 

LEAs 

1,040 1,035 

Note: LEA = Local Educational Agency. An LEA is a school district or county office of education. 

Safe harbor not applied.




SUBJECT 

ITEM #8 



No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Approve Supplemental 

Educational Services (SES) Providers for 2005-07 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve the list of providers for SES. 


The SBE approved, at the January 2005 meeting, new SES regulations, plus the 

revised SES providers application and rubric. At the May and July 2005 meetings, the 

SBE approved a total of 202 providers for 2005-07. 


SES to low-achieving, low-income students are required by Section 1116(e) of NCLB. 

The CDE is responsible for establishing a list of approved providers, as described in 

Section 1116 (e)(4) of NCLB. 

SES include “tutoring and other academic enrichment services” that are: 

• Support the students’ standards-based classroom curriculum 

• Chosen by parents 

• Provided outside the school day 

• Research-based and demonstrate program effectiveness 

• Designed specifically to increase the academic achievement of eligible children 

Revised 1/19/2012 1:15 PM




The application process occurs on an on-going basis during the 2005-06 school year. 

However, applicants for the 2006-07 school year will need to submit their applications 

by March 1, 2006. CDE evaluates each application against a four-point rubric based on 

the SBE-adopted criteria. Each application must address the following four elements of 

the criteria: 

• Element I. Program 

• Element II. Staff 

• Element III. Research-based and high quality program effectiveness 

• Element IV. Evaluation/Monitoring 


The process for reviewing the applications is as follows: 

• Title I Policy and Partnerships Office (TIPP) date stamps all applications when 

received. 

• TIPP program consultants review each application twice using SES rubric based 

on SBE criteria. 

• Manager reviews applications that have discrepant scores and a low rating. 

• Education Program Consultants provide technical assistance to applications with 

deficiencies. Technical assistance is ongoing until deficiencies are corrected. 

• Application program descriptions are prepared and compiled for the SBE. 


Federal revenues are apportioned to LEAs to support the use of SES. LEAs must use a 

minimum of five percent and a maximum of 15 percent of the Title I, Part A allocation for 

SES, unless a lesser amount is needed. Title V, Part A Innovative Program funds can 

be also used to support SES. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

A list of recommended Supplemental Educational Services Providers will be provided as 

a last minute memorandum. 

Revised 1/19/2012 1:15 PM











SUBJECT: No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Approve Supplemental 

Educational Services (SES) Providers for 2005-07 

California Department of Education (CDE) staff recommends approval of 25 SES 

providers by the State Board of Education (SBE). 

At the January 2005 meeting, the SBE approved the new SES regulations, and the 

revised SES providers application and rubric. Staff used the four-point rubric based on 

the SBE adopted criteria to evaluate the applications. After SBE approval of the 

September 2005 list of recommended providers, the CDE will post an updated list to the 

CDE Web site. The list of approved providers will be in effect through June 30, 2007. 

Attachment 1: Supplemental Educational Services Application Summary (1 Page) 

Attachment 2: Supplemental Educational Services Provider Information (2 Pages) 

(This attachment is not available for Web viewing. A printed copy is 

available in the SBE Office.) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:12 PM

Supplemental Educational Services Application Summary 


Attachment 1 


During this review period a total of 40 applications were received for consideration at 

the September 2005 State Board of Education (SBE) meeting. Following is a summary 

of these applications. 

Applications Recommended 25 (62.5% of 40) 

Incomplete Applications 7 (17.5% of 40) 

8 (20% of 40) (reasons included) 

Applications Not Recommended o Description of program elements was 

unclear. 

o Application did not fully address all 

required components. 

o Application lacked a complete 

description of the rationale for the 

instructional program. 

o Data to support program 

effectiveness were incomplete. 

Total 40 

California Department of Education (CDE) staff used the four-point rubric approved by 

the SBE in January 2005 to evaluate the applications. After SBE approval of the 

September 2005 list of recommended providers, CDE will post the list on its Web site. 

The list of approved providers will be in effect through June 30, 2007. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:12 PM




SUBJECT 

ITEM #9 



No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Approve Local 

Educational Agency Plans, Title 1 Section 1112 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve six local educational agencies (LEAs) Plans. These plans 

have met the requirements for full approval. 


As of the July 2005 meeting, the SBE has approved a total of 1,238 LEA Plans. 


The purpose of the LEA Plan is to develop an integrated, coordinated plan that 

describes educational services for all learners and can be used to guide program 

implementation and resource allocation. 


There is no fiscal impact to state operations. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: List of LEAs whose Plans are recommended for full SBE approval, 

September 2005 (1 Page) 

Revised 1/19/2012 1:15 PM

Local Educational Agency Plans for Direct-Funded Charter Schools 

Recommended for Full State Board of Education Approval 

September 2005 

CoDistCode SchCode Direct-Funded Charter Schools 

0161259 0106906 Bay Area Technology School 

1964337 1996099 Options for Youth – Burbank 

1975291 1006016 Options for Youth – San Gabriel 

3768338 0106732 High Tech High International 

3975499 0102392 Millenium High School 

3975499 6118665 Primary Charter School 


Attachment 1 


Revised 1/19/2012



cib-sid-sep05item01 

SUBJECT 

ITEM #10 



Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program: Work 

Plan for a 36-month Review of State-Monitored Schools that may 

be Subject to Additional Sanctions 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve the work plan for conducting a 36-month review of statemonitored 

schools that may be subject to additional sanctions. 


The SBE designated six Cohort 1 Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools 

Program (II/USP) schools as state-monitored in March 2003. These schools will 

complete 36-months as state-monitored schools effective March 2006 and will 

potentially be subject to additional sanctions pursuant to Education Code (EC) Section 

52055.55(b). 


In order to inform the consultation process between the State Board of Education (SBE) 

and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction about future sanctions for each of 

these schools, the California Department of Education (CDE) proposes to conduct a 

review of educational program and academic achievement change in each school. 

These schools participated in an initial School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) 

process which was built upon the California Academic Audit. The initial audit process 

was broader in scope than the current nine Essential Program Components for 

instructional success which are the current organizers of the SAIT intervention. In 

addition, the 24 schools state-monitored in the 2002-03 fiscal year were not assigned 

state monitoring status until March 2003. Nevertheless, each school had an identified 

set of activities adopted in a 2003 Report of Findings and Corrective Actions that should 

have led to improved student achievement. Each school received intensive and expert 

support from a SAIT, as well as received additional funds to implement assigned 

corrective actions. It is important to note that 17 state-monitored schools from this first 

cohort of the II/USP did implement the corrective actions and have exited the program, 

and one school was closed by the district. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15 PM




Pursuant to EC Section 52055.55(b), potential recommendations the SBE may receive 

regarding each of these six schools include: 

• Recommendation that the SBE remove the SAIT from providing services at the 

schoolsite and assign one of the following: 

• Use available federal funds to ensure that 100 percent of the teachers at the 

schoolsite are highly qualified under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001 (20 United States Code Section 6301, et seq: Title I, Part A and State 

Compensatory Education Instrument V-CE.13); 

• Use available federal funds to contract with an outside entity to provide 

supplemental instruction to high priority students and assign a SAIT, 

management team, or trustee who has demonstrated success with other 

state-monitored schools; 

• Allow the parents of pupils enrolled at the state-monitored school to apply 

directly to the SBE to establish a charter school at the existing schoolsite; 

• Close the school. 

The review of each state-monitored school is proposed to: 

• Be conducted by senior CDE staff, the Approved SAIT Provider (and Lead, if 

different), district representatives, including the supervisor of the principal, and a 

representative of the county office (if not the SAIT Lead). 

• Occur sometime between September 15, 2005, and January 10, 2006. 

• Focus on an analysis of student achievement patterns in the school and the 

implementation of corrective actions and benchmarks identified in the initial 

Report of Findings and Recommended Corrective Actions. The review would 

also focus on the implementation of the nine Essential Program Components, 

which may or may not have been required in these schools. 

• Result in an analysis and set of recommendations to the CDE and the SBE on 

why the school has failed to make academic progress on the State’s 

Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program and what the review team 

recommends that the CDE and the SBE should do to put the school on a course 

of action for rapid academic achievement growth. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15 PM




It is expected that costs will be minimal; both state and local agencies will absorb any 

costs resulting from meetings and analysis required by the review of the affected 

schools. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: Work Plan for Conducting a 36-Month Review of State-Monitored 

Schools that may be Subject to Additional Sanctions (1 Page) 

Attachment 2: Six State-Monitored Schools by Decile Rank and Performance (1 Page) 

A last minute memorandum will provide Academic Performance Index Base and Growth 

information for the appropriate years for each state-monitored school subject to a 36month 

review and additional sanctions. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15 PM

WORK PLAN FOR 36-MONTH REVIEW OF STATE-MONITORED SCHOOLS 

THAT MAY BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS 

TASK COMPLETION DATE 

Provide notice to school district September 9, 2005 

Determine composition of review team to include senior CDE 

staff, the approved SAIT Provider (and Lead, if different), district 

representatives (including the supervisor of the principal), and a 

September 23, 2005 

representative of the county office (if not the SAIT Lead) 

Orientation meeting for review team October 14, 2005 

Collaborate with the district on schedule to conduct review October 31, 2005 

Conduct onsite review of school information and district support 

for school 

November 1, 2005 

to 

January 31, 2006 

Prepare a December information item for the Board, findings to 

date 

Prepare a Board information item for February with updated 

December 2005 

information reflecting preliminary findings and recommendations. January 2006 

Prepare recommendations for CDE. 

Prepare item for SBE March 2006 meeting with recommendation 

February 2006 

relative to Education Code Section 52055.55(b) March 8-9, 2006 


Attachment 1 


Revised: 1/6/2012 3:24 PM

District School Cohort 

Madera Unified 

Lamont Elementary 

Cajon Valley Union Elementary 

Bakersfield City Elementary 

Wilsona Elementary 

Antelope Valley Union High 

Eastin-Arcola Elementary 

Alicante Avenue Elementary 

Lexington Elementary 

Compton Junior High 

Wilsona Elementary 

Antelope Valley High 

Six State-Monitored Schools by Decile Rank and Performance 

2004 Decile Rank 

2003 Growth 

2003 Schoolwide 

2004 Growth 

2004 Schoolwide 

1 1 45 Yes -9 No 

1 2 84 Yes -22 No 

1 2 60 Yes -23 No 

1 2 54 Yes -27 No 

1 5 36 Yes -9 No 

1 3 -3 No 50 Yes 


Attachment 2 


2005 Growth 

2005 Schoolwide 

Revised: 1/6/2012 3:26 PM






DATE: January 19, 2012 


FROM: Sue Stickel, Deputy Superintendent 

Curriculum and Instruction Branch 


SUBJECT: Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program: Work Plan for 

a 36-month Review of State-Monitored Schools that may be Subject to 

Additional Sanctions 

Attached is a data table describing the performance of six Immediate Intervention/ 

Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) schools that in March 2003 became statemonitored 

and in March 2006 will have failed to exit state monitoring. Education Code 

Section 52055.55 requires that state-monitored schools make significant growth for two 

consecutive years in order to exit the program. The data table shows that while some of 

these schools made academic growth, none of them made growth for two consecutive 

years. As a result, these schools are subject to a 36-month review and additional 

sanctions to be determined in March 2006. 

Attachment 3: Data Table: Cohort 1 State-Monitored Schools Subject to a 36-Month 

Review and Additional Sanctions (1 Page) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:12 PM

Data Table: Cohort 1 State-Monitored Schools Subject to a 36-Month Review and Additional Sanctions 

District School 

Madera Unified 

Eastin-Arcola Elementary 

Lamont Elementary 

Alicante Avenue Elementary 

Cajon Valley Union Elementary Lexington Elementary 

Bakersfield City Elementary Compton Junior High 

Wilsona Elementary Wilsona Elementary 

Antelope Valley Union High Antelope Valley High 

2004 Decile Rank 

2002 Base 

2003 Growth 

Met 2003 Sch00lwide 

Growth Target 

2003 Base 

2004 Growth 

Met 2004 Sch00lwide 

Growth Target 

2004 Base 



Attachment 3 


Met 2005 

Schoolwide 

Growth Target 

1 550 45 Yes 595 -9 No 592 18 Yes 

2 562 84 Yes 642 -22 No 632 6 No 

2 598 60 Yes 662 -23 No 638 32 Yes 

2 564 54 Yes 622 -27 No 596 18 Yes 

5 675 36 Yes 716 -9 No 708 -4 No 

3 541 -3 No 533 50 Yes 601 -20 No 

Revised: 1/6/2012 3:24 PM




SUBJECT 

ITEM # 11 



Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program 

(II/USP) and High Priority Schools Grant Program (HPSGP): 

Proposed Intervention for Cohort 1, 2, and 3 II/USP Schools and 

Cohort 1 HPSGP Schools that Failed to Show Significant Growth 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE): 

1. Determine those Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program 

(II/USP) Cohort 1, 2 and 3 and Cohort 1 High Priority Schools Grant Program 

(HPSGP) schools that will be deemed state-monitored, and 

2. Assign a School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) to all state-monitored 

schools and allow the local governing board to retain its legal rights, duties, and 

responsibilities with respect to each school, and 

3. Defer a decision on those schools without a valid growth Academic Performance 

Index (API) until November 2005 in order to determine whether they meet the 

alternative criteria for significant growth. 


Education Code (EC) Section 52055.5(b) directs the SBE to deem II/USP schools not 

showing significant growth as state-monitored. Similarly, EC Section 52055.650 directs 

the SBE to deem HPSGP schools not showing significant growth as state-monitored. 

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI), with the approval of the SBE, is 

required to invoke sanctions from one of two groups: 

1. According to the provisions of EC sections 52055.5(a) and 52055.650, the SSPI 

shall: 

• Assume all the legal rights, duties, and powers of the governing board, unless 

the SSPI and the SBE allow the local governing board to retain these rights; 

• Reassign the principal of that school, subject to a hearing; and 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15 PM




• Do one or more of the following with respect to a state-monitored school: 

• Revise attendance options; 

• Allow parents to apply directly to the SBE to establish a charter school; 

• Assign the management of the school to a school management organization; 

• Reassign other certificated employees of the school; 

• Renegotiate a new collective bargaining agreement at the expiration of the 

existing one; 

• Reorganize the school; 

• Close the school; and/or 

• Place a trustee at the school for no more than three years (only for II/USP 

schools). 

2. As an alternative to the above, the SSPI, with the approval of the SBE, may require 

districts to contract with a SAIT in lieu of other interventions and sanctions. If the 

SBE approves, the governing board of the school district may retain its legal rights, 

duties, and responsibilities with respect to that school. (EC sections 52055.51(a) and 

52055.650) 

Chronology: 

In February 2002, the SBE approved a definition of significant growth for II/USP 

schools. At the January 2004 meeting, the SBE approved an alternative calculation for 

districts without an API to demonstrate academic growth. 

In July 2004, the SBE approved a definition of significant growth for HPSGP schools 

and directed the CDE to develop regulations to implement the significant growth 

definition and alternative growth criteria for schools without valid APIs. 

In May 2005, the SBE approved amendments to California Code of Regulations, Title 5, 

Section 1030.7 defining significant growth for II/USP and HPSGP schools (see 

Attachment 1) and defining an alternative measure of significant growth for each type of 

school (see Attachment 2). 

At SBE meetings in 2004-05, the SBE approved the SSPI recommendations that 

districts of II/USP schools that failed to make significant growth, as defined by the SBE, 

be deemed state-monitored and contract for the services of an approved SAIT Provider. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15 PM




The 2005 schoolwide API results will yield a number of II/USP and HPSGP schools that 

failed to make significant growth this past year based upon each program’s significant 

growth definition. A last minute memorandum will provide a list of these schools and a 

recommendation for SBE action. The 2005 schoolwide API results will also yield a 

number of II/USP and HPSGP schools without valid API growth data. The alternative 

growth criteria will be applied to each of these schools without valid APIs and 

appropriate schools will be submitted for consideration for state monitoring at the 

November 2005 meeting. 


An expenditure plan for allocation of Title I and non-Title I funding for state-monitored 

schools is the subject of a September SBE item entitled: 

“Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) and High Priority 

Schools Grant Program (HPSGP): School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT): 

Approval of Expenditure Plan to Support SAIT Activities and Corrective Actions in State- 

Monitored Schools” 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: Criteria for Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program 

and for High Priority Schools Grant Program Schools to Demonstrate 

Significant Growth (1 Page) 

Attachment 2: Alternative Growth Criteria for Immediate Intervention/Underperforming 

Schools Program and for High Priority Schools Grant Program Schools 

Without Valid Data to Demonstrate Significant Growth (1 Page) 

Attachment 3: A last minute memorandum will provide API Base and Growth 

information for the appropriate years for each school subject to being 

deemed state-monitored. The memorandum will include a 

recommendation for each school. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15 PM


Attachment 1 


Definition of Significant Growth for Immediate Intervention/Underperforming 

Schools Program and High Priority Schools Grant Program 

State-monitored Schools 

Definition of Significant Growth for Immediate Intervention/Underperforming 

Schools Program Schools 

A school participating in the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program 

achieves significant growth when its schoolwide Academic Performance Index (API) 

growth is greater than zero and the school does not achieve its API growth target 

pursuant to Education Code Section 52052(c). 

Definition of Significant Growth for High Priority Schools Grant Program Schools 

A school participating in the High Priority Schools Grant Program achieves significant 

growth when its combined growth is equal to or greater than ten API points on the API 

over the last three years it participates in the program and also achieves positive API 

growth in two of the last three years. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15 PM


Attachment 2 


Criteria to Demonstrate Significant Growth for Immediate 

Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program and High Priority Schools Grant 

Program State-monitored Schools 

Criteria to Demonstrate Significant Growth for Immediate 

Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program Schools Without Valid Academic 

Performance Index 

Schools participating in the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program 

without a valid Academic Performance Index score demonstrate academic growth when 

the weighted average percent proficient across all California Standards Tests in: (a) 

English/language arts and (b) mathematics increase by at least one percentage point 

from the prior year to the year in which they have an invalid score. For purposes of this 

calculation, there shall be no rounding, 0.99 does not equal 1.00. 

Criteria to Demonstrate Significant Growth for High Priority Schools Grant 

Program Schools Without Valid Academic Performance Index 

Schools participating in the High Priority Schools Grant Program without a valid 

Academic Performance Index score in at least one out of three years demonstrate 

academic growth when the schools’ weighted average percent proficient across all 

California Standards Tests in: (a) English/language arts and (b) mathematics increase 

by at least two percentage points over the prior three-year period. For purposes of this 

calculation, there shall be no rounding. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:15 PM






DATE: September 2, 2005 





SUBJECT: Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) and 

High Priority Schools Grant Program (HPSGP): Proposed Intervention for 

Cohort 1, 2, and 3 II/USP Schools and Cohort 1 HPSGP Schools that 

Failed to Show Significant Growth 

Attached are two tables that provide current Academic Performance Index (API) 

information for the Cohort 1, 2, and 3 Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools 

Program (II/USP) schools and the Cohort 1 High Priority Schools Grant Program 

(HPSGP) schools subject to state monitoring. Information includes the appropriate 

years of Base API, Growth API, and whether or not the school made schoolwide growth 

targets. 

The schools listed in Table 1 represent those Cohort 1, 2, and 3 II/USP schools failing 

to demonstrate significant growth as part of the August 31, 2005, API Data Release for 

which State Board of Education (SBE) action is recommended. These include one 

Cohort 1 school, four Cohort 2 schools, and 44 Cohort 3 schools for a total of 49 

schools. 

The schools listed in Table 2 represent those Cohort 1 HPSGP schools failing to 

demonstrate significant growth as part of the August 31, 2005, API Data Release for 

which SBE action is recommended. These include eight Cohort 1 HPSGP schools. 

Schools listed in Tables 1 and 2 failed to demonstrate significant growth as individually 

defined for each program by Title 5 regulations and all 57 schools are now 

recommended for state monitoring. 

Attachment 3: Table 1: 2005-06 Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools 

Program Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 Schools that Did Not Make Significant 

Growth (3 Pages) 

Table 2: 2005-06 High Priority Schools Grant Program Cohort 1 Schools 

that Did Not Make Significant Growth (1 Page) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:12 PM


*Invalid API data 

Table 1 

2005-06 Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program 

Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 Schools that Did Not Make Significant Growth 

Cohort 

Alameda City Unified Chipman Middle 1 634 13 Yes No 650 28 Yes No 676 -2 

Alum Rock Union Elementary Arbuckle (Clyde) Elementary 3 596 80 Yes Yes 678 10 Yes No 691 -5 

Antelope Valley Union High Littlerock High 3 566 7 No No 570 49 Yes Yes 637 -6 

Antioch Unified Kimball Elementary 3 644 17 Yes No 663 19 Yes Yes 685 -13 

Bakersfield City Elementary Sequoia Middle 3 548 17 Yes No 569 11 No No 592 -4 

Bellevue Union Elementary Kawana Elementary 3 587 46 Yes Yes 636 8 Yes No 651 -2 

Del Paso Heights Elementary Garden Valley Elementary 3 563 63 Yes Yes 626 -5 No No 614 -1 

Fairfield-Suisun Unified Fairview Elementary 3 625 23 Yes Yes 648 13 Yes No 664 -2 

Folsom-Cordova Unified Williamson Elementary 2 627 67 Yes Yes 697 1 No No 699 -6 

Fresno Unified Muir Elementary 3 528 28 Yes Yes 556 -2 No No 555 -4 

Fresno Unified Pyle Elementary 3 568 72 Yes Yes 643 12 Yes No 662 -12 

Fresno Unified Dailey Elementary 2 570 38 Yes No 613 3 No No 619 -14 

General Shafter Elementary General Shafter Elementary 3 * * * * 674 21 Yes No 696 -13 

Hemet Unified Hemet Elementary 3 641 12 Yes No 655 38 Yes Yes 693 -14 

2002 Base 

2003 Growth 

Met 2003 Schoolwide 

Growth Target 

Met 2003 Comparable 

Improvement 

2003 Base 

2004 Growth 


Growth Target 


Improvement 

2004 Base 


Attachment 3 



Revised: 1/19/2012 1:12 PM



Table 1 (Continued) 



Lancaster Elementary El Dorado Elementary 3 629 0 No No 622 22 Yes No 652 -9 

Lancaster Elementary Joshua Elementary 3 613 39 Yes No 641 19 Yes Yes 663 -1 

Los Angeles Unified Grand View Boulevard Elementary 3 635 52 Yes Yes 688 -14 No No 674 -11 

Los Angeles Unified Magnolia Avenue Elementary 3 529 95 Yes Yes 621 5 No No 631 -2 

Los Angeles Unified Crescent Heights Boulevard 

Elementary 3 677 38 Yes Yes 719 -6 No No 710 -1 

Los Angeles Unified Ramona Elementary 3 711 55 Yes Yes 755 -13 No No 744 -13 

Los Angeles Unified Trinity Street Elementary 3 569 64 Yes Yes 637 -32 No No 613 0 

Los Angeles Unified Vena Avenue Elementary 3 702 26 Yes Yes 731 -2 No No 732 -13 

Los Angeles Unified Vernon City Elementary 3 613 47 Yes Yes 659 4 No No 674 -15 

Los Angeles Unified Marshall (John) Senior High 3 605 4 No No 601 34 Yes Yes 634 0 

Los Angeles Unified Russell Elementary 3 540 35 Yes Yes 575 11 Yes No 595 -14 

Los Angeles Unified Ninety-Third Street Elementary 3 * * * * 653 -17 No No 641 -1 

Merced City Elementary Hoover (Herbert) Middle 2 627 12 Yes No 635 11 Yes No 649 -6 

North Monterey County Unified Echo Valley Elementary 3 662 22 Yes Yes 681 19 Yes No 702 -1 

Oceanside Unified Oceanside High 2 596 38 Yes Yes 640 27 Yes No 677 -18 

Palm Springs Unified Wenzlaff (Edward L.) Elementary 3 589 63 Yes Yes 654 -10 No No 647 -9 

Pasadena Unified Edison Elementary 3 628 76 Yes Yes 705 19 Yes No 717 -35 

Perris Elementary Park Avenue Elementary 3 589 46 Yes Yes 635 -15 No No 621 -5 

Cohort 

2002 Base 

2003 Growth 


Growth Target 


Improvement 

2003 Base 

2004 Growth 


Growth Target 


Improvement 

2004 Base 


Attachment 3 



Revised: 1/19/2012 1:12 PM

Table 1 (Continued) 




San Bernardino City Unified Arrowhead Elementary 3 601 52 Yes Yes 656 -3 No No 656 -37 

San Bernardino City Unified Parkside Elementary 3 692 8 Yes No 705 9 Yes Yes 722 -6 

San Bernardino City Unified Riley Elementary 3 * * * * 590 -20 No No 574 -4 

San Diego Unified Euclid Elementary 3 583 18 Yes No 599 84 Yes Yes 687 -6 

San Francisco Unified Cobb (William L.) Elementary 3 645 -9 No No 583 87 Yes Yes 678 -23 

San Jacinto Unified Park Hill Elementary 3 624 66 Yes Yes 694 -6 No No 688 -1 

San Jose Unified Willow Glen Middle 3 612 29 Yes Yes 642 34 Yes No 682 -1 

San Jose Unified Gardner Elementary 3 547 12 No Yes 556 42 Yes Yes 601 -38 

San Juan Unified Howe Avenue Elementary 3 579 31 Yes Yes 606 15 Yes No 624 -3 

San Juan Unified Greer Elementary 3 644 67 Yes Yes 702 -3 No No 705 -2 

San Lorenzo Unified Del Rey Elementary 3 661 32 Yes Yes 699 0 No Yes 699 -1 

Santa Ana Unified Kennedy (John F.) Elementary 3 524 53 Yes Yes 578 -19 No No 564 -6 

Semitropic Elementary Semitropic Elementary 3 572 55 Yes Yes 619 8 No No 633 -2 

Thermalito Union Elementary Poplar Avenue Elementary 3 618 79 Yes Yes 689 -32 No No 659 0 

Tulare City Elementary Lincoln Elementary 3 619 30 Yes Yes 652 9 Yes No 667 -3 

West Contra Costa Unified El Sobrante Elementary 3 694 -17 No No 662 18 Yes Yes 686 -4 

West Contra Costa Unified 


Washington Elementary 3 629 53 Yes Yes 684 6 Yes No 696 -13 

Cohort 

2002 Base 

2003 Growth 


Growth Target 


Improvement 

2003 Base 

2004 Growth 


Growth Target 


Improvement 

2004 Base 


Attachment 3 



Revised: 1/19/2012 1:12 PM

Table 2 

2005-06 High Priority Schools Grant Program 

Cohort 1 Schools that Did Not Make Significant Growth 

2002 Base 


Attachment 3 



Alpaugh Unified Alpaugh Elementary * * * * 574 -36 No No 538 -41 * No 

Hacienda la Puente Unified Workman (William) High 546 -4 No No 532 52 Yes Yes 601 -4 44 No 

Los Angeles Unified Griffith Joyner (Florence) Elementary 541 28 Yes Yes 573 11 Yes Yes 591 -45 -6 Yes 

Los Angeles Unified Menlo Avenue Elementary 584 21 Yes No 598 -12 No No 598 -41 -32 No 

Los Angeles Unified State Street 603 36 Yes Yes 638 -7 No No 633 -6 23 No 

Lynwood Unified Lindbergh Elementary 573 51 Yes Yes 625 0 No No 632 -13 38 No 

Mt. Diablo Unified Sunrise (Special Education) * * * * 509 -52 No No 481 -94 * No 

Washington Unified Elkhorn Village Elementary 576 51 Yes Yes 625 0 No No 632 -6 45 No 


2003 Growth 


Growth Target 


Improvement 

2003 Base 

2004 Growth 


Growth Target 


Improvement 

2004 Base 


Combined Growth for 

3 Year Growth Cycle 

Positive Growth in 

2 of 3 Years 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:12 PM




SUBJECT 

ITEM #12 



Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program and 

High Priority Schools Grant Program: School Assistance and 

Intervention Team (SAIT): Approval of Expenditure Plan to 

Support SAIT Activities and Corrective Actions in State- 

Monitored Schools 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve the expenditure plan. 


At previous SBE meetings in 2004-05, the SBE deemed 128 Immediate 

Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) schools as state-monitored, 

bringing the current total of state-monitored schools to 145. The SBE assigned School 

Assistance and Intervention Teams (SAITs) to all state-monitored schools and approved 

funding for SAIT activities and implementation of corrective actions. 


Funding actions are requested below: 

(a) Corrective action funding for currently state-monitored schools - Education 

Code Section 52055.5(a) provides authority for II/USP state-monitored schools to 

receive funding to implement the corrective actions for two or three years, 

depending upon when a school exits state monitoring. Attached is an expenditure 

plan for the second year of corrective action funding for the 2004-05 statemonitored 

schools. (see Attachment 1) 

In addition, state-monitored schools identified in 2003-04 that did not make 

significant growth for two consecutive years will continue to be state-monitored 

for a third year. These schools will receive a final year of funding to continue 

implementation of the corrective actions. The status of these schools, that can 

potentially exit the program, will be available, once the 2005 Academic 

Performance Index (API) growth data are released. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:16 PM




(b) SAIT and corrective action funding for newly identified state-monitored 

schools - In September 2005, the release of schoolwide API growth data will 

yield a number of new II/USP and High Priority Schools Grant Program (HPSGP) 

schools to be deemed as state-monitored. 

These schools will require funds to contract for a SAIT and to support 

recommended corrective actions. 

• Senate Bill (SB) 77 (2005), Item 6110-136-0890, Schedule 3, appropriated up 

to $30 million of federal funding and Item 6110-123-0001, Schedule 3, 

appropriated $3 million of state funding for II/USP state-monitored schools. 

• CDE is pursuing legislation (Assembly Bill 1758) to secure authority to 

expend the appropriation of general funds for SAIT and corrective actions in 

HPSGP state-monitored schools. SB 77 (2005), Item 6110-123-0001, 

Schedule 2, appropriated $10 million general funds or whatever greater or 

lesser amount is necessary, to be available to identified HPSGP statemonitored 

schools. 

A last minute memorandum will provide an expenditure plan for: (1) 2003-04 statemonitored 

schools that have not made significant growth for two consecutive years and 

will remain in the program; and (2) newly identified II/USP and HPSGP schools that will 

be identified based on the release of the 2005 schoolwide API growth data and for 

whom HPGSP authority is needed to disburse appropriated funds for SAIT and 

corrective actions. 


See Attachment 1 for proposed expenditures for 2004-05 state-monitored corrective 

actions. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: 2005-06 Expenditure Plan for State-Monitored Schools (1 Page) 

Last minute memorandum: Expenditure plan for (1) 2003-04 state-monitored schools 

that did not make significant growth for two consecutive years and will remain in the 

program; and (2) newly identified II/USP and HPSGP schools that will be brought to the 

SBE for state monitoring based on the release of the 2005 schoolwide API growth data. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:16 PM

Table 1 

2005-06 Expenditure Plan for State-Monitored Schools 

Requirements Formula Cost 

There are 95 Title I 2004-05 

schools in their second year of 

state-monitored status. 

Each school that contracts with a 

SAIT team shall receive $150 per 

student to improve student learning 

(Student Enrollment data are 

obtained from 2004-05 CBEDS). 

Districts receiving funds are 

required to provide an in-kind 

match of services or funds in an 

amount equal to the amount 

received. 

There are 13 non-Title I 2004-05 

schools in their second year of 

state-monitored status. 

Each school that contracts with a 

SAIT team shall receive $150 per 

student to improve student learning 

(Student Enrollment data are 

obtained from 2004-05 CBEDS). 

Districts receiving funds are 

required to provide an in-kind 

match of services or funds in an 

amount equal to the amount 

received. 

Title I (Federal): 

$150 x 88,603 students 

(95 schools) 

Non-Title I (State): 

$150 x 18,663 students 

(13 schools) 

TOTAL 

$13,290,450 

$ 2,794,950 

$16,085,400 


Attachment 1 


Revised: 1/19/2012 1:16 PM











SUBJECT: Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program and High 

Priority Schools Grant Program: School Assistance and Intervention Team 

(SAIT): Approval of Expenditure Plan to Support SAIT Activities and 

Corrective Actions in State-Monitored Schools 

At previous State Board of Education (SBE) meetings during 2003-04 and 2004-05 

fiscal years, the SBE deemed selected Immediate Intervention/Underperforming 

Schools Program (II/USP) schools as state-monitored. The SBE assigned a School 

Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) for all state-monitored schools and approved 

funding for SAIT activities and implementation of corrective actions. The schools to be 

recommended in 2005-06 will include any eligible II/USP schools and any Cohort 1 High 

Priority Schools Grant Program (HPSGP) schools that failed to make significant growth. 

Based upon the August 31, 2005, Academic Performance Index (API) Data Release, 57 

schools are being recommended for state monitoring in 2005-06. Upon approval of the 

recommendations for a SAIT, this item will allow the California Department of Education 

(CDE) to issue grant awards to support the work. 

Table 1 lists federal and state funds identified for schools state-monitored in 

September 2005. They include: 46 Title I schools and three non-Title I schools in II/USP 

Cohorts 1, 2, and 3. The total federal expenditure proposed is $9,207,800. The total 

state General Fund expenditure proposed is $806,800. 

Table 2 lists general funds proposed for eight schools in HPSGP. The total state 

General Fund expenditure proposed is $1,727,050. 

Table 3 lists federal and state general funds for 2003-04 state-monitored schools that 

are continuing to implement corrective actions under Education Code Section 52555.5. 

The federal total is $573,450. The state General Fund total is $569,550. 

The total request is $9,781,250 for federal funds and $3,103,400 in state General Fund 

expenditures. 

Attachment 2: 2005-06 Expenditure Plans (3 Pages) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:12 PM

Table 1 

2005-06 Expenditure Plan for Cohort 1, 2, and 3 

Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) 

State-Monitored Schools 

Funding Newly Identified 

Schools 

Federal 

Funds 

General 

Funds 

Cohorts 1, 2, & 3 

Elementary 41 

Middle 3 

High 2 

Subtotal 46 

Cohorts 1, 2, & 3 

Elementary 1 

Middle 1 

High 1 

Subtotal 3 

School Assistance and 

Intervention Team (SAIT) 

Work 

$75,000 x 41 = $3,075,000 

$75,000 x 3 = $ 225,000 

$100,000 x 2 = $ 200,000 

Subtotal $3,500,000 


Attachment 2 


Corrective Actions as a Result of 

SAIT Work 

28,118 students x $150 = $ 4,217,700 

2,550 students x $150 = $ 382,500 

7,384 students x $150 = $1,107,600 


SAIT and Corrective Actions Federal Funds: $9,207,800 

$75,000 x 1 = $ 75,000 

$75,000 x 1 = $ 75,000 

$100,000 x 1 = $100,000 

Subtotal $250,000 

260 students x $150 = $ 39,000 

1,056 students x $150 = $ 158,400 

2,396 students x $150 = $ 359,400 

Subtotal $ 556,800 

SAIT and Corrective Actions General Funds: $ 806,800 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:12 PM

Funding Newly Identified 

Schools 

General 

Funds 

Cohort 1 

Elementary 7 

High 1 

Subtotal 8 

Table 2 

2005-06 Expenditure Plan for Cohort 1 

High Priority Schools Grant Program (HPSGP) 

State-Monitored Schools 

School Assistance and 

Intervention Team (SAIT) 

Work 

$75,000 x 7 = $ 525,000 

$100,000 x 1 = $ 100,000 



Attachment 2 


Corrective Actions as a Result 

of SAIT Work 

5,925 students x $150 = $888,750 

1,422 students x $150 = $213,300 


SAIT and Corrective Actions General Funds: $1,727,050 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:12 PM

Table 3 

2005-06 Expenditure Plan for 

2003-04 State-Monitored Schools Continuing in 

School Assistance and Intervention Team Work 


Attachment 2 


Funding Previously Identified Schools Corrective Actions as a Result of School 

Assistance and Intervention Team 

(SAIT) Work 

Federal Funds 

General Funds 

2003-04 

Elementary 1 

Middle 3 

High 1 

Subtotal 5 

2003-04 

High 2 

864 students x $150 = $129,600 

2,087 students x $150 = $313,050 

872 students x $150 = $130,800 


Corrective Actions Federal Funds: $ 573,450 

3,797 students x $150 = $ 569,550 


Corrective Actions General Funds: $ 569,550 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:12 PM



aab-dmd-sep05item01 

SUBJECT 

ITEM #13 


Consolidated Applications 2004-05: Approval 



Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve the 2004-05 Consolidated Applications (ConApps) submitted 

by local educational agencies (LEAs) in Attachment 1. 


Each year the CDE, in compliance with California Code of Regulations Title 5, Section 

3920, recommends that the SBE approve applications for funding Consolidated 

Categorical Aid Programs submitted by LEAs. To date, the SBE has approved 2004-05 

ConApps for 1,243 LEAs. This list contains 25 Charter Schools that submitted their 

ConApp late in the 2004-05 school year. 

There are 16 state and federal programs that LEAs may apply for in the ConApp. 

Approximately $3.2 billion is distributed annually through the ConApp process. The 

state funding sources include School Improvement Program; Economic Impact Aid 

(which is used for State Compensatory Education and/or English learners); California 

Public School Library Act; Tobacco Use Prevention Education; Tenth Grade 

Counseling; Peer Assistance Review; Instructional Time and Staff Development 

Reform; and School Safety (AB 1113). The federal funding sources include Title I, Part 

A Basic Grant (Low Income); Title I, Part D, (Delinquent); Title II, Part A (Teacher 

Quality); Title II, Part D (Technology); Title III, Part A (LEP Students); Title IV, Part A 

(SDFSC); and Title V, Part A (Innovative); and Title VI, Part B (Rural, Low-Income). 

All LEAs must have an approved LEA plan before it can be approved for ConApp 

funding. Attachment 1 is a list of the LEAs presented to the SBE for action and includes 

ConApp entitlement figures and the Student Testing and Reporting data from school 

year 2002-03. If fiscal data are absent, it indicates that the LEA is new or is applying for 

direct funding for the first time. If achievement data are absent, it indicates the LEA is 

new, the scores were attributed to their sponsoring LEA (in the case of charter schools), 

or there were an insufficient number of student results to report. 

Revised 1/19/2012 1:16 PM

aab-dmd-sep05item 



The CDE provides the SBE with two types of approval recommendations. Regular 

approval is recommended when an LEA has submitted a correct and complete ConApp, 

Part I, and has no serious noncompliant issues over 365 days. Conditional approval is 

recommended when an LEA has submitted a correct and complete ConApp, Part I, but 

has one or more serious noncompliant issues over 365 days. Conditional approval 

provides authority to the LEA to spend its categorical funds on the condition that it 

resolves or makes significant progress toward resolving noncompliant issues. There are 

no conditional approval recommendations at this time. These LEAs submitted an 

application before the end of the fiscal year, but not in time for the July 2005 SBE 

meeting. 


The CDE recommends regular approval of the ConApp for 25 LEAs (see attachment 1 

for the list of LEAs). 


There is minimal CDE cost to track the SBE approval status of the ConApp for 

approximately 1,300 LEAs. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: ConApp list – Regular Approvals (2 Pages) 

(This attachment is not available for Web viewing. A printed copy is 

available for viewing in the State Board of Education office.) 

(Correction: This item is now available for Web viewing as a PDF file.) 

Revised 1/19/2012 1:16 PM

Recommended for 

Regular Approval: 

ConApp list - Regular Approvals 

Attachment 1 


The following LEAs have submitted a correct and complete ConApp, Part I, and 

have no compliance issues crucial to student achievement outstanding for more 

than 365 days. The Department recommends regular approval of these applications. 

2002-03 STAR Data 

Percent of Students Scoring At or Above 

2003-04 2003-04 

2003-04 

Entitlement 

Mathematics Reading 

CD School 

ConApp Entitlement Per Low 

Advanced or 

Advanced or 

Code Code Local Educational Agency Name 

Entitlement Per Student Income Student Basic Proficient Basic Proficient 

1964733 0102434 Animo South Los Angeles Charter 

School 

0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1964733 0106831 Animo Venice Charter High School 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

5010504 0101501 Archway Academy 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1964709 0107508 Century Community Charter 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1964733 0106864 College Ready Academy High School 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

5010504 5030325 Community Middle College 4,201 84.02 0.00 0.0 0.0 38.9 33.3 

3975499 6118665 Discovery Charter 0 0.00 0.00 28.9 49.3 28.9 56.9 

3667843 3630928 Grove High 5,103 0.00 0.00 27.1 17.6 29.4 55.3 

3667934 0105833 High Desert Academy Of Applied 

Arts &sciences 

0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3768338 6117279 Holly Drive Leadership Academy 79,434 496.46 667.51 21.8 5.9 31.1 16.0 

1875036 6010763 Long Valley Charter 58,068 247.10 0.00 20.4 17.0 23.0 27.8 

4970805 0105890 Mark West Charter 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3975499 0102392 Millennium Charter 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1964881 0106591 Nia Educational Charter School 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1062174 1030865 One Step Up Charter Academy 7,845 0.00 0.00 5.3 1.5 9.9 6.1 

4269278 6045918 Peabody Charter 0 0.00 0.00 21.4 56.0 26.3 50.1 

3975499 0102384 Primary Charter 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3768338 6120943 Promise Charter 93,270 388.63 518.17 33.9 22.0 40.2 15.0 

1964733 6120471 Puente Charter 39,155 416.54 575.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

4970896 0102525 Rincon Valley Charter 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

08/18/2005



ConApp list - Regular Approvals 

Attachment 1 







2003-04 2003-04 

2003-04 

Entitlement 


CD School 

ConApp Entitlement Per Low 

Advanced or 

Advanced or 


Entitlement Per Student Income Student Basic Proficient Basic Proficient 

1062166 1030642 School Of Unlimited Learning 82,543 425.48 466.34 2.2 0.0 13.2 2.2 

1964733 0106427 Synergy Charter Academy 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

5672553 6120620 University Preparation School At 

Csu Channel 

0 0.00 0.00 30.7 28.0 31.7 40.8 

5010504 5030234 Valley Business High 4,768 31.79 0.00 10.5 1.0 15.2 4.8 

5010504 0101709 Vocational Education Academy 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

08/18/2005 

$374,387 

25 Total Number of LEAs in the report 

Total ConApp entitlement for districts receiving regular approval




SUBJECT 

ITEM #14 


Consolidated Applications 2005-06: Approval 



Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve the 2005-06 Consolidated Applications (ConApps) submitted 

by local educational agencies (LEAs) in Attachment 1. 


Each year the CDE, in compliance with California Code of Regulations Title 5, Section 

3920, recommends that the SBE approve applications for funding Consolidated 

Categorical Aid Programs submitted by LEAs. 

Approximately $3.2 billion is distributed annually through the ConApp process. 

Assembly Bill 825 has incorporated three of the fund sources that were formerly in the 

Con App (School Improvement Program, California Public School Library Act, and 

Tenth Grade Counseling) into the Categorical Programs Block Grant. A new fund 

source, California School Age Families Education (Cal-SAFE) has been added to the 

ConApp. There are 14 state and federal programs that LEAs may apply for in the 

ConApp. The state funding sources include: Cal-SAFE; Economic Impact Aid (which is 

used for State Compensatory Education and/or English learners); Peer Assistance 

Review; School Safety (AB 1113); and Tobacco Use Prevention Education. The federal 

funding sources include Title I, Part A Basic Grant (Low Income); Title I, Part A 

(Neglected); Title I, Part D, (Delinquent); Title II, Part A (Teacher Quality); Title II, Part D 

(Technology); Title III, Part A (LEP Students); Title IV, Part A (SDFSC); and Title V, Part 

A (Innovative); and Title VI, Part B (Rural, Low-Income). 

Attachment 1 is a list of the LEAs presented to the SBE for action and includes ConApp 

entitlement figures and the Student Testing and Reporting (STAR) data from school 

year 2003-04. The 2004-05 STAR data is not available at this time because the 

Standards and Assessments Division is missing some or all data for about 30,000 

students in 80 schools. These are schools on year-round schedules that test late. If 

fiscal data are absent, it indicates that the LEA is new or is applying for direct funding 

for the first time. If achievement data are absent, it indicates the LEA is new, the scores




were attributed to their sponsoring LEA (in the case of charter schools), or there were 

an insufficient number of student results to report. 

The CDE provides the SBE with two types of approval recommendations. Regular 

approval is recommended when an LEA has submitted a correct and complete ConApp, 

Part I, and has no serious noncompliant issues over 365 days. Conditional approval is 

recommended when an LEA has submitted a correct and complete ConApp, Part I, but 

has one or more serious noncompliant issues over 365 days. Conditional approval 

provides authority to the LEA to spend its categorical funds on the condition that it 

resolves or makes significant progress toward resolving noncompliant issues. In 

extreme cases, conditional approval may include the withholding of funds. There are no 

districts recommended for conditional approval at this time. 


The CDE recommends regular approval of the ConApp for 1,150 LEAs (see attachment 

1 for the list of LEAs). 


There is minimal CDE cost to track the SBE approval status of the ConApp for 

approximately 1,300 LEAs. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: ConApp list – Regular Approvals (48 Pages) (This attachment is not 

available for Web viewing. A printed copy is available for viewing in the State Board of 

Education office.) 

(Correction: This attachment is now available for Web viewing as a PDF file.) 

Revised 1/19/2012 1:16 PM



ConApp list (2005-06) - Regular Approvals 

Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 

ConApp Entitlement Title I 

Advanced or 

Advanced or 


Entitlement Per Student Entitlement Basic Proficient Basic Proficient 

1964212 0000000 ABC Unified 7,680,038 345.54 2,969,638 24.1 44.9 28.4 45.0 

1964733 6119929 Academia Semillas Del Pueblo 121,522 607.61 91,280 25.3 20.2 32.3 13.1 

3675077 3631207 Academy For Academic Excellence 0 0.00 0 28.6 28.6 32.3 49.2 

2365615 2330454 Accelerated Achievement Academy 60,343 384.35 51,771 19.8 4.6 33.6 7.6 

3166761 0000000 Ackerman Elementary 133,842 347.64 64,241 27.9 53.1 31.3 52.0 

3667587 0000000 Adelanto Elementary 2,678,045 393.19 1,212,209 29.5 26.4 36.9 22.7 

0161119 0000000 Alameda City Unified 3,586,201 365.68 1,479,380 25.9 41.9 30.0 45.6 

0110017 0000000 Alameda County Office Of 

Education 

1,341,407 2574.68 892,129 1.0 0.6 9.1 2.1 

0161127 0000000 Albany City Unified 716,519 216.21 167,204 21.3 60.9 20.4 62.9 

4970599 0000000 Alexander Valley Union Elementary 30,005 238.13 0 26.9 34.3 28.7 41.7 

1975713 0000000 Alhambra Unified 12,280,429 622.83 6,210,263 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

2765961 0000000 Alisal Union Elementary 6,575,712 835.75 3,059,215 29.5 26.8 28.2 14.6 

3775614 6119275 All Tribes American Indian 

Charter 

39,520 526.93 32,697 4.1 4.1 26.0 9.6 

5471795 0000000 Allensworth Elementary 96,270 992.47 55,975 33.8 5.6 39.4 4.2 

5471803 0000000 Alpaugh Unified 331,894 1229.24 228,537 16.3 6.3 20.5 7.1 

0210025 0000000 Alpine County Office Of Education 3,518 0.00 0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0261333 0000000 Alpine County Unified 139,729 990.99 79,235 29.7 23.4 18.0 36.7 

3767967 0000000 Alpine Union Elementary 722,973 343.46 319,881 26.3 55.1 31.5 50.6 

3667595 0000000 Alta Loma Elementary 1,606,736 211.86 498,184 28.0 53.9 31.3 53.2 

5471811 0000000 Alta Vista Elementary 843,401 1567.66 556,653 24.8 14.3 26.0 9.0 

3166779 0000000 Alta-Dutch Flat Union Elementary 67,572 361.35 23,403 28.2 37.6 34.2 40.3 

4369369 0000000 Alum Rock Union Elementary 10,311,956 749.58 4,493,502 29.3 26.8 34.5 22.3 

2065177 0000000 Alview-Dairyland Union Elementary 294,306 838.48 165,611 35.6 29.8 36.0 32.4 

1061994 0000000 Alvina Elementary 131,635 592.95 84,120 29.4 43.5 35.3 28.2 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



3366977 0000000 Alvord Unified 9,293,711 485.36 4,051,901 28.9 25.9 34.7 23.8 

0310033 0000000 Amador County Office Of Education 12,657 52.52 0 7.2 8.0 12.2 9.1 

0373981 0000000 Amador County Unified 1,531,819 319.40 787,016 31.1 31.2 34.1 40.8 

3066423 0000000 Anaheim City 17,311,449 810.31 8,107,883 28.2 29.4 32.8 20.7 

3066431 0000000 Anaheim Union High 12,175,161 375.06 6,114,563 28.2 24.3 32.8 31.1 

4569856 0000000 Anderson Union High 624,586 262.21 401,078 29.7 16.2 32.4 33.6 

2365540 0000000 Anderson Valley Unified 342,660 522.35 147,149 28.6 28.4 26.0 27.5 

5271472 0000000 Antelope Elementary 318,211 483.60 172,462 29.1 46.6 33.8 42.2 

1964246 0000000 Antelope Valley Union High 6,445,515 285.72 3,927,820 21.4 8.4 31.8 29.5 

0761648 0000000 Antioch Unified 5,586,072 250.92 2,651,105 29.0 26.3 34.0 34.4 

3675077 0000000 Apple Valley Unified 6,400,868 472.91 3,968,117 27.8 31.5 33.5 34.6 

1964261 0000000 Arcadia Unified 2,151,995 215.93 783,869 18.4 64.7 20.1 68.4 

1262679 0000000 Arcata Elementary 579,224 644.30 332,319 26.9 43.0 25.4 49.0 

3467280 0000000 Arcohe Union Elementary 106,513 185.56 20,197 28.9 42.1 31.8 37.9 

2365557 0000000 Arena Union Elementary 199,950 869.35 105,808 24.2 28.9 31.4 25.3 

3575259 0000000 Aromas/San Juan Unified 605,805 481.56 317,723 31.4 20.4 32.4 34.1 

3768023 6116859 Arroyo Vista Charter 48,498 56.59 23,464 27.3 57.4 32.4 51.0 

1563313 0000000 Arvin Union Elementary 2,535,973 862.28 1,307,729 28.4 23.6 33.1 13.6 

3968676 0108647 Aspire Stockton Elementary 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0161259 0108852 Aspire/Ucb Secondary 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

4068700 0000000 Atascadero Unified 1,582,834 287.21 764,643 28.4 44.3 26.6 49.8 

2465631 0000000 Atwater Elementary 3,250,561 680.75 1,651,076 29.2 33.8 35.6 26.7 

3166787 0000000 Auburn Union Elementary 944,793 363.52 409,052 28.8 46.9 32.1 43.7 

3768338 3731395 Audeo Charter 17,603 91.68 12,869 15.3 5.3 35.3 22.0 

1964279 0000000 Azusa Unified 6,933,198 572.61 3,312,631 28.0 19.7 32.6 20.4 

3673858 0000000 Baker Valley Unified 108,610 493.68 53,430 20.3 12.4 37.3 11.3 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



1563321 0000000 Bakersfield City Elementary 28,385,868 1002.68 16,558,862 23.7 21.7 29.1 19.1 

1964287 0000000 Baldwin Park Unified 9,779,386 554.45 4,649,123 26.2 27.0 35.2 20.8 

4269104 0000000 Ballard Elementary 47,427 364.82 17,995 18.5 77.8 13.9 82.4 

2465649 0000000 Ballico-Cressey Elementary 262,879 834.54 143,506 34.4 34.0 37.2 30.4 

0461382 0000000 Bangor Union Elementary 115,146 742.88 71,286 20.3 39.0 33.3 32.5 

3366985 0000000 Banning Unified 3,695,170 801.56 2,168,258 23.9 16.8 35.0 18.3 

3968486 0000000 Banta Elementary 118,921 430.87 49,924 24.1 35.7 26.6 35.7 

3768189 6120901 Barona Indian Charter 3,466 38.51 0 26.7 24.0 41.3 25.3 

3667611 0000000 Barstow Unified 3,702,854 508.21 2,022,853 27.2 23.3 33.8 24.8 

2065185 0000000 Bass Lake Joint Elementary 504,884 387.78 269,454 31.1 42.5 32.0 41.2 

1964295 0000000 Bassett Unified 3,227,294 538.42 1,476,916 28.1 28.2 35.6 22.1 

0175119 0130641 Bay Area School For Independent 

Study B.A.S.I 

3,794 7.32 0 19.2 22.7 24.9 31.3 

0161259 0106906 Bay Area Technology (Bay Tech) 42,913 557.31 36,784 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

4168858 0000000 Bayshore Elementary 160,704 380.82 64,404 27.7 38.2 37.9 31.8 

3667637 0000000 Bear Valley Unified 1,346,734 411.47 690,014 30.6 29.4 31.5 39.9 

1563339 0000000 Beardsley Elementary 1,550,045 836.05 913,193 30.5 30.7 35.1 25.9 

3366993 0000000 Beaumont Unified 2,378,225 422.80 1,235,530 29.4 28.0 36.5 29.4 

4569872 0000000 Bella Vista Elementary 238,871 526.15 129,844 28.1 37.5 33.4 31.4 

5572306 0000000 Belleview Elementary 113,693 598.38 58,733 27.0 43.2 19.5 52.4 

4970615 0000000 Bellevue Union Elementary 1,283,925 757.48 584,427 32.1 27.7 35.6 18.2 

1964303 0000000 Bellflower Unified 7,184,582 462.86 3,632,315 29.2 27.1 34.5 29.9 

4168866 0000000 Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary 508,689 206.78 108,931 21.9 59.1 25.1 56.7 

1563347 0000000 Belridge Elementary 37,019 1480.76 17,411 36.4 27.3 40.9 18.2 

5271480 0000000 Bend Elementary 42,832 542.18 20,580 27.7 41.5 35.4 32.3 

4870524 0000000 Benicia Unified 1,119,753 210.28 359,454 23.6 52.9 24.8 59.2 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



3968585 0101956 Benjamin Holt College Preparatory 

Academy 

6,405 20.08 0 34.5 33.9 39.9 35.1 

4970623 0000000 Bennett Valley Union Elementary 247,349 260.37 79,621 21.8 66.0 23.5 65.0 

0161143 0000000 Berkeley Unified 3,077,132 356.36 1,378,913 22.4 33.5 23.2 39.4 

4369377 0000000 Berryessa Union Elementary 3,030,352 357.39 710,216 27.5 47.3 33.4 44.5 

1964311 0000000 Beverly Hills Unified 1,113,620 218.53 505,761 21.8 62.8 20.7 68.6 

1062026 0000000 Big Creek Elementary 43,943 976.51 14,767 40.0 45.7 25.7 54.3 

1262695 0000000 Big Lagoon Union Elementary 57,121 234.10 34,714 14.5 41.3 17.9 55.9 

5575184 0000000 Big Oak Flat-Groveland Unified 211,573 383.28 110,297 29.9 28.7 33.5 41.3 

1463248 0000000 Big Pine Unified 116,489 534.35 59,149 21.4 13.8 31.6 21.4 

4770185 0000000 Big Springs Union Elementary 96,824 667.75 51,334 35.8 22.0 42.3 18.7 

1864089 0000000 Big Valley Joint Unified 217,244 691.86 145,369 25.8 27.4 32.9 29.4 

0461408 0000000 Biggs Unified 354,672 432.53 154,697 30.4 23.3 35.2 27.7 

1463263 0000000 Bishop Joint Union High 184,275 227.22 73,847 26.9 14.8 31.4 36.8 

1463255 0000000 Bishop Union Elementary 704,196 497.31 379,193 27.6 40.1 31.5 38.2 

3567454 0000000 Bitterwater-Tully Union 

Elementary 

16,539 661.56 0 30.0 55.0 55.0 35.0 

4569880 0000000 Black Butte Union Elementary 243,837 723.55 130,463 27.2 40.7 31.7 34.9 

0973783 0000000 Black Oak Mine Unified 623,492 309.27 322,244 28.1 41.5 33.0 46.8 

1563354 0000000 Blake Elementary 9,802 515.89 59 0.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 

4269112 0000000 Blochman Union Elementary 52,944 661.80 23,148 31.4 41.4 38.6 25.7 

1262703 0000000 Blue Lake Union Elementary 109,545 608.58 51,297 26.9 49.7 37.2 39.3 

4770193 0000000 Bogus Elementary 13,823 1256.64 1,217 0.0 69.2 23.1 53.8 

2165300 0000000 Bolinas-Stinson Union Elementary 71,836 548.37 30,274 22.1 37.7 24.6 47.5 

1964329 0000000 Bonita Unified 1,975,434 193.61 686,268 27.1 40.3 31.7 46.9 

4469732 0000000 Bonny Doon Union Elementary 95,496 658.59 46,871 26.8 55.7 29.9 48.5 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



3767975 0000000 Bonsall Union Elementary 733,128 392.26 369,295 26.3 43.3 27.4 50.6 

3767983 0000000 Borrego Springs Unified 251,255 485.99 110,255 32.1 20.4 30.8 31.9 

2765979 0000000 Bradley Union Elementary 207,791 6296.70 178,214 16.7 33.3 50.0 16.7 

1363073 0000000 Brawley Elementary 3,968,668 1038.10 2,318,466 29.1 35.1 37.9 28.8 

1363081 0000000 Brawley Union High 1,250,909 673.26 692,264 17.0 5.1 33.3 22.8 

3066449 0000000 Brea-Olinda Unified 1,246,926 200.92 444,199 27.4 48.8 25.5 61.2 

0761655 0000000 Brentwood Union Elementary 1,157,778 195.34 320,614 31.5 39.6 34.6 41.5 

0561556 0000000 Bret Harte Union High 167,575 176.21 94,723 25.5 15.2 28.0 42.3 

1262729 0000000 Bridgeville Elementary 78,388 1399.79 36,667 23.1 17.3 32.7 26.9 

5672447 0000000 Briggs Elementary 142,536 307.85 72,106 28.4 35.4 36.7 31.0 

4168874 0000000 Brisbane Elementary 149,699 227.16 38,090 27.2 43.1 30.8 43.3 

5171357 0000000 Brittan Elementary 247,727 370.85 128,806 34.9 29.3 38.4 35.9 

5171365 0000000 Browns Elementary 70,011 466.74 35,975 24.2 51.6 32.8 41.4 

0961838 0000000 Buckeye Union Elementary 670,562 171.54 118,009 24.5 62.5 25.4 63.8 

4269138 0000000 Buellton Union Elementary 344,713 540.30 173,383 26.9 50.1 31.3 50.7 

3066456 0000000 Buena Park Elementary 3,643,105 571.74 1,630,615 28.9 40.8 36.4 32.5 

5471829 0000000 Buena Vista Elementary 94,512 552.70 53,657 28.1 38.1 37.4 31.7 

1964337 0000000 Burbank Unified 5,359,913 348.75 2,442,004 29.1 40.1 32.4 45.6 

4168882 0000000 Burlingame Elementary 638,334 269.57 182,794 24.1 60.2 24.6 63.0 

5371662 0000000 Burnt Ranch Elementary 59,324 644.83 27,694 22.2 54.0 39.7 36.5 

1062042 0000000 Burrel Union Elementary 173,486 1422.02 100,565 27.3 29.3 41.4 16.2 

5471837 0000000 Burton Elementary 1,427,461 498.42 779,950 31.5 31.6 37.3 29.7 

0410041 0000000 Butte County Office Of Education 256,088 334.76 149,058 12.4 9.4 24.6 16.9 

4773684 0000000 Butte Valley Unified 337,925 1086.58 206,498 28.6 20.0 36.5 23.5 

4770201 0000000 Butteville Union Elementary 42,832 379.04 15,081 34.5 26.2 33.3 29.8 

1563370 0000000 Buttonwillow Union Elementary 363,543 941.82 187,839 32.0 22.2 40.5 14.8 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



0761663 0000000 Byron Union Elementary 269,046 204.60 102,289 29.4 45.7 34.1 41.4 

1964733 0109553 Ca Academy For Liberal Studies 

Early College 

0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

4168890 0000000 Cabrillo Unified 1,008,833 277.69 275,354 27.7 37.7 26.2 43.7 

3767991 0000000 Cajon Valley Union Elementary 10,340,194 572.23 5,496,687 26.4 40.8 30.8 38.7 

0510058 0000000 Calaveras County Office Of 

Education 

172,830 344.97 102,418 9.4 5.6 15.6 15.2 

0561564 0000000 Calaveras Unified 1,440,058 393.35 754,533 33.8 28.2 36.4 40.6 

1363099 0000000 Calexico Unified 7,422,493 839.74 3,387,695 32.0 19.3 34.7 15.8 

1563388 0000000 Caliente Union Elementary 70,775 610.13 39,617 28.9 39.2 24.7 46.4 

1964733 6118194 California Academy For Liberal 

Studies 

162,092 410.36 143,050 39.5 35.0 47.9 24.1 

1363107 0000000 Calipatria Unified 1,032,326 825.20 559,745 27.8 24.2 38.1 27.5 

2866241 0000000 Calistoga Joint Unified 412,508 465.58 137,549 32.3 23.3 30.0 29.4 

4369385 0000000 Cambrian Elementary 499,431 178.30 143,169 19.5 60.3 24.1 58.0 

1964733 6117667 Camino Nuevo Charter Academy 324,194 649.69 246,591 30.6 29.7 33.6 19.3 

1964733 0106435 Camino Nuevo High School Charter 69,647 523.66 61,307 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0961846 0000000 Camino Union Elementary 171,675 329.51 63,555 24.9 46.4 31.9 47.1 

4369393 0000000 Campbell Union Elementary 2,936,306 400.21 1,067,116 25.4 44.8 28.3 43.8 

4369401 0000000 Campbell Union High 881,442 118.94 415,023 26.7 15.4 25.3 42.5 

5872728 6115935 Camptonville Academy 9,283 12.01 0 28.6 19.5 31.4 41.4 

5872728 0000000 Camptonville Elementary 215,707 3126.19 32,204 30.1 34.2 32.9 35.6 

0761671 0000000 Canyon Elementary 18,783 298.14 0 28.0 52.0 18.0 64.0 

1162554 0000000 Capay Joint Union Elementary 47,543 357.47 15,364 34.0 39.8 31.1 44.7 

3066464 0106765 Capistrano Connections Academy 

Charter School 

3,607 41.46 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3066464 0000000 Capistrano Unified 10,801,907 222.05 3,582,142 25.6 49.1 27.4 54.3 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



3467439 0102343 Capitol Heights Academy 3,777 35.30 0 26.0 14.6 22.9 15.6 

3768007 0000000 Cardiff Elementary 317,012 410.64 106,707 23.5 60.3 22.8 62.0 

3773551 0000000 Carlsbad Unified 2,083,102 204.75 804,023 24.1 52.4 23.9 59.7 

2765987 0000000 Carmel Unified 371,504 174.50 101,138 23.2 48.1 22.9 59.8 

4269146 0000000 Carpinteria Unified 1,134,422 388.63 371,270 29.3 35.1 32.8 37.6 

1075598 0000000 Caruthers Unified 913,936 612.15 495,266 26.1 13.6 34.9 19.7 

4569914 0000000 Cascade Union Elementary 1,693,040 1070.19 1,061,357 32.5 30.9 36.9 29.2 

4269153 0000000 Casmalia Elementary 14,386 479.53 0 15.6 12.5 31.3 6.3 

1964345 0000000 Castaic Union Elementary 613,017 170.80 131,553 31.2 43.7 31.3 49.3 

4569922 0000000 Castle Rock Union Elementary 40,630 644.92 18,791 8.3 54.2 18.8 37.5 

0161150 0000000 Castro Valley Unified 1,387,720 165.38 202,733 21.6 51.7 24.6 55.5 

1964733 0108910 Celerity Nascent Charter 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1062117 1030782 Center For Advanced Research And 

Technology 

3,566 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3473973 0000000 Center Joint Unified 1,426,413 226.77 536,734 25.9 38.0 31.7 38.6 

1964352 0000000 Centinela Valley Union High 3,708,875 490.27 2,209,750 17.2 5.5 32.6 15.8 

1964733 0100800 Central City Value 32,010 168.47 25,885 8.1 1.2 44.2 19.8 

3667645 0000000 Central Elementary 1,361,466 255.77 429,045 31.1 45.6 37.7 40.5 

1073965 0000000 Central Unified 4,426,638 290.69 2,223,579 27.0 31.8 35.1 30.8 

1663883 0000000 Central Union Elementary 761,692 362.19 357,409 30.0 44.5 33.4 43.7 

1363115 0000000 Central Union High 1,945,872 493.00 1,012,571 26.4 8.7 37.8 27.6 

3066472 0000000 Centralia Elementary 2,103,066 399.44 720,225 27.0 46.2 31.7 42.1 

1964709 0107508 Century Community Charter 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

5071043 0000000 Ceres Unified 4,268,353 417.89 2,155,391 32.2 29.2 38.6 28.0 

3667652 0000000 Chaffey Joint Union High 4,991,283 217.80 2,533,096 26.1 12.5 31.9 30.3 

3768338 6113211 Chancellor William Mcgill School 77,868 589.91 68,119 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 




CD 

Code 

School 

Code Local Educational Agency Name 

Of Success 

2004-05 

ConApp 

Entitlement 

2004-05 

Entitlement 

Per Student 

2004-05 

Title I 

Entitlement 


Attachment 1 







Basic 


Advanced or 

Proficient 

Basic 

Advanced or 


1964733 0108878 Charter High School Of 

Arts-Multimedia & Perf 

0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1964378 0000000 Charter Oak Unified 1,648,052 231.79 573,954 30.1 29.9 35.5 38.5 

4369583 6118541 Charter School Of Morgan Hill 15,928 42.70 7,705 25.0 52.3 28.1 57.4 

3768338 3730959 Charter School Of San Diego 404,425 276.25 331,059 12.1 2.5 36.2 27.7 

5071050 0000000 Chatom Union Elementary 441,786 641.20 210,315 29.0 22.0 31.1 24.5 

2075606 0000000 Chawanakee Unified 558,623 470.22 266,292 24.0 33.8 28.4 34.7 

2966316 0000000 Chicago Park Elementary 35,529 271.21 4,594 23.6 62.7 21.8 69.1 

0461424 0000000 Chico Unified 6,045,799 448.53 2,962,268 29.9 33.7 30.6 41.6 

3768338 0108969 Children's Conservation Academy 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1964733 6119531 Chime Charter 3,875 0.00 0 26.0 33.0 17.0 44.0 

5572330 0000000 Chinese Camp Elementary 28,751 1197.96 13,655 21.4 57.1 28.6 35.7 

3667678 0000000 Chino Valley Unified 8,049,773 246.13 3,017,441 28.2 39.0 32.8 42.6 

2065193 0000000 Chowchilla Elementary 1,297,863 729.55 707,339 27.4 18.6 34.9 20.3 

2065201 0000000 Chowchilla Union High 269,865 345.54 176,028 21.4 5.6 38.3 22.5 

2765995 0000000 Chualar Union Elementary 331,392 902.98 144,974 26.1 22.4 31.8 14.7 

3768023 0000000 Chula Vista Elementary 10,109,175 492.84 4,188,222 26.8 42.5 31.6 35.0 

3768023 6115778 Chula Vista Learning Community 

Charter (Elem) 

216,745 389.13 168,935 33.8 31.2 29.8 20.4 

4970649 0000000 Cinnabar Elementary 89,311 328.35 25,572 27.1 35.3 26.6 35.7 

5471845 0000000 Citrus South Tule Elementary 30,888 523.53 12,539 36.7 18.4 30.6 14.3 

1964733 0102756 Citylife Downtown Charter School 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1964394 0000000 Claremont Unified 1,597,601 233.36 538,910 26.4 44.2 28.3 50.3 

3768023 6109771 Clear View Elementary 73,639 142.99 47,965 27.5 49.2 29.6 46.1 

4970656 0000000 Cloverdale Unified 558,212 351.96 254,868 26.2 29.1 28.0 30.6 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



1062117 0000000 Clovis Unified 9,365,543 267.65 4,377,741 26.5 48.2 28.6 51.7 

3373676 0000000 Coachella Valley Joint Unified 13,569,026 878.14 7,629,077 23.3 11.5 29.7 10.9 

1062125 0000000 Coalinga-Huron Joint Unified 3,117,145 726.44 1,788,526 25.0 15.1 31.5 17.1 

2065219 0000000 Coarsegold Union Elementary 266,666 242.20 104,183 26.7 49.1 29.6 48.6 

4075465 0000000 Coast Unified 287,743 308.41 112,707 34.0 29.2 26.2 47.9 

5371670 0000000 Coffee Creek Elementary 15,211 950.69 1,414 27.3 36.4 27.3 45.5 

4269161 0000000 Cold Spring Elementary 54,883 281.45 15,154 9.0 86.1 11.8 84.7 

3066670 0101626 Cole (Edward B.) Academy 56,583 533.80 49,046 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3166795 0000000 Colfax Elementary 200,247 361.46 92,813 31.3 44.6 35.5 36.4 

4269179 0000000 College Elementary 240,993 676.95 123,125 28.7 34.8 30.7 39.1 

1964733 0106864 College Ready Academy High School 110,655 521.96 99,485 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3667686 0000000 Colton Joint Unified 11,709,006 475.28 6,305,472 26.8 20.2 33.7 20.5 

4569948 0000000 Columbia Elementary 238,463 246.35 80,505 34.1 36.6 36.2 43.0 

5572348 0000000 Columbia Union Elementary 377,468 718.99 242,325 34.7 35.6 35.3 41.1 

5471852 0000000 Columbine Elementary 102,194 513.54 57,634 22.1 60.4 29.2 51.9 

0610066 0000000 Colusa County Office Of Education 132,617 798.90 118,007 12.3 11.6 16.8 17.4 

0661598 0000000 Colusa Unified 1,011,980 676.01 497,290 28.5 20.5 36.3 25.3 

1964733 6116750 Community Charter Middle 188,156 482.45 173,076 35.3 13.3 39.4 19.1 

1964733 1996636 Community Harvest Charter 4,840 20.17 0 23.8 10.0 33.5 27.6 

1973437 0000000 Compton Unified 36,110,922 1111.58 18,803,232 22.2 15.6 29.6 12.8 

5673759 0000000 Conejo Valley Unified 4,023,865 180.90 1,249,534 22.8 54.8 22.2 63.4 

1964725 6113146 Constellation Community Charter 

Middle 

102,196 601.15 79,018 35.2 14.5 34.5 7.9 

0710074 0000000 Contra Costa County Office Of 

Education 

388,917 390.87 364,999 8.9 11.9 10.1 19.7 

1663891 0000000 Corcoran Joint Unified 2,981,781 933.56 1,731,388 22.9 17.0 34.4 18.0 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



1964733 0100297 Cornerstone Prep Charter 77,709 402.64 65,855 17.1 9.3 24.8 4.7 

5271498 0000000 Corning Union Elementary 1,468,079 738.10 825,817 30.7 33.0 34.1 26.7 

5271506 0000000 Corning Union High 337,574 328.70 219,999 25.9 5.7 33.4 30.8 

1964733 0106872 Corona (Bert) Charter 108,262 462.66 96,729 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3367033 0000000 Corona-Norco Unified 11,303,682 258.53 4,798,856 27.4 34.7 32.7 38.3 

3768031 0000000 Coronado Unified 413,706 142.22 100,610 23.2 57.3 21.1 69.1 

3768338 3731320 Cortez Hill Academy 42,932 278.78 35,422 27.1 12.4 34.1 37.2 

4973882 0000000 Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified 2,067,890 276.49 668,427 29.6 29.6 31.0 38.8 

4569955 0000000 Cottonwood Union Elementary 610,978 492.72 348,338 28.6 50.0 32.0 49.6 

1964436 0000000 Covina-Valley Unified 4,505,509 299.67 2,130,538 28.1 28.2 34.0 34.2 

5371688 0000000 Cox Bar Elementary 40,421 1684.21 21,103 12.5 58.3 41.7 29.2 

3868478 0101261 Cross Cultural Enviromental 

Leadership (Xcel) 

29,031 284.62 23,161 8.7 4.3 26.1 18.8 

3667694 0000000 Cucamonga Elementary 1,589,165 548.37 839,531 29.5 36.0 35.8 30.9 

1262737 0000000 Cuddeback Union Elementary 36,671 293.37 3,446 40.0 26.0 31.0 34.0 

1964733 0100768 Culture And Language Academy Of 

Success (Clas 

69,308 385.04 59,945 27.5 31.9 33.0 42.9 

1964444 0000000 Culver City Unified 1,967,964 288.35 622,257 27.3 34.7 31.1 47.2 

5572355 0000000 Curtis Creek Elementary 424,597 586.46 237,635 31.4 46.0 33.1 48.9 

5471860 0000000 Cutler-Orosi Joint Unified 3,927,838 977.80 2,272,734 22.3 13.9 31.7 12.6 

1262745 0000000 Cutten Elementary 226,313 441.16 114,251 22.5 55.2 31.6 44.0 

4275010 0000000 Cuyama Joint Unified 253,805 805.73 151,634 29.5 21.2 34.4 25.3 

3768338 6039457 Darnall E-Campus Charter 282,159 522.52 216,366 26.8 33.2 38.8 20.9 

5772678 0000000 Davis Joint Unified 2,247,447 259.82 826,429 20.6 56.9 18.6 65.2 

3768049 0000000 Dehesa Elementary 51,431 263.75 15,154 29.2 42.4 27.8 48.6 

0810082 0000000 Del Norte County Office Of 426,465 431.21 358,640 8.9 4.5 19.7 13.0 




CD 

Code 

School 


Education 

2004-05 

ConApp 

Entitlement 

2004-05 

Entitlement 

Per Student 

2004-05 

Title I 

Entitlement 


Attachment 1 







Basic 


Advanced or 


Basic 

Advanced or 


0861820 0000000 Del Norte County Unified 2,838,281 676.43 1,616,388 29.7 32.3 32.8 32.8 

3467306 0000000 Del Paso Heights Elementary 2,885,941 1413.98 1,493,270 26.2 16.9 32.9 13.8 

1563412 0000000 Delano Joint Union High 2,364,050 633.79 1,359,351 23.8 9.1 27.2 14.3 

1563404 0000000 Delano Union Elementary 6,616,937 882.49 3,535,851 27.4 25.7 30.8 17.9 

2475366 0000000 Delhi Unified 1,467,241 567.38 701,111 29.3 16.3 36.5 18.5 

4770227 0000000 Delphic Elementary 13,632 340.80 0 44.8 41.4 31.0 55.2 

1663909 0000000 Delta View Joint Union Elementary 59,196 636.52 29,183 23.7 35.5 34.4 21.5 

5071068 0000000 Denair Unified 557,100 425.59 292,424 28.9 24.0 36.8 32.2 

3367041 0000000 Desert Center Unified 70,508 1410.16 31,799 25.0 28.1 18.8 43.8 

3367058 0000000 Desert Sands Unified 12,479,619 460.74 6,494,691 27.9 27.5 32.4 30.8 

1563420 0000000 Di Giorgio Elementary 146,425 585.70 81,336 31.1 27.8 37.7 16.0 

5475531 0000000 Dinuba Unified 4,047,497 737.38 2,314,545 27.8 17.5 35.1 19.4 

1964733 1996594 Discovery Charter 62,403 220.51 53,133 25.1 3.7 47.1 18.7 

3768023 6111322 Discovery Charter 118,754 139.38 70,193 21.0 58.0 32.8 47.2 

2165318 0000000 Dixie Elementary 339,700 186.96 74,890 20.1 68.7 20.7 70.2 

4870532 0000000 Dixon Unified 1,046,139 268.03 384,312 30.2 30.8 33.5 33.3 

2475317 0000000 Dos Palos Oro Loma Joint Unified 2,256,327 847.92 1,248,768 29.6 20.0 34.2 20.2 

5371696 0000000 Douglas City Elementary 83,958 617.34 43,490 21.4 58.9 28.6 48.2 

1964451 0000000 Downey Unified 8,150,489 361.76 3,592,377 30.5 29.6 36.5 32.5 

1964733 6119903 Downtown Value 39,429 164.29 32,697 41.9 16.1 12.9 22.6 

3166803 0000000 Dry Creek Joint Elementary 1,039,069 148.27 220,132 25.4 56.0 31.5 53.3 

1964469 0000000 Duarte Unified 1,823,525 384.79 814,844 29.2 29.2 33.7 27.8 

0175093 0000000 Dublin Unified 745,175 166.30 137,915 25.0 54.1 27.8 55.4 

5471894 0000000 Ducor Union Elementary 200,217 1164.05 123,200 30.5 14.9 30.5 16.3 

4970672 0000000 Dunham Elementary 30,509 173.35 0 21.5 56.2 24.6 56.2 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



4770243 0000000 Dunsmuir Elementary 270,585 1276.34 153,989 40.3 26.7 35.8 33.5 

4770250 0000000 Dunsmuir Joint Union High 50,950 410.89 21,427 26.9 9.7 36.6 33.3 

0461432 0000000 Durham Unified 415,762 331.28 180,052 31.4 37.2 29.6 46.5 

5471902 0000000 Earlimart Elementary 2,559,400 1305.82 1,498,979 27.6 17.8 27.3 9.4 

0161259 0130518 East Bay Conservation Corps 

Charter 

75,168 370.29 69,482 25.9 38.0 28.7 44.4 

5171373 0000000 East Nicolaus Joint Union High 42,867 134.80 21,784 29.7 23.1 33.0 44.3 

4168999 6114953 East Palo Alto Charter 39,940 104.55 0 33.1 39.5 46.6 25.1 

4369427 0000000 East Side Union High 7,577,719 316.27 3,677,162 23.3 14.6 29.7 31.9 

1964485 0000000 East Whittier City Elementary 2,898,359 310.58 910,097 28.2 36.5 37.4 34.5 

2673668 0000000 Eastern Sierra Unified 375,687 714.23 245,343 24.5 35.3 28.5 41.4 

3875648 6040935 Edison Charter Academy 246,208 621.74 181,274 31.7 28.9 38.7 26.1 

1563438 0000000 Edison Elementary 374,870 367.52 135,391 28.2 26.6 36.4 19.6 

1010108 6085112 Edison-Bethune Charter Academy 0 0.00 0 20.9 19.5 27.8 13.1 

2365607 2330272 Eel River (Charter K-08) 29,645 617.60 24,523 34.2 36.8 42.1 31.6 

1363123 0000000 El Centro Elementary 5,576,725 881.70 2,973,453 29.8 31.0 37.6 26.3 

0910090 0000000 El Dorado County Office Of 

Education 

464,064 655.46 410,280 16.8 12.4 21.6 22.9 

0961853 0000000 El Dorado Union High 882,722 126.45 408,208 29.5 22.7 25.0 55.9 

1964501 0000000 El Monte City Elementary 9,150,139 781.20 4,585,992 30.3 31.6 36.7 24.9 

1964519 0000000 El Monte Union High 5,027,160 489.93 2,732,365 27.1 14.0 33.2 23.5 

1964527 0000000 El Rancho Unified 5,287,058 449.05 2,180,786 32.2 22.7 37.6 24.5 

1964535 0000000 El Segundo Unified 377,277 118.05 57,590 24.6 52.6 23.9 61.3 

3467314 0000000 Elk Grove Unified 20,550,335 369.52 9,898,892 26.1 38.3 30.8 41.4 

1563446 0000000 Elk Hills Elementary 25,964 509.10 2,090 28.8 1.7 20.3 8.5 

5271514 0000000 Elkins Elementary 17,259 616.39 1,824 28.0 32.0 28.0 36.0 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



3467322 0000000 Elverta Joint Elementary 113,023 347.76 43,814 29.7 33.1 37.6 33.8 

0161168 0000000 Emery Unified 273,111 343.10 126,981 24.2 17.7 37.1 20.3 

5071076 0000000 Empire Union Elementary 2,047,909 514.68 916,287 29.5 37.6 36.9 33.2 

3768080 0000000 Encinitas Union Elementary 1,584,579 226.40 529,663 18.5 67.1 20.4 65.7 

1964691 1996438 Environmental Charter High 110,780 532.60 72,206 19.4 5.1 35.7 15.8 

3968502 0000000 Escalon Unified 1,124,827 354.72 547,940 31.6 30.3 34.3 36.3 

3768098 0000000 Escondido Union Elementary 11,012,201 570.64 4,999,700 30.0 33.3 34.0 30.5 

3768106 0000000 Escondido Union High 1,947,032 256.05 1,001,644 25.6 13.4 29.6 35.7 

4369427 4330726 Escuela Popular Accelerated 

Family Learning 

144,567 897.93 74,445 12.8 5.8 11.0 3.5 

5772686 0000000 Esparto Unified 373,222 395.36 183,172 31.7 26.9 38.9 31.6 

3667702 0000000 Etiwanda Elementary 1,293,239 115.32 233,240 30.6 48.4 34.7 45.4 

4770268 0000000 Etna Union Elementary 187,516 966.58 107,486 33.3 40.3 31.7 46.8 

4770276 0000000 Etna Union High 135,444 356.43 87,418 32.4 22.8 32.4 45.7 

1275515 0000000 Eureka City Unified 3,066,037 608.82 1,675,599 25.3 37.0 28.8 35.7 

3166829 0000000 Eureka Union 614,621 146.03 140,703 23.7 63.8 21.2 70.2 

4369435 0000000 Evergreen Elementary 4,271,875 314.94 1,038,137 22.3 58.8 28.9 53.4 

5271522 0000000 Evergreen Union 363,407 395.87 206,924 26.7 51.9 30.2 47.7 

3667934 3630761 Excelsior Education Center 209,263 167.81 178,993 15.6 5.1 32.7 23.2 

5471910 0000000 Exeter Union Elementary 1,130,761 572.25 614,584 31.9 39.8 35.7 32.4 

5471928 0000000 Exeter Union High 359,689 346.52 199,496 21.2 4.6 32.3 33.9 

3768338 6117683 Explorer Elementary Charter 5,564 24.19 0 11.3 82.0 12.0 75.3 

2065243 0107938 Ezequiel Tafoya Alvarado Academy 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

4870540 0000000 Fairfield-Suisun Unified 8,660,844 372.91 3,907,572 26.9 25.4 32.9 33.5 

4569989 0000000 Fall River Joint Unified 606,921 423.24 323,010 28.7 28.0 35.4 28.6 

3768114 0000000 Fallbrook Union Elementary 3,038,872 498.83 1,470,768 27.5 44.5 32.8 42.0 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



3768122 0000000 Fallbrook Union High 690,976 221.32 352,328 25.1 13.4 26.4 39.2 

3768338 0109579 Fanno Academy Charter 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

5475325 0000000 Farmersville Unified 2,276,880 917.73 1,341,809 28.3 18.1 34.0 15.2 

3768023 6037956 Feaster-Edison Charter 586,905 524.96 472,747 28.3 39.8 30.8 26.3 

0461440 0000000 Feather Falls Union Elementary 51,552 1257.37 29,434 18.2 12.1 33.3 15.2 

1964733 6017016 Fenton Avenue Elementary 834,528 623.25 628,058 31.8 41.1 43.2 23.9 

1275374 0000000 Ferndale Unified 123,799 250.10 51,583 27.6 39.0 29.2 47.7 

1262794 0000000 Fieldbrook Elementary 38,054 373.08 4,882 26.6 60.8 24.1 64.6 

5672454 0000000 Fillmore Unified 2,129,404 545.16 1,029,137 32.1 19.6 36.4 25.1 

1073809 0000000 Firebaugh-Las Deltas Joint 

Unified 

1,630,355 648.51 882,777 29.5 17.0 37.1 16.7 

5271530 0000000 Flournoy Union Elementary 58,533 1773.73 39,112 15.6 34.4 18.8 46.9 

3467330 0000000 Folsom-Cordova Unified 5,931,113 330.22 2,942,137 25.2 45.1 27.3 47.4 

3667710 0000000 Fontana Unified 21,644,338 519.41 10,736,698 29.0 22.0 37.3 19.5 

3166837 0000000 Foresthill Union Elementary 267,600 431.61 129,612 28.4 51.2 34.9 43.3 

4970680 0000000 Forestville Union Elementary 267,670 441.70 133,199 23.9 58.3 27.2 54.9 

4770292 0000000 Forks Of Salmon Elementary 25,224 2293.09 2,803 28.6 57.1 0.0 57.1 

2365565 0000000 Fort Bragg Unified 1,001,376 482.59 477,759 28.4 23.4 29.6 31.5 

4770300 0000000 Fort Jones Union Elementary 89,485 721.65 46,187 24.2 59.3 34.1 44.0 

4970698 0000000 Fort Ross Elementary 42,059 725.16 20,279 23.4 59.6 40.4 48.9 

1262802 0000000 Fortuna Union Elementary 509,736 629.30 324,985 25.3 35.5 27.8 34.3 

1262810 0000000 Fortuna Union High 320,557 276.58 215,775 23.7 15.6 24.6 33.3 

3066498 0000000 Fountain Valley Elementary 1,333,640 213.38 255,252 23.1 64.1 25.5 63.6 

1062158 0000000 Fowler Unified 1,105,647 494.92 581,647 28.8 21.6 37.6 25.6 

5171381 0000000 Franklin Elementary 167,051 401.56 87,296 30.4 39.2 33.1 37.8 

4369450 0000000 Franklin-Mckinley Elementary 7,300,431 742.14 3,348,387 27.8 30.2 32.7 25.6 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



0161176 0000000 Fremont Unified 7,124,186 223.02 2,042,031 19.1 54.1 22.5 56.3 

4369468 0000000 Fremont Union High 1,492,448 160.13 479,969 20.6 46.7 17.1 60.9 

4569997 0000000 French Gulch-Whiskeytown 

Elementary 

33,708 936.33 3,327 25.0 14.3 25.0 17.9 

1262828 0000000 Freshwater Elementary 191,641 614.23 124,581 25.9 52.5 22.0 61.6 

1010108 0000000 Fresno County Office Of Education 1,440,777 948.50 1,301,657 7.5 4.4 10.1 8.0 

1062166 1030733 Fresno Prep Academy 57,080 533.46 46,321 2.1 0.0 8.5 0.0 

1062166 0000000 Fresno Unified 77,767,180 960.27 45,217,658 24.4 17.8 30.8 20.0 

1563479 0000000 Fruitvale Elementary 589,125 188.04 172,376 28.8 51.0 29.6 52.8 

3066506 0000000 Fullerton Elementary 5,974,184 431.29 2,402,642 26.7 41.5 30.6 41.7 

3066514 0000000 Fullerton Joint Union High 4,097,920 249.90 1,513,658 27.6 25.7 26.0 43.0 

1964733 0108886 Gabriella Charter 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3467348 0000000 Galt Joint Union Elementary 1,613,458 371.08 598,868 27.9 41.3 32.7 36.2 

3467355 0000000 Galt Joint Union High 479,904 225.10 245,654 30.5 14.3 32.2 39.4 

4169005 6044473 Garfield Charter (Elem) 457,044 629.54 332,441 28.0 23.7 29.2 10.8 

1262836 0000000 Garfield Elementary 20,541 360.37 1,819 12.2 59.2 16.3 61.2 

1964550 0000000 Garvey Elementary 6,937,206 1074.20 3,438,269 25.3 43.9 32.7 32.7 

3868478 3830437 Gateway High 7,110 16.53 0 27.4 6.8 30.1 52.4 

3367215 0106526 Gateway To College Early College 

High 

0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

4575267 0000000 Gateway Unified 2,291,242 671.52 1,279,827 29.8 28.0 36.3 29.6 

4770318 0000000 Gazelle Union Elementary 44,564 891.28 25,978 24.4 31.1 28.9 22.2 

1563487 0000000 General Shafter Elementary 161,525 664.71 102,304 25.6 37.2 29.0 24.6 

5271548 0000000 Gerber Union Elementary 445,159 883.25 263,520 25.9 34.2 40.4 24.5 

4970706 0000000 Geyserville Unified 133,477 503.69 57,148 26.4 12.0 31.4 24.4 

4369484 0000000 Gilroy Unified 4,090,922 445.05 1,675,166 27.7 25.0 33.1 32.4 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



1964568 0000000 Glendale Unified 17,546,933 599.18 8,604,123 26.1 50.0 30.8 47.4 

1964576 0000000 Glendora Unified 1,303,374 164.48 437,569 26.4 46.7 29.3 51.6 

1110116 0000000 Glenn County Office Of Education 30,369 94.90 20,583 11.0 9.5 18.6 19.6 

0961879 0000000 Gold Oak Union Elementary 251,428 345.84 100,936 24.9 57.0 28.6 53.7 

0961887 0000000 Gold Trail Union Elementary 128,880 211.28 24,256 26.2 51.1 25.8 56.9 

0461457 0000000 Golden Feather Union Elementary 256,077 1816.15 153,610 26.2 24.1 29.0 15.2 

2075580 0000000 Golden Valley Unified 361,493 279.79 189,490 26.9 33.5 31.7 47.0 

4269195 0000000 Goleta Union Elementary 1,512,281 384.80 434,432 24.7 48.6 28.7 46.6 

3768338 0109025 Gompers Charter Middle 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1964584 0000000 Gorman Elementary 24,957 415.95 991 29.0 24.2 32.3 27.4 

1964584 1996305 Gorman Learning Center 23,439 14.21 0 21.9 20.8 28.2 37.0 

1964733 1933746 Granada Hills Charter High 563,336 143.63 462,106 30.4 22.2 24.2 54.3 

4570003 0000000 Grant Elementary 115,301 217.14 30,308 22.7 60.5 18.9 71.3 

3467363 0000000 Grant Joint Union High 8,788,962 682.69 5,049,630 22.4 10.9 33.0 20.1 

2966332 0000000 Grass Valley Elementary 1,137,558 618.91 708,021 27.4 48.4 33.4 47.1 

5071084 0000000 Gratton Elementary 61,243 588.88 30,690 33.0 53.4 30.7 54.5 

4970714 0000000 Gravenstein Union Elementary 118,225 230.46 17,997 31.4 47.3 25.8 59.8 

2766027 0000000 Graves Elementary 15,786 426.65 0 64.3 10.7 28.6 21.4 

1262851 0000000 Green Point Elementary 14,280 1586.67 1,709 36.4 36.4 18.2 54.5 

1563503 0000000 Greenfield Union Elementary 3,955,877 532.63 1,930,802 32.7 31.5 36.4 22.7 

2766035 0000000 Greenfield Union Elementary 2,056,380 810.24 1,050,413 23.6 13.3 30.9 11.4 

4770326 0000000 Grenada Elementary 103,776 720.67 60,609 30.3 41.2 38.7 37.8 

0475507 0000000 Gridley Unified 1,430,672 690.48 774,014 28.9 20.0 32.9 25.0 

3768130 0000000 Grossmont Union High 4,410,920 198.16 2,473,547 27.0 14.5 28.7 37.2 

3667843 3630928 Grove High 4,333 27.78 0 22.6 28.6 21.4 53.6 

0161259 6119911 Growing Children Charter 53,792 398.46 49,046 16.0 0.0 18.0 4.0 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



4269203 0000000 Guadalupe Union Elementary 1,020,995 841.71 530,873 26.9 24.8 35.4 16.7 

3768452 3730942 Guajome Park Academy Charter 0 0.00 0 25.3 13.3 29.7 36.4 

4970722 0000000 Guerneville Elementary 338,608 900.55 178,583 24.3 44.7 29.3 36.5 

2473619 0000000 Gustine Unified 1,027,952 533.17 501,365 32.2 23.9 34.5 25.1 

1973445 0000000 Hacienda La Puente Unified 9,521,086 394.54 4,157,365 25.4 32.7 33.6 31.1 

1162570 0000000 Hamilton Union Elementary 309,225 701.19 158,298 34.6 23.9 42.4 22.5 

1162588 0000000 Hamilton Union High 95,510 285.96 61,002 20.0 4.5 27.2 34.7 

1663917 0000000 Hanford Elementary 3,967,871 737.52 2,168,762 28.5 26.7 36.2 24.6 

1663925 0000000 Hanford Joint Union High 1,276,069 360.78 819,970 22.5 7.0 31.8 26.6 

4770334 0000000 Happy Camp Union Elementary 170,660 1145.37 90,002 26.8 20.1 29.3 22.6 

4469757 0000000 Happy Valley Elementary 317,872 2238.54 265,125 16.7 71.3 23.1 68.5 

4570011 0000000 Happy Valley Union Elementary 365,363 592.16 174,583 27.7 32.3 35.8 31.9 

4970730 0000000 Harmony Union Elementary 171,434 577.22 82,900 26.3 50.0 26.3 50.4 

5071092 0000000 Hart-Ransom Union Elementary 215,870 223.24 69,140 32.7 39.9 35.3 44.7 

1964592 0000000 Hawthorne Elementary 7,851,227 792.25 4,264,965 31.5 28.8 39.8 22.6 

0161192 0000000 Hayward Unified 10,949,169 459.74 3,693,789 28.7 22.0 34.6 24.6 

4975390 0000000 Healdsburg Unified 1,051,747 384.69 417,899 26.8 23.8 26.0 34.2 

1363131 0000000 Heber Elementary 588,744 802.10 236,298 30.0 20.7 34.5 18.6 

3667736 0000000 Helendale Elementary 173,207 289.64 72,341 30.9 44.6 33.5 38.8 

3768130 3732732 Helix High 271,583 112.46 188,352 23.0 14.4 30.8 42.8 

3367082 0000000 Hemet Unified 8,910,791 422.67 5,275,448 27.0 26.1 34.5 31.0 

1964600 0000000 Hermosa Beach City Elementary 281,803 268.38 106,707 18.4 71.8 22.6 70.6 

3675044 0000000 Hesperia Unified 6,432,574 378.16 3,347,554 29.7 27.4 34.3 30.5 

5071100 0000000 Hickman Community Charter School 205,642 190.23 72,777 31.0 38.0 29.9 45.8 

3667934 0105833 High Desert Academy Of Applied 

Arts &sciences 

103,812 0.00 92,642 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



3768338 3731247 High Tech High 25,897 60.09 13,870 29.4 25.1 21.4 72.5 

3768338 0106732 High Tech International 3,519 18.23 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3768338 0101204 High Tech Middle 5,947 15.06 0 28.7 47.4 20.6 74.5 

4168908 0000000 Hillsborough City Elementary 193,567 141.81 0 12.0 84.1 9.6 87.2 

2465698 0000000 Hilmar Unified 1,143,218 483.80 536,958 30.7 28.2 34.9 32.9 

3567470 0000000 Hollister 2,720,187 436.07 1,069,463 31.7 25.3 35.8 26.9 

3768338 6117279 Holly Drive Leadership Academy 75,397 527.25 62,992 33.0 21.6 27.8 25.8 

3968536 0000000 Holt Union Elementary 82,513 509.34 18,869 25.4 16.9 27.5 12.0 

1363149 0000000 Holtville Unified 1,300,922 674.75 647,101 29.5 26.6 37.7 30.8 

4269211 0000000 Hope Elementary 366,085 257.08 128,808 19.0 65.9 22.8 65.9 

5471944 0000000 Hope Elementary 73,416 592.06 37,710 23.8 30.5 29.5 20.0 

4970763 0000000 Horicon Elementary 23,333 271.31 0 38.2 25.0 28.9 25.0 

4770359 0000000 Hornbrook Elementary 53,353 988.02 19,859 26.4 9.4 34.0 11.3 

5471951 0000000 Hot Springs Elementary 24,690 705.43 1,613 33.3 19.0 38.1 23.8 

2866258 0000000 Howell Mountain Elementary 79,212 1002.68 37,215 13.1 54.1 26.2 39.3 

5672462 0000000 Hueneme Elementary 5,405,524 636.09 2,574,042 31.4 30.5 34.5 28.0 

1964626 0000000 Hughes-Elizabeth Lakes Union 

Elementary 

147,064 351.83 60,290 26.8 48.1 33.6 49.6 

5075549 0000000 Hughson Unified 895,585 437.30 410,034 34.9 27.3 33.7 35.8 

1210124 0000000 Humboldt County Office Of 

Education 

178,708 569.13 139,513 4.4 7.2 11.4 11.8 

3066530 0000000 Huntington Beach City Elementary 1,554,059 224.22 518,074 22.6 60.2 28.7 58.5 

3066548 0000000 Huntington Beach Union High 3,045,481 203.53 1,264,384 25.7 25.9 27.8 45.0 

1262885 0000000 Hydesville Elementary 74,509 474.58 34,895 32.4 49.6 32.4 54.7 

4570029 0000000 Igo, Ono, Platina Union 

Elementary 

128,807 1064.52 72,013 27.4 18.8 34.2 30.8 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



1310132 0000000 Imperial County Office Of 

Education 

218,853 342.49 169,230 7.3 8.2 14.2 11.2 

1363164 0000000 Imperial Unified 1,022,652 356.70 477,294 29.8 34.4 41.9 34.8 

0961895 0000000 Indian Diggings Elementary 12,344 308.60 0 34.2 31.6 26.3 42.1 

4570037 0000000 Indian Springs Elementary 45,805 1431.41 27,608 43.8 25.0 31.3 25.0 

1964634 0000000 Inglewood Unified 15,339,904 872.08 8,870,356 22.8 23.5 35.8 24.4 

3768221 0101360 Integrity Charter 0 0.00 0 26.2 16.4 36.1 14.8 

2766092 6118962 International School Of Monterey 3,916 19.98 0 17.2 66.7 23.2 63.6 

1410140 0000000 Inyo County Office Of Education 7,091 79.67 0 1.5 4.4 20.6 1.5 

3073650 0000000 Irvine Unified 5,390,247 216.22 1,555,026 18.1 67.2 19.7 69.2 

1663933 0000000 Island Union Elementary 311,617 1320.41 223,872 32.0 35.1 38.7 35.1 

1262893 0000000 Jacoby Creek Elementary 110,425 261.67 36,574 18.9 62.6 17.8 66.7 

5572363 0000000 Jamestown Elementary 266,590 540.75 158,023 33.9 35.5 38.3 38.1 

3768155 0000000 Jamul-Dulzura Union Elementary 309,777 258.58 69,140 27.0 41.8 28.4 45.3 

1864105 0000000 Janesville Union Elementary 144,379 298.30 52,605 30.6 32.9 28.3 37.3 

1964733 0106880 Jardin De La Infancia 20,646 516.15 16,349 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3567488 0000000 Jefferson Elementary 10,858 603.22 0 25.0 18.8 43.8 12.5 

3968544 0000000 Jefferson Elementary 254,179 137.39 35,026 31.3 50.3 33.7 51.5 

4168916 0000000 Jefferson Elementary 2,866,218 483.10 1,096,678 31.3 38.3 37.1 37.2 

4168924 0000000 Jefferson Union High 783,192 145.47 378,920 27.2 17.1 32.7 36.9 

0761697 0000000 John Swett Unified 578,170 318.38 231,962 30.6 21.5 33.0 28.1 

1864113 0000000 Johnstonville Elementary 135,892 510.87 66,236 29.3 41.0 33.0 36.7 

3768338 0109165 Jola Community 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3768163 0000000 Julian Union Elementary 239,483 535.76 138,104 30.2 45.2 32.4 49.9 

3768171 0000000 Julian Union High 47,841 201.86 24,003 39.0 11.8 25.1 59.9 

5371738 0000000 Junction City Elementary 28,863 565.94 3,829 23.4 48.9 29.8 44.7 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



4570045 0000000 Junction Elementary 130,255 280.12 35,043 32.7 53.4 27.6 57.1 

4770367 0000000 Junction Elementary 17,188 520.85 1,502 28.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 

4970888 0000000 Kashia Elementary 10,760 1076.00 0 13.3 0.0 13.3 6.7 

3768338 0109017 Keiller Leadership Academy 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1764014 0000000 Kelseyville Unified 838,580 446.29 431,549 29.5 26.5 32.5 34.7 

2165334 0000000 Kentfield Elementary 242,657 250.42 82,607 18.9 73.1 12.7 81.3 

4970789 0000000 Kenwood Elementary 50,962 358.89 15,129 23.6 51.2 30.9 51.2 

1964642 0000000 Keppel Union Elementary 1,610,579 541.19 820,582 28.4 20.7 35.2 23.3 

1073999 0000000 Kerman Unified 2,466,771 664.72 1,345,452 30.7 26.7 37.1 25.0 

1510157 0000000 Kern County Office Of Education 1,189,883 452.94 990,984 8.5 8.0 12.7 12.3 

1563529 0000000 Kern Union High 12,445,058 384.62 7,933,928 20.2 9.2 26.8 25.2 

1563545 0000000 Kernville Union Elementary 698,335 716.24 418,730 32.3 33.5 35.9 35.8 

5071134 0000000 Keyes Union 579,047 547.30 249,015 28.8 20.4 33.0 22.8 

4970912 6116958 Kid Street Learning Center 

Charter 

4,022 138.69 0 51.9 11.1 40.7 18.5 

1062265 0000000 Kings Canyon Joint Unified 6,485,017 712.48 3,641,180 27.1 19.9 33.9 23.1 

1610165 0000000 Kings County Office Of Education 210,324 497.22 160,545 8.1 9.4 12.7 13.8 

5471969 0000000 Kings River Union Elementary 897,158 1755.69 538,633 27.5 23.3 30.6 16.4 

1663941 0000000 Kings River-Hardwick Union 

Elementary 

169,187 261.90 68,958 28.5 49.3 27.2 53.6 

1062240 0000000 Kingsburg Elementary Charter 907,744 417.35 493,120 27.9 38.4 34.0 40.9 

1062257 0000000 Kingsburg Joint Union High 285,975 271.07 155,191 30.0 15.1 31.9 41.8 

1062166 0106682 Kipp Academy Fresno 38,463 712.28 32,697 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1964733 0101444 Kipp Academy Of Opportunity 45,954 510.60 38,147 30.7 22.7 30.7 29.5 

3768338 0101345 Kipp Adelante Preparatory Academy 73,024 417.28 40,871 28.2 38.5 35.9 16.7 

3868478 0101337 Kipp Bayview Academy 42,332 264.58 35,422 32.9 28.9 42.1 19.7 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



4369369 0106633 Kipp Heartwood Academy 42,913 572.17 36,784 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1964733 0100867 Kipp Los Angeles College 

Preparatory 

4,011 45.58 0 41.5 46.3 42.7 41.5 

3868478 0101352 Kipp San Francisco Bay Academy 30,504 242.10 24,338 35.8 22.4 41.8 26.9 

0175705 0101212 Kipp Summit Academy 4,330 27.06 0 10.7 60.0 20.0 50.7 

5271555 0000000 Kirkwood Elementary 29,803 993.43 15,130 13.3 6.7 26.7 6.7 

1663958 0000000 Kit Carson Union Elementary 126,376 272.36 39,245 31.2 36.8 30.5 36.3 

4770375 0000000 Klamath River Union Elementary 48,694 1679.10 27,874 16.0 32.0 32.0 28.0 

1262901 0000000 Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified 1,168,879 1074.34 642,048 26.8 16.7 31.0 23.6 

1262919 0000000 Kneeland Elementary 17,510 460.79 0 25.6 43.6 23.1 38.5 

5071142 0000000 Knights Ferry Elementary 30,039 208.60 3,063 18.3 61.5 19.3 62.4 

0761705 0000000 Knightsen Elementary 95,759 207.72 27,466 31.5 27.0 31.0 37.3 

1764022 0000000 Konocti Unified 2,516,702 725.69 1,395,237 30.0 18.1 36.1 20.9 

1964659 0000000 La Canada Unified 598,611 137.83 0 16.0 73.6 13.1 80.2 

5071159 0000000 La Grange Elementary 11,189 279.73 0 21.1 31.6 21.1 28.9 

3066563 0000000 La Habra City Elementary 4,033,606 617.33 1,930,634 30.7 34.7 35.1 30.0 

4168940 0000000 La Honda-Pescadero Unified 146,121 400.33 38,177 24.3 36.6 24.3 42.5 

3768197 0000000 La Mesa-Spring Valley 5,746,878 401.60 2,485,795 26.6 47.2 30.8 43.4 

0761713 0000000 Lafayette Elementary 540,391 159.17 112,714 16.3 74.9 16.9 76.1 

3066555 0000000 Laguna Beach Unified 508,162 188.00 140,979 21.3 49.6 23.2 54.7 

2165342 0000000 Laguna Joint Elementary 13,402 239.32 0 26.7 33.3 20.0 33.3 

2766076 0000000 Lagunita Elementary 19,100 254.67 0 28.4 44.8 34.3 50.7 

2165359 0000000 Lagunitas Elementary 107,238 374.96 41,801 18.8 28.7 18.8 36.0 

1710173 0000000 Lake County Office Of Education 105,017 278.56 95,768 2.8 0.9 19.6 4.7 

1162596 0000000 Lake Elementary 55,845 416.75 25,257 25.5 40.9 32.7 40.9 

3375176 0000000 Lake Elsinore Unified 6,653,456 337.57 3,467,551 30.0 29.1 36.2 30.8 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



0961903 0000000 Lake Tahoe Unified 2,006,458 408.48 810,134 31.0 27.1 32.4 35.3 

1764030 0000000 Lakeport Unified 860,208 480.03 507,760 25.1 27.3 30.5 32.1 

4369492 0000000 Lakeside Joint Elementary 79,517 716.37 42,254 15.7 71.4 24.3 57.1 

1663966 0000000 Lakeside Union Elementary 637,358 1581.53 388,956 29.9 24.5 35.0 13.1 

3768189 0000000 Lakeside Union Elementary 1,498,605 337.68 539,431 27.8 39.5 32.5 37.2 

1563552 0000000 Lakeside Union School 299,988 219.93 123,125 35.3 31.0 35.4 36.1 

1964733 0102442 Lakeview Charter Academy 65,192 509.31 57,220 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3968551 0000000 Lammersville Elementary 85,803 241.70 31,125 27.4 42.5 34.2 38.5 

1563560 0000000 Lamont Elementary 2,589,536 920.56 1,245,637 26.2 19.8 34.3 15.1 

1964667 0000000 Lancaster Elementary 8,625,307 538.98 4,845,231 27.3 22.6 34.4 22.7 

2165367 0000000 Larkspur Elementary 153,919 154.85 29,502 18.0 69.6 18.3 69.2 

4168957 0000000 Las Lomitas Elementary 167,998 166.83 20,425 12.2 80.3 13.6 78.8 

1964683 0000000 Las Virgenes Unified 1,575,513 129.46 318,186 22.5 59.6 21.6 67.2 

1810181 0000000 Lassen County Office Of Education 43,934 378.74 34,982 9.7 9.7 15.3 18.1 

5271563 0000000 Lassen View Union Elementary 266,023 858.14 174,334 21.9 61.2 32.9 52.7 

4369427 4330668 Latino College Preparatory 

Academy 

22,562 71.85 0 21.6 3.2 32.0 4.3 

1062281 0000000 Laton Joint Unified 637,603 813.27 333,317 32.3 23.5 41.3 19.6 

0961911 0000000 Latrobe 47,634 243.03 11,551 22.6 69.0 26.2 65.5 

1964691 0000000 Lawndale Elementary 3,858,755 614.84 1,867,925 32.5 28.4 40.3 23.7 

2373916 0000000 Laytonville Unified 308,936 602.21 178,615 31.6 19.3 28.4 27.5 

2465722 0000000 Le Grand Union Elementary 320,118 734.22 146,044 31.3 24.4 35.4 15.8 

2465730 0000000 Le Grand Union High 352,552 613.13 239,780 17.4 4.0 37.7 15.2 

3868478 3830411 Leadership High (Charter) 14,511 38.70 0 17.3 2.9 36.2 38.8 

4310439 0102905 Leadership Public Schools - East 

San Jose 

44,412 548.30 38,147 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



0176380 0108670 Leadership Public Schools - 

Hayward 

0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0161259 0101469 Leadership Public Schools Oakland 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0761796 0101477 Leadership Public Schools: 

Richmond 

63,746 277.16 54,495 12.9 0.0 44.9 25.2 

2375218 0000000 Leggett Valley Unified 119,417 642.03 79,046 25.4 13.6 25.4 29.0 

3768205 0000000 Lemon Grove Elementary 1,948,523 438.86 860,556 28.2 30.3 35.6 30.1 

1663974 0000000 Lemoore Union Elementary 1,606,578 499.71 810,210 32.5 28.9 38.6 30.1 

1663982 0000000 Lemoore Union High 611,321 291.11 426,629 31.8 11.4 34.1 29.0 

1964709 0000000 Lennox Elementary 6,218,227 868.35 2,880,573 30.9 18.7 36.3 15.8 

5371746 0000000 Lewiston Elementary 142,604 990.31 88,391 17.3 56.7 39.4 30.8 

4970797 0000000 Liberty Elementary 37,594 191.81 0 19.9 72.8 21.3 72.1 

5471985 0000000 Liberty Elementary 111,378 475.97 58,024 29.7 25.0 28.1 26.6 

0761721 0000000 Liberty Union High 834,844 174.00 183,741 26.3 11.3 31.4 38.6 

1964584 1996677 Lifeline Education Charter 5,752 20.54 0 19.8 18.4 40.6 7.4 

0161259 0130633 Lighthouse Community Charter 83,825 303.71 77,656 28.1 9.9 34.7 15.7 

2165375 0000000 Lincoln Elementary 10,709 669.31 0 77.8 22.2 22.2 66.7 

3968569 0000000 Lincoln Unified 4,544,103 504.62 2,100,991 28.9 29.1 32.1 37.9 

3968577 0000000 Linden Unified 828,916 336.55 291,674 31.5 28.8 35.9 33.0 

5471993 0000000 Lindsay Unified 3,556,192 991.41 2,135,998 30.0 21.2 34.3 14.9 

1563586 0000000 Linns Valley-Poso Flat Union 40,462 1305.23 19,810 53.3 13.3 46.7 36.7 

0161259 0130666 Lionel Wilson College Preparatory 

Academy 

24,658 63.88 0 19.1 8.5 37.0 11.9 

3710371 6119119 Literacy First Charter 84,204 209.99 70,193 18.1 67.7 23.8 57.3 

1964717 0000000 Little Lake City Elementary 1,861,659 356.64 626,820 31.7 29.5 38.8 29.2 

4770383 0000000 Little Shasta Elementary 15,519 705.41 1,819 42.1 42.1 57.9 21.1 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



4469765 0000000 Live Oak Elementary 1,013,566 479.45 434,433 31.7 35.7 31.9 37.7 

5171399 0000000 Live Oak Unified 1,493,151 795.50 974,934 32.9 21.2 36.2 24.5 

0161200 0000000 Livermore Valley Joint Unified 2,914,799 203.42 944,095 25.0 44.0 27.9 48.3 

2465748 0000000 Livingston Union Elementary 1,969,275 809.40 848,420 30.5 28.8 35.9 22.4 

3968585 0000000 Lodi Unified 16,468,916 600.86 8,459,978 28.2 27.3 33.2 27.1 

1262927 0000000 Loleta Union Elementary 133,754 715.26 51,768 31.8 19.2 31.8 27.8 

4369500 0000000 Loma Prieta Joint Union 

Elementary 

162,907 303.93 50,197 19.8 66.2 16.4 72.0 

1463289 0000000 Lone Pine Unified 252,181 589.21 157,030 30.7 22.4 39.7 27.5 

1964725 0000000 Long Beach Unified 70,474,522 722.98 41,403,616 27.8 32.0 34.6 32.7 

1875036 6010763 Long Valley Charter 57,746 290.18 44,959 19.9 26.5 30.9 30.9 

3073924 0000000 Los Alamitos Unified 1,110,080 120.87 211,644 24.2 56.6 22.5 67.0 

4269237 0000000 Los Alamos Elementary 145,152 628.36 84,742 28.2 49.0 33.0 34.0 

4369518 0000000 Los Altos Elementary 653,062 161.25 131,018 8.8 84.1 10.1 83.5 

1910199 0000000 Los Angeles County Office Of 

Education 

14,758,992 1873.44 10,917,064 8.3 7.1 11.9 14.7 

1964733 0109942 Los Angeles International 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1964733 0000000 Los Angeles Unified 625,768,552 887.10 365,875,700 22.9 24.2 31.6 22.6 

2465755 0000000 Los Banos Unified 3,010,403 359.75 1,258,993 29.0 22.7 35.1 24.1 

4369526 0000000 Los Gatos Union Elementary 463,831 182.11 125,574 16.2 72.1 17.1 74.9 

4369534 0000000 Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union 

High 

429,042 149.34 85,481 19.5 58.8 13.0 70.6 

5271571 0000000 Los Molinos Unified 358,364 575.22 198,085 32.4 29.4 39.3 33.4 

1964758 0000000 Los Nietos Elementary 1,118,801 469.10 387,887 34.3 32.1 38.9 22.6 

4269245 0000000 Los Olivos Elementary 87,004 183.55 36,437 15.8 42.0 22.0 50.9 

1563594 0000000 Lost Hills Union Elementary 475,706 863.35 198,801 22.2 23.7 31.4 9.1 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



1964766 0000000 Lowell Joint 955,021 288.96 334,333 26.7 54.5 27.3 57.8 

1764048 0000000 Lucerne Elementary 204,301 656.92 97,313 27.9 29.8 35.5 25.2 

3675051 0000000 Lucerne Valley Unified 724,004 720.40 436,070 22.2 15.6 32.3 17.6 

4068759 0000000 Lucia Mar Unified 3,936,844 366.32 1,968,990 30.2 41.6 30.9 46.7 

4369542 0000000 Luther Burbank 252,580 574.05 81,348 32.0 29.1 34.0 23.9 

1964774 0000000 Lynwood Unified 13,584,852 692.89 6,352,311 22.4 16.7 33.6 16.4 

2010207 0000000 Madera County Office Of Education 150,039 279.40 100,169 10.7 6.0 13.9 9.1 

2065243 0000000 Madera Unified 13,418,634 785.54 7,659,918 30.4 21.3 36.0 21.5 

3066589 0000000 Magnolia Elementary 4,843,269 694.77 2,317,443 27.4 37.1 33.8 28.1 

1964733 6119945 Magnolia Science Academy 119,214 418.29 104,903 30.1 17.5 42.7 26.5 

1363172 0000000 Magnolia Union Elementary 27,242 243.23 2,489 30.4 37.3 30.4 37.3 

2673692 0000000 Mammoth Unified 516,517 435.51 249,772 27.6 33.4 25.5 47.7 

2365573 0000000 Manchester Union Elementary 85,636 1241.10 53,304 30.5 30.5 39.0 18.6 

1975333 0000000 Manhattan Beach Unified 704,039 110.09 96,464 17.7 64.7 14.9 76.8 

3968593 0000000 Manteca Unified 5,860,598 259.51 2,300,561 31.1 26.6 36.4 31.2 

5271589 0000000 Manton Joint Union Elementary 51,369 1116.72 23,860 30.2 18.6 30.2 30.2 

0461499 0000000 Manzanita Elementary 104,061 400.23 49,580 35.1 33.7 36.1 31.7 

1262935 0000000 Maple Creek Elementary 11,228 748.53 0 0.0 40.0 30.0 40.0 

1563610 0000000 Maple Elementary 80,485 301.44 34,048 29.5 35.0 35.9 34.6 

5171407 0000000 Marcum-Illinois Union Elementary 99,004 642.88 55,119 22.6 42.5 28.8 43.8 

4870581 6116255 Mare Island Technology Academy 60,170 156.29 49,135 31.1 16.4 43.7 29.3 

1563628 0000000 Maricopa Unified 156,594 444.87 82,530 32.9 26.9 43.7 24.5 

2110215 0000000 Marin County Office Of Education 289,327 662.08 140,028 8.5 9.9 10.3 17.3 

2210223 0000000 Mariposa County Office Of 

Education 

45,537 2069.86 21,903 9.7 22.6 0.0 35.5 

2265532 0000000 Mariposa County Unified 1,112,827 450.72 659,436 29.7 36.4 34.1 43.1 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



0561572 0000000 Mark Twain Union Elementary 418,965 541.30 243,351 33.5 35.0 38.7 33.8 

4970805 0105890 Mark West Charter 3,259 39.27 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

4970805 0000000 Mark West Union Elementary 422,804 263.43 176,164 27.5 53.9 29.2 54.3 

0761739 0000000 Martinez Unified 839,032 198.12 248,684 30.7 36.8 30.3 44.9 

4970862 6051932 Mary Collins School At Cherry 

Valley 

27,799 94.23 21,058 32.3 34.3 29.8 45.5 

5872736 0000000 Marysville Joint Unified 8,456,556 868.32 4,629,435 29.3 24.9 35.5 26.1 

1275382 0000000 Mattole Unified 129,269 112.60 45,366 18.1 14.7 23.4 29.3 

0661606 0000000 Maxwell Unified 225,615 502.48 132,758 30.1 37.0 36.1 37.0 

1363180 0000000 Mccabe Union Elementary 144,642 272.40 35,043 27.4 49.6 36.5 47.8 

4770409 0000000 Mccloud Union Elementary 158,627 1379.37 94,139 38.0 27.8 38.0 44.3 

1573908 0000000 Mcfarland Unified 2,468,644 739.56 1,511,154 26.9 9.7 32.3 12.2 

1262950 0000000 Mckinleyville Union Elementary 750,264 559.90 407,173 28.2 43.9 32.2 46.6 

1563651 0000000 Mckittrick Elementary 39,982 605.79 18,356 30.8 34.6 38.5 34.6 

2465763 0000000 Mcswain Union Elementary 326,531 394.36 162,022 27.5 54.4 29.1 55.3 

1363198 0000000 Meadows Union Elementary 318,569 658.20 139,128 39.1 22.0 36.2 20.2 

1964352 0101642 Media Art Academy At Centinela 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3768338 0109132 Memorial Academy Of Learning & 

Technology 

0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

2310231 0000000 Mendocino County Office Of 

Education 

385,532 1386.81 259,935 8.3 7.6 18.7 10.4 

2365581 0000000 Mendocino Unified 420,729 582.73 222,916 24.2 33.6 17.2 56.4 

1075127 0000000 Mendota Unified 2,191,978 947.27 1,183,846 26.4 22.6 34.2 16.3 

3367116 0000000 Menifee Union Elementary 1,331,754 201.17 461,247 31.7 40.2 36.5 40.4 

4168965 0000000 Menlo Park City Elementary 378,985 187.71 66,569 16.1 72.3 16.5 74.4 

2465771 0000000 Merced City Elementary 11,773,642 1023.35 6,502,303 30.3 29.5 35.1 24.1 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



2410249 0000000 Merced County Office Of Education 350,521 246.50 266,423 7.3 5.9 12.1 9.0 

2473726 0000000 Merced River Union Elementary 119,407 585.33 48,938 28.1 30.7 35.4 28.6 

2465789 0000000 Merced Union High 5,177,365 534.02 3,109,604 24.7 11.5 34.2 29.5 

5171415 0000000 Meridian Elementary 59,227 769.18 33,648 28.6 19.5 28.6 23.4 

5672470 0000000 Mesa Union Elementary 116,013 209.79 28,414 32.3 47.8 27.4 54.7 

1764055 0000000 Middletown Unified 460,462 253.28 231,716 26.8 32.8 31.8 40.9 

1563669 0000000 Midway Elementary 64,301 722.48 30,744 34.2 18.4 34.2 30.3 

1964733 0102426 Milagro Charter School 50,349 606.61 43,596 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

2165391 0000000 Mill Valley Elementary 443,694 198.43 98,341 16.9 72.8 19.1 72.8 

4168973 0000000 Millbrae Elementary 568,521 271.24 110,769 27.6 56.6 30.1 53.6 

0161259 0108803 Millsmont Academy 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

4570052 0000000 Millville Elementary 99,520 469.43 54,130 19.5 47.6 29.2 41.6 

4373387 0000000 Milpitas Unified 2,711,622 284.60 624,028 24.5 44.4 30.7 46.4 

5271605 0000000 Mineral Elementary 12,811 753.59 1,148 22.7 9.1 45.5 13.6 

2766084 0000000 Mission Union Elementary 26,216 275.96 1,819 35.8 44.4 32.1 46.9 

4870581 4830196 Mit Academy 26,302 125.25 19,888 5.5 1.1 42.0 40.9 

5071167 0000000 Modesto City Elementary 17,095,908 910.96 10,488,179 31.3 30.7 35.9 24.2 

5071175 0000000 Modesto City High 2,986,412 198.64 763,091 29.1 18.1 32.0 36.2 

2573585 2530129 Modoc Charter 74,609 179.78 62,004 22.1 13.0 33.0 32.4 

2510256 0000000 Modoc County Office Of Education 173,436 1993.52 117,971 4.8 19.4 8.1 22.6 

2573585 0000000 Modoc Joint Unified 594,820 583.16 374,379 31.0 25.2 31.4 33.3 

1563677 0000000 Mojave Unified 1,698,329 618.47 1,031,330 25.7 13.6 31.4 20.9 

0161259 6117568 Monarch Academy 45,829 130.20 0 29.9 28.2 31.2 17.1 

2610264 0000000 Mono County Office Of Education 41,102 328.82 32,697 11.6 14.9 17.4 16.5 

1062323 0000000 Monroe Elementary 186,513 800.48 107,183 39.3 20.2 38.7 27.2 

1964790 0000000 Monrovia Unified 3,086,396 469.20 1,626,926 28.5 29.5 33.2 33.6 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



5472009 0000000 Monson-Sultana Joint Union 

Elementary 

339,998 776.25 170,352 30.4 29.0 36.5 28.7 

4770417 0000000 Montague Elementary 232,114 1208.93 133,328 26.9 19.9 26.9 24.1 

1964733 6018204 Montague Street Elementary 663,808 540.12 547,678 27.3 44.6 33.8 27.8 

4970813 0000000 Monte Rio Union Elementary 89,832 794.97 49,211 30.0 29.2 26.7 34.2 

4369567 0000000 Montebello Elementary 17,691 384.59 0 32.4 40.5 24.3 43.2 

4269252 0000000 Montecito Union Elementary 133,505 332.93 43,105 14.1 80.4 10.0 84.5 

2710272 0000000 Monterey County Office Of 

Education 

274,938 265.90 177,735 10.5 13.0 11.9 16.8 

4970821 0000000 Montgomery Elementary 22,746 355.41 0 18.8 39.1 26.6 42.2 

5673940 0000000 Moorpark Unified 2,124,610 271.90 781,748 28.1 43.2 25.6 55.3 

0761747 0000000 Moraga Elementary 323,340 174.87 59,761 16.7 76.2 14.5 79.3 

4369575 0000000 Moreland Elementary 1,387,878 339.42 434,512 22.7 53.5 25.4 56.3 

3367124 0000000 Moreno Valley Unified 17,087,691 505.69 8,763,369 25.8 20.9 35.1 23.2 

4369583 0000000 Morgan Hill Unified 2,431,524 287.99 775,782 27.5 37.8 30.4 43.6 

3667777 0000000 Morongo Unified 5,148,209 543.46 2,987,382 25.9 28.2 33.4 34.2 

0961929 0000000 Mother Lode Union Elementary 566,054 347.49 236,859 29.7 52.3 32.6 52.7 

4469773 0000000 Mountain Elementary 62,012 375.83 26,949 23.4 49.2 25.8 45.2 

3768213 0000000 Mountain Empire Unified 957,218 514.36 558,797 27.2 24.4 34.5 30.5 

0161218 0000000 Mountain House Elementary 14,313 325.30 0 30.2 18.6 39.5 25.6 

4573700 0000000 Mountain Union Elementary 111,272 1209.48 61,236 33.0 19.6 32.0 19.6 

5375028 0000000 Mountain Valley Unified 525,075 1209.85 339,608 25.5 31.6 30.1 35.6 

1964816 0000000 Mountain View Elementary 9,553,742 937.28 4,827,034 27.7 30.4 31.3 17.8 

4369609 0000000 Mountain View-Los Altos Union 

High 

559,549 164.09 181,137 23.4 33.2 17.8 58.9 

4369591 0000000 Mountain View-Whisman Elementary 1,785,432 406.61 476,502 23.3 45.3 27.6 44.6 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



3667793 0000000 Mt. Baldy Joint Elementary 24,587 270.19 1,914 23.3 43.8 26.0 53.4 

0761754 0000000 Mt. Diablo Unified 10,414,775 283.07 3,908,069 24.9 35.9 26.7 41.4 

4369617 0000000 Mt. Pleasant Elementary 1,301,894 448.31 319,478 30.4 35.3 35.3 34.5 

4770425 0000000 Mt. Shasta Union Elementary 413,924 561.63 234,099 25.9 37.6 32.3 45.3 

3768023 6037980 Mueller Elementary Charter 415,982 454.13 332,421 27.4 34.2 36.2 27.0 

1363206 0000000 Mulberry Elementary 40,944 493.30 16,719 47.9 14.1 33.8 36.6 

1964733 6119044 Multicultural Learning Center 111,604 511.94 91,308 24.1 22.0 29.8 15.6 

5672504 0000000 Mupu Elementary 45,679 317.22 16,261 30.4 50.4 35.7 40.9 

1563685 0000000 Muroc Joint Unified 540,349 225.99 200,280 30.8 38.7 33.3 46.2 

3375200 0000000 Murrieta Valley Unified 1,872,194 77.47 472,239 27.3 44.9 32.6 48.8 

3768338 6115570 Museum 5,404 71.11 0 19.7 64.5 32.9 55.3 

2810280 0000000 Napa County Office Of Education 82,697 467.21 65,864 3.6 5.4 10.1 8.7 

2866266 0000000 Napa Valley Unified 5,752,616 337.71 2,247,567 28.5 30.2 30.4 37.9 

3475283 0000000 Natomas Unified 1,515,907 173.62 548,471 28.4 28.4 33.7 37.1 

3667801 0000000 Needles Unified 1,038,078 879.73 638,502 25.0 21.0 33.9 25.9 

2966340 0000000 Nevada City Elementary 407,746 280.62 168,993 26.7 56.5 26.9 61.3 

2966357 0000000 Nevada Joint Union High 1,048,384 233.49 501,003 30.5 16.9 24.2 48.9 

1964725 6118269 New City 67,535 447.25 54,495 21.9 21.9 33.3 15.2 

1964733 0102541 New Designs Charter School 117,168 781.12 104,903 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0161242 0000000 New Haven Unified 4,043,554 298.57 914,789 29.3 34.8 33.0 37.6 

3968619 0000000 New Hope Elementary 249,100 1004.44 143,010 21.7 16.2 36.9 18.7 

3968627 0000000 New Jerusalem Elementary 60,634 101.06 10,078 20.3 26.2 29.8 33.5 

1062166 1030667 New Millenium Charter 92,408 328.85 72,206 4.8 0.4 10.8 1.9 

0161234 0000000 Newark Unified 1,894,633 256.34 330,119 25.4 37.6 33.7 34.8 

3166852 0000000 Newcastle Elementary 87,858 285.25 35,213 26.1 60.2 32.0 58.9 

1964832 0000000 Newhall Elementary 1,898,795 284.59 626,045 21.0 64.0 27.2 57.0 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



5073601 0000000 Newman-Crows Landing Unified 1,043,414 458.64 475,489 31.1 25.6 34.5 29.9 

3066597 0000000 Newport-Mesa Unified 8,410,546 375.40 3,494,065 27.0 34.6 28.9 40.5 

2165409 0000000 Nicasio Elementary 18,705 301.69 0 29.0 53.2 21.0 59.7 

1563693 0000000 Norris Elementary 191,639 92.45 0 26.8 53.7 27.6 59.4 

3567504 0000000 North County Joint Union 

Elementary 

277,808 531.18 141,938 28.0 34.0 34.7 25.9 

4570078 0000000 North Cow Creek Elementary 75,147 248.01 20,188 27.3 64.2 28.0 63.5 

2773825 0000000 North Monterey County Unified 2,452,874 480.86 1,007,049 26.7 19.5 33.7 26.6 

3467397 0000000 North Sacramento Elementary 6,592,236 1233.58 3,551,373 30.7 25.2 35.8 21.4 

3410348 0106773 Northern California Poly 

Technical Academy 

0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1262687 0000000 Northern Humboldt Union High 367,926 189.95 223,363 30.8 19.2 23.8 50.8 

1964840 0000000 Norwalk-La Mirada Unified 8,386,976 347.99 3,717,194 26.4 24.1 35.5 27.8 

2165417 0000000 Novato Unified 1,831,394 237.57 595,165 24.7 53.1 26.1 56.1 

3768338 6114961 Nubia Leadership Academy (Char) 144,011 370.21 115,803 32.8 19.6 37.3 24.4 

5171423 0000000 Nuestro Elementary 24,370 217.59 1,824 29.6 30.6 27.6 41.8 

3367157 0000000 Nuview Union Elementary 576,374 377.46 254,384 33.5 23.9 38.0 29.1 

3768338 6061964 O'farrell Community Charter 688,378 473.44 521,793 26.1 19.0 33.6 26.0 

4369625 0000000 Oak Grove Elementary 4,335,973 373.08 1,376,210 26.5 46.4 31.6 41.5 

4970839 0000000 Oak Grove Union Elementary 192,801 306.03 67,759 27.4 53.0 26.2 54.7 

4570086 0000000 Oak Run Elementary 57,124 1057.85 30,593 35.8 34.0 50.9 28.3 

5472017 0000000 Oak Valley Union Elementary 218,751 509.91 121,685 31.5 31.5 37.6 25.4 

3968635 0000000 Oak View Union Elementary 154,776 424.04 67,226 24.9 54.8 31.2 47.8 

5075564 0000000 Oakdale Joint Unified 1,528,375 306.66 673,218 29.2 37.5 32.7 43.4 

0161259 0107169 Oakland Alternative For 

Independent & Communi 

36,977 415.47 31,335 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



0161259 0130617 Oakland Military Institute, 

College Preparato 

102,889 244.97 83,035 26.0 9.4 32.1 24.0 

0161259 0000000 Oakland Unified 49,995,212 1233.08 26,683,680 21.6 20.7 29.0 19.8 

0761762 0000000 Oakley Union Elementary 990,905 219.96 310,521 30.5 35.4 34.0 38.5 

1964733 0102335 Ocean Charter School 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3066613 0000000 Ocean View Elementary 3,757,643 368.90 1,443,649 25.0 56.3 31.0 49.3 

5672512 0000000 Ocean View Elementary 1,855,020 735.83 877,420 32.1 32.6 34.7 24.6 

3773569 0000000 Oceanside Unified 11,275,288 503.81 5,698,168 27.6 34.2 33.8 33.5 

1910199 6116883 Odyssey Charter 67,637 290.29 51,771 20.8 16.5 23.1 20.3 

5672520 0000000 Ojai Unified 1,328,840 354.74 650,755 29.6 36.5 28.0 48.4 

4970847 0000000 Old Adobe Union Elementary 634,168 328.93 170,270 31.0 44.3 29.6 45.8 

3667819 0000000 Ontario-Montclair Elementary 19,169,200 707.35 9,011,862 28.1 21.4 32.8 17.1 

3166860 0000000 Ophir Elementary 34,877 172.66 0 32.7 37.3 29.3 50.0 

1964733 0109918 Opportunities Unlimited Charter 

High 

0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3010306 0000000 Orange County Department Of 

Education 

5,117,485 593.88 3,176,580 8.8 6.0 16.5 11.7 

3066670 3030723 Orange County High School Of The 

Arts 

45,563 38.03 22,731 35.2 33.6 16.1 79.2 

3066621 0000000 Orange Unified 10,501,001 331.70 4,319,640 27.2 36.6 30.1 44.0 

4369633 0000000 Orchard Elementary 312,352 397.90 98,341 28.0 26.4 35.8 29.3 

4269260 0000000 Orcutt Union Elementary 988,278 199.89 275,611 29.3 53.1 36.0 46.8 

1262968 0000000 Orick Elementary 80,240 1707.23 41,862 38.6 29.5 22.7 20.5 

0761770 0000000 Orinda Union Elementary 280,544 116.46 0 7.6 87.2 12.0 82.8 

1175481 0000000 Orland Joint Unified 1,321,739 577.68 739,778 32.2 19.8 38.1 26.0 

3667827 0000000 Oro Grande Elementary 159,913 1087.84 79,314 23.6 16.7 28.3 17.0 

0461507 0000000 Oroville City Elementary 2,728,778 853.28 1,398,063 30.5 27.1 33.8 28.9 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



0461515 0000000 Oroville Union High 1,580,383 533.19 1,055,940 29.6 12.9 32.5 29.6 

5472025 0000000 Outside Creek Elementary 81,780 610.30 21,946 26.8 27.6 34.6 23.6 

1463297 0000000 Owens Valley Unified 53,880 489.82 28,788 27.5 20.9 22.0 28.6 

5672538 0000000 Oxnard Elementary 10,600,259 628.69 4,921,190 30.1 21.5 34.5 20.6 

5672546 0000000 Oxnard Union High 4,583,655 306.72 2,278,612 23.9 12.0 31.2 29.0 

4570094 0000000 Pacheco Union Elementary 291,702 396.33 139,762 31.9 35.9 33.0 37.3 

4410447 4430252 Pacific Collegiate Charter 7,057 19.33 0 19.8 60.4 6.0 85.3 

4469781 0000000 Pacific Elementary 202,025 2405.06 165,138 19.0 42.9 20.6 60.3 

2766134 0000000 Pacific Grove Unified 488,714 255.20 172,937 28.4 43.0 25.5 56.3 

2775150 0000000 Pacific Unified 27,826 1159.42 12,318 33.3 38.1 23.8 57.1 

1062356 0000000 Pacific Union Elementary 379,952 922.21 192,004 26.9 28.9 33.1 24.3 

1262976 0000000 Pacific Union Elementary 268,122 589.28 149,213 31.8 39.7 27.8 48.6 

1262927 1230150 Pacific View Charter 89,086 412.44 79,023 12.5 4.4 11.9 5.6 

4168932 0000000 Pacifica 749,910 262.30 177,325 28.3 48.7 28.7 54.5 

1964733 6018642 Pacoima Charter Elementary 923,281 616.75 728,875 26.7 20.7 27.9 7.7 

4469799 0000000 Pajaro Valley Unified School 12,152,622 657.82 5,875,472 26.7 21.6 29.3 22.9 

0461523 0000000 Palermo Union Elementary 1,128,945 835.02 656,488 31.8 31.6 39.1 23.5 

1964733 1995836 Palisades Charter High 272,403 109.66 217,596 25.9 17.2 25.9 52.9 

3367173 0000000 Palm Springs Unified 12,287,577 535.22 6,557,821 27.6 19.9 34.3 25.2 

1964857 0000000 Palmdale Elementary 12,016,023 529.43 6,431,560 29.0 23.6 35.4 23.2 

4369641 0000000 Palo Alto Unified 1,978,596 190.60 529,478 13.3 69.8 12.8 73.0 

3367181 0000000 Palo Verde Unified 2,914,386 817.96 1,674,469 28.7 20.1 37.0 24.4 

5472033 0000000 Palo Verde Union Elementary 419,625 779.97 258,368 28.9 41.2 43.6 33.3 

1964865 0000000 Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified 1,412,461 121.75 242,117 17.9 67.4 17.1 73.8 

1563362 0000000 Panama Buena Vista Union 

Elementary 

4,744,061 339.78 2,481,618 28.8 41.0 32.9 40.3 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



3567520 0000000 Panoche Elementary 10,437 802.85 0 11.1 11.1 33.3 11.1 

1964733 6120489 Para Los Ninos Charter 71,555 365.08 62,670 14.3 57.1 42.9 28.6 

5071209 0000000 Paradise Elementary 97,001 751.95 52,366 31.1 48.1 30.2 40.6 

0461531 0000000 Paradise Unified 2,018,956 381.87 1,138,930 30.6 28.9 30.7 41.0 

1964873 0000000 Paramount Unified 11,723,186 700.02 5,914,425 26.5 20.0 37.2 21.1 

1062364 0000000 Parlier Unified 3,088,220 902.72 1,637,586 22.3 15.1 29.3 11.4 

1964881 0000000 Pasadena Unified 15,580,894 687.32 7,934,425 24.3 25.3 32.8 27.3 

4075457 0000000 Paso Robles Joint Unified 2,956,322 434.69 1,519,952 27.9 36.5 29.2 37.6 

5071217 0000000 Patterson Joint Unified 2,145,865 486.92 979,618 28.5 24.2 34.4 26.9 

4269278 6045918 Peabody Charter 182,142 252.98 144,413 25.9 50.9 29.7 47.3 

1262984 0000000 Peninsula Union Elementary 63,635 979.00 30,342 20.3 12.2 27.0 10.8 

3367199 0000000 Perris Elementary 3,845,350 719.97 1,987,610 30.0 27.3 33.0 18.6 

3367207 0000000 Perris Union High 3,008,661 401.26 1,859,318 24.7 10.2 33.6 26.9 

4970854 0000000 Petaluma City Elementary 800,340 389.27 248,145 30.4 44.6 31.5 42.0 

4970862 0000000 Petaluma Joint Union High 1,007,398 178.65 316,338 28.1 27.1 26.6 41.0 

0161275 0000000 Piedmont City Unified 308,806 119.05 51,400 18.5 62.3 11.5 74.4 

0661614 0000000 Pierce Joint Unified 583,213 471.47 263,341 26.2 22.6 34.6 22.1 

1062372 0000000 Pine Ridge Elementary 32,778 337.92 1,889 42.2 31.3 24.1 51.8 

4970870 0000000 Piner-Olivet Union Elementary 347,076 237.07 50,788 25.2 51.5 32.9 44.0 

0473379 0000000 Pioneer Union Elementary 182,861 1428.60 101,011 31.9 12.8 29.8 20.2 



0761788 0000000 Pittsburg Unified 4,305,729 448.93 1,903,530 25.9 19.1 33.9 21.1 

5472041 0000000 Pixley Union Elementary 860,373 879.73 454,365 28.7 24.8 31.9 16.6 

3066647 0000000 Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified 6,978,589 261.48 2,585,111 24.2 50.7 27.8 49.8 

3110314 0000000 Placer County Office Of Education 927,408 0.00 515,887 14.5 15.6 18.6 25.5 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



3166886 0000000 Placer Hills Union Elementary 354,953 262.73 115,586 20.9 67.0 25.5 62.4 

3166894 0000000 Placer Union High 557,213 116.01 245,211 30.4 16.6 25.9 48.1 

0961952 0000000 Placerville Union Elementary 607,329 470.80 320,144 29.5 40.7 31.1 43.5 

2465813 0000000 Plainsburg Union Elementary 65,308 634.06 32,763 26.5 21.7 31.3 25.3 

2465821 0000000 Planada Elementary 1,204,423 1362.47 678,993 30.9 15.9 25.7 11.8 

1162638 0000000 Plaza Elementary 59,064 410.17 26,012 16.2 67.5 29.9 51.3 

5171431 0000000 Pleasant Grove Joint Union 103,613 572.45 55,562 25.9 42.0 32.9 52.4 

2966373 0000000 Pleasant Ridge Union Elementary 531,126 257.08 201,175 21.0 65.5 26.2 61.1 

4068791 0000000 Pleasant Valley Joint Union 

Elementary 

34,723 253.45 3,924 29.3 51.2 32.5 44.7 

5672553 0000000 Pleasant Valley School 1,761,631 248.99 537,963 24.4 57.5 28.3 54.7 

0175101 0000000 Pleasanton Unified 1,716,846 122.75 217,725 20.4 61.9 20.0 68.6 

5271613 0000000 Plum Valley Elementary 69,416 1735.40 43,604 20.9 39.5 46.5 25.6 

3210322 0000000 Plumas County Office Of Education 103,366 6891.07 55,425 10.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 

5872744 0000000 Plumas Elementary 52,466 347.46 20,682 29.2 45.8 32.5 43.3 

3266969 0000000 Plumas Unified 1,246,266 421.46 679,430 26.9 35.6 29.8 45.0 

2365599 0000000 Point Arena Joint Union High 100,879 496.94 60,600 21.7 8.0 29.0 25.4 

0961960 0000000 Pollock Pines Elementary 355,144 441.72 155,003 31.5 45.0 33.8 45.4 

1964907 0000000 Pomona Unified 24,088,502 695.07 12,258,305 25.2 25.9 32.9 24.4 

1563719 0000000 Pond Union Elementary 317,177 1391.13 244,930 31.4 13.6 35.5 15.4 

2866282 0000000 Pope Valley Union Elementary 50,265 785.39 24,240 21.2 48.1 34.6 40.4 

1964733 0107755 Port Of Los Angeles High 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

5475523 0000000 Porterville Unified 9,399,792 698.35 5,478,829 30.2 22.6 34.7 23.0 

4168981 0000000 Portola Valley Elementary 134,664 198.91 28,896 13.7 79.5 10.4 83.6 

2373866 0000000 Potter Valley Community Unified 211,266 623.20 115,058 30.3 25.6 30.7 29.9 

3768296 0000000 Poway Unified 5,032,003 150.16 1,053,074 23.7 53.1 22.2 63.8 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



3768338 3731189 Preuss School Ucsd 467,633 612.09 395,091 34.6 40.4 30.4 66.4 

1162646 0000000 Princeton Joint Unified 157,650 861.48 86,921 33.8 26.1 43.3 24.8 

3667876 3630993 Provisional Accelerated Learning 

(Pal) Academ 

6,950 21.06 0 12.4 4.1 30.3 6.9 

1964733 6120471 Puente Charter 48,029 417.64 40,871 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

4770433 0000000 Quartz Valley Elementary 15,655 265.34 0 25.0 45.0 30.0 40.0 

1062380 0000000 Raisin City Elementary 351,741 1279.06 206,043 26.2 18.3 35.1 17.3 

3768304 0000000 Ramona City Unified 2,027,849 287.15 831,760 27.4 40.4 31.1 44.9 

3768312 0000000 Rancho Santa Fe Elementary 107,242 126.61 17,277 12.0 71.4 11.2 72.1 

1864162 0000000 Ravendale-Termo Elementary 22,580 1188.42 1,434 31.6 15.8 21.1 26.3 

4168999 0000000 Ravenswood City Elementary 3,764,856 886.68 1,798,071 24.6 17.6 31.1 13.3 

2065276 0000000 Raymond-Knowles Union Elementary 97,197 991.81 61,150 35.4 30.4 49.4 19.0 

5271639 0000000 Red Bluff Joint Union High 629,095 319.18 424,263 25.3 15.2 27.7 33.1 

5271621 0000000 Red Bluff Union Elementary 1,436,876 643.47 803,592 30.2 33.3 35.1 30.3 

4570110 0000000 Redding Elementary 2,234,087 588.69 1,258,048 28.7 41.6 34.9 39.9 

3667843 0000000 Redlands Unified 7,847,435 384.15 3,780,974 25.8 36.6 30.5 42.2 

1975341 0000000 Redondo Beach Unified 1,712,927 219.18 539,261 24.7 50.6 26.4 56.2 

2365615 2330413 Redwood Academy Of Ukiah 42,424 344.91 31,335 33.3 13.8 34.1 42.3 

4169005 0000000 Redwood City Elementary 4,171,377 520.19 1,414,256 28.4 38.6 32.5 33.6 

5271647 0000000 Reeds Creek Elementary 79,772 565.76 44,469 35.7 35.7 32.2 45.2 

1673932 0000000 Reef-Sunset Unified 2,303,432 943.26 1,205,021 25.8 11.8 25.6 7.4 

3367215 6119788 Rehoboth Charter Academy 57,031 329.66 49,046 30.6 29.6 30.6 21.4 

0961978 0000000 Rescue Union Elementary 726,423 200.45 298,368 25.5 59.2 25.0 62.9 

3667850 0000000 Rialto Unified 15,757,138 518.45 8,702,924 25.1 19.6 33.3 20.2 

5271654 0000000 Richfield Elementary 137,980 700.41 78,909 18.1 66.3 31.3 53.6 

5472082 0000000 Richgrove Elementary 844,688 1124.75 498,998 25.7 19.1 27.7 11.6 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



1563578 0000000 Richland Union Elementary 2,482,723 833.69 1,314,188 23.4 18.8 36.0 15.8 

1864170 0000000 Richmond Elementary 38,706 175.94 0 35.8 47.1 35.8 49.2 

1575630 1530500 Ridgecrest Charter 6,877 32.59 0 34.6 38.0 35.2 40.8 

3667868 0000000 Rim Of The World Unified 1,676,000 298.33 733,708 32.0 30.5 34.4 43.6 

4970896 0102525 Rincon Valley Charter 3,165 41.10 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

4970896 0000000 Rincon Valley Union Elementary 855,499 308.84 331,941 21.8 64.6 23.3 63.8 

1573544 0000000 Rio Bravo-Greeley Union 

Elementary 

305,501 379.50 172,297 34.1 37.1 36.2 38.4 

1263008 0000000 Rio Dell Elementary 345,278 1269.40 208,124 35.9 30.4 35.0 28.6 

5672561 0000000 Rio Elementary 2,006,826 484.04 818,595 29.8 26.4 34.6 22.4 

3467405 0000000 Rio Linda Union Elementary 6,732,484 761.33 3,642,348 30.6 34.6 36.0 30.0 

3968650 0000000 Ripon Unified 655,129 228.11 259,510 33.0 41.3 35.3 48.8 

3467413 0000000 River Delta Joint Unified 946,917 384.30 386,660 29.5 26.3 32.6 32.5 

3968585 6118921 River Oaks Charter 34,075 97.64 23,398 28.8 38.0 35.8 31.0 

5075556 0000000 Riverbank Unified 1,615,970 520.94 676,056 30.4 25.2 35.4 22.3 

1075408 0000000 Riverdale Joint Unified 967,391 614.22 555,267 30.0 31.2 35.0 27.7 

3310330 0000000 Riverside County Office Of 

Education 

1,355,314 364.63 883,654 9.1 8.4 11.7 13.9 

3367215 0000000 Riverside Unified 18,871,721 444.61 10,467,862 26.7 30.1 32.6 34.5 

5071233 0000000 Roberts Ferry Union Elementary 28,354 257.76 3,158 22.2 42.2 25.6 45.6 

3467421 0000000 Robla Elementary 1,828,014 815.35 986,491 30.7 35.3 38.0 23.7 

5472090 0000000 Rockford Elementary 227,796 617.33 140,480 33.6 36.2 35.2 34.9 

3175085 6118392 Rocklin Academy 5,085 29.91 0 21.5 75.4 16.2 81.5 

3175085 0000000 Rocklin Unified 1,239,994 137.76 308,639 27.9 46.1 28.7 55.9 

1263016 0000000 Rohnerville Elementary 242,255 365.94 114,022 32.1 37.8 35.8 39.7 

3367231 0000000 Romoland Elementary 984,647 558.82 504,526 26.7 22.1 32.3 18.5 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



1563750 0000000 Rosedale Union Elementary 735,043 171.42 161,972 28.1 47.0 33.6 44.1 

4970904 0101923 Roseland Charter 71,886 278.63 62,670 44.4 20.6 39.4 23.9 

4970904 0000000 Roseland Elementary 998,915 763.70 441,476 28.2 32.9 32.4 20.3 

1964931 0000000 Rosemead Elementary 2,252,606 671.42 1,136,347 25.1 49.9 34.9 38.6 

3166910 0000000 Roseville City Elementary 1,753,251 231.51 659,231 25.7 54.6 29.2 54.8 

3166928 0000000 Roseville Joint Union High 692,679 86.34 321,593 31.3 17.3 25.8 48.9 

2165433 0000000 Ross Elementary 77,016 197.98 18,107 10.6 85.5 11.3 83.5 

2175002 0000000 Ross Valley Elementary 557,624 306.05 261,728 21.9 63.0 17.1 73.1 

1463305 0000000 Round Valley Joint Elementary 30,804 256.70 3,541 36.4 37.4 31.8 42.1 

1973452 0000000 Rowland Unified 9,736,569 529.62 4,594,051 26.3 38.6 33.1 36.5 

3467439 0102038 Sacramento Charter High 535,100 326.28 479,559 16.9 5.6 32.4 21.2 

3467439 0000000 Sacramento City Unified 45,644,568 916.74 25,678,678 26.5 30.0 32.4 29.9 

3410348 0000000 Sacramento County Office Of 

Education 

1,141,166 1040.26 1,008,663 6.7 5.7 14.4 14.2 

3073635 0000000 Saddleback Valley Unified 5,471,341 154.78 1,182,038 24.8 54.6 26.8 59.3 

2866290 0000000 Saint Helena Unified 467,317 308.05 160,237 26.9 35.3 29.6 36.2 

5071266 0000000 Salida Union Elementary 988,711 285.84 320,714 32.1 36.9 37.4 36.7 

2766142 0000000 Salinas City Elementary 6,030,368 682.94 2,749,827 27.5 31.3 31.4 21.5 

2766167 0000000 San Antonio Union Elementary 130,944 658.01 80,200 37.0 39.0 42.9 37.0 

2766175 0000000 San Ardo Union Elementary 522,141 4424.92 441,605 46.7 18.5 35.9 13.0 

3510355 0000000 San Benito County Office Of 

Education 

75,121 1533.08 56,259 7.5 0.0 16.3 4.8 

3567538 0000000 San Benito High 466,960 157.44 221,927 22.9 11.2 32.6 35.6 

3667876 0000000 San Bernardino City Unified 44,967,252 779.87 27,289,861 25.4 18.7 31.9 19.1 

3610363 0000000 San Bernardino County Office Of 

Education 

810,511 233.64 629,828 7.7 9.2 11.1 13.0 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



4169013 0000000 San Bruno Park Elementary 626,139 230.45 132,660 26.4 44.6 31.2 43.6 

4169021 0000000 San Carlos Elementary 363,132 153.22 76,296 23.1 61.1 27.5 60.3 

3768338 6119168 San Diego Cooperative Charter 30,416 98.43 23,398 34.7 35.8 31.6 48.7 

3710371 0000000 San Diego County Office Of 

Education 

4,866,005 336.33 3,669,293 7.4 3.6 16.1 7.7 

3768338 0000000 San Diego Unified 87,434,856 680.44 49,528,960 25.3 29.8 31.9 35.7 

3768346 0000000 San Dieguito Union High 1,528,077 131.08 538,910 20.7 47.4 16.9 63.6 

3810389 0000000 San Francisco County Office Of 

Education 

62,072 51.30 32,263 2.8 2.6 8.3 6.0 

3868478 0000000 San Francisco Unified 35,071,300 617.39 17,433,161 22.6 39.2 29.3 38.7 

1975291 0000000 San Gabriel Unified 2,882,650 514.21 1,308,463 27.2 42.8 30.2 46.5 

3367249 0000000 San Jacinto Unified 3,603,774 492.86 1,946,917 27.6 17.0 36.9 21.6 

3910397 0000000 San Joaquin County Office Of 

Education 

1,309,893 919.22 1,094,030 7.3 6.5 13.7 7.7 

4369666 0000000 San Jose Unified 14,279,931 409.43 6,604,149 24.0 32.6 26.8 39.4 

3467447 0000000 San Juan Unified 18,286,523 374.23 9,282,293 25.4 36.4 28.4 42.1 

0161291 0000000 San Leandro Unified 2,402,876 281.60 695,529 28.4 24.1 32.9 30.7 

0161309 0000000 San Lorenzo Unified 3,910,391 338.44 1,444,576 27.7 24.3 33.8 27.1 

4469807 0000000 San Lorenzo Valley Unified 907,589 254.87 327,468 25.1 37.1 25.3 50.1 

4068809 0000000 San Luis Coastal Unified 2,104,492 273.31 892,766 24.9 49.9 23.5 58.0 

4010405 0000000 San Luis Obispo County Office Of 

Education 

898,470 1240.98 524,134 7.1 7.5 11.8 13.7 

3773791 0000000 San Marcos Unified 5,201,457 338.88 2,093,944 25.3 39.7 27.1 43.0 

1964964 0000000 San Marino Unified 360,488 110.41 0 11.6 82.1 13.0 82.7 

4110413 0000000 San Mateo County Office Of 

Education 

400,513 418.07 360,673 11.2 18.8 15.8 23.4 

4169047 0000000 San Mateo Union High 1,049,371 125.66 243,583 28.0 26.3 24.5 50.3 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



4169039 0000000 San Mateo-Foster City Elementary 3,329,226 330.64 952,527 24.8 50.8 27.6 49.1 

4068825 0000000 San Miguel Joint Union 222,080 569.44 107,567 25.7 40.8 35.7 32.2 

3768353 0000000 San Pasqual Union Elementary 139,155 244.99 34,452 24.9 58.7 26.8 59.4 

1363214 0000000 San Pasqual Valley Unified 998,302 1255.73 603,991 23.2 17.4 36.1 18.0 

2165458 0000000 San Rafael City Elementary 1,912,782 545.57 767,227 27.1 44.6 30.3 37.6 

2165466 0000000 San Rafael City High 496,320 243.77 269,798 27.2 21.4 19.3 51.1 

0761804 0000000 San Ramon Valley Unified 2,063,302 93.84 0 21.4 64.5 19.4 72.0 

1062414 0000000 Sanger Unified 4,254,727 488.77 2,167,649 28.3 23.5 35.6 24.9 

3066670 0000000 Santa Ana Unified 44,043,865 732.38 20,454,422 29.3 20.7 33.8 17.5 

4210421 0000000 Santa Barbara County Office Of 

Education 

844,742 1474.24 648,665 8.6 5.6 11.2 11.0 

4269278 0000000 Santa Barbara Elementary 3,691,299 693.46 1,710,538 26.9 40.2 33.3 36.9 

4269286 0000000 Santa Barbara High 2,844,638 268.41 1,159,371 25.9 28.4 27.1 47.7 

4310439 0000000 Santa Clara County Office Of 

Education 

2,152,594 3236.98 1,376,267 9.0 12.3 9.8 17.0 

5672579 0000000 Santa Clara Elementary 15,908 284.07 2,788 26.5 67.6 23.5 67.6 

4369674 0000000 Santa Clara Unified 4,070,367 292.05 1,216,071 26.8 35.8 30.1 41.7 

4469815 0000000 Santa Cruz City Elementary 1,480,351 680.00 673,524 24.6 43.2 27.3 43.1 

4469823 0000000 Santa Cruz City High 1,482,807 273.08 754,475 25.2 22.9 21.7 41.1 

4410447 0000000 Santa Cruz County Office Of 

Education 

267,176 401.17 211,035 6.7 5.9 16.9 13.5 

4269310 0000000 Santa Maria Joint Union High 3,107,212 391.44 1,570,365 26.6 9.2 32.5 26.5 

4269120 0000000 Santa Maria-Bonita Elementary 9,812,986 730.35 5,038,653 32.9 31.4 37.0 20.6 

1964733 6019079 Santa Monica Boulevard Community 

Charter 

843,427 613.40 666,205 24.9 32.4 33.3 19.0 

1964980 0000000 Santa Monica-Malibu Unified 3,011,210 234.48 1,101,876 24.5 45.1 24.4 53.7 

5672587 0000000 Santa Paula Elementary 2,743,872 673.67 1,243,013 30.9 19.0 36.0 19.6 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



5672595 0000000 Santa Paula Union High 598,705 340.56 343,024 19.8 2.1 30.3 22.6 

2766191 0000000 Santa Rita Union Elementary 1,009,548 323.99 267,863 35.0 26.4 35.1 26.0 

4970912 6113278 Santa Rosa Charter 19,705 122.39 12,869 25.0 61.7 27.5 56.7 

4970912 0000000 Santa Rosa Elementary 3,101,814 688.53 1,401,746 26.8 37.3 30.5 30.0 

4970920 0000000 Santa Rosa High 2,753,099 214.30 1,079,336 23.3 26.1 24.5 38.9 

4269328 0000000 Santa Ynez Valley Union High 167,999 148.28 88,082 29.5 20.7 27.6 47.9 

3768361 0000000 Santee Elementary 1,884,089 268.96 615,627 27.5 49.5 32.4 49.8 

4369682 0000000 Saratoga Union Elementary 392,327 162.59 59,005 10.1 84.1 11.3 83.1 

5472108 0000000 Saucelito Elementary 29,284 256.88 2,790 29.3 33.3 32.3 26.3 

1964998 0000000 Saugus Union Elementary 1,647,165 161.76 375,965 21.7 65.9 26.6 61.8 

2165474 0000000 Sausalito Marin City 257,938 834.75 127,913 26.6 19.8 33.9 27.0 

3066696 0000000 Savanna Elementary 1,251,045 510.84 532,858 29.4 45.9 34.4 37.3 

1062166 1030642 School Of Unlimited Learning 70,332 251.19 55,834 5.0 0.0 14.2 3.5 

1263024 0000000 Scotia Union Elementary 101,782 347.38 42,703 31.0 35.4 34.3 30.7 

4970938 0000000 Sebastopol Union Elementary 366,914 361.14 151,539 28.6 40.1 26.9 41.5 

1363222 0000000 Seeley Union Elementary 396,851 655.95 188,873 33.5 28.4 36.6 26.8 

4770458 0000000 Seiad Elementary 22,056 711.48 1,392 25.9 40.7 33.3 48.1 

1062430 0000000 Selma Unified 4,123,296 677.95 2,176,954 33.4 26.7 39.4 26.3 

1563768 0000000 Semitropic Elementary 103,681 401.86 43,571 31.1 23.8 33.5 14.6 

5472116 0000000 Sequoia Union Elementary 150,744 486.27 71,035 30.8 35.6 30.0 38.9 

4169062 0000000 Sequoia Union High 2,284,157 293.52 772,923 24.2 18.0 24.4 37.8 

1864188 0000000 Shaffer Union Elementary 168,600 439.06 81,298 32.7 33.6 35.7 26.4 

4068833 0000000 Shandon Joint Unified 225,700 648.56 133,378 28.9 26.2 32.8 23.0 

4510454 0000000 Shasta County Office Of Education 777,018 1271.72 576,377 9.6 6.5 16.8 12.1 

4570128 0000000 Shasta Union Elementary 141,580 795.39 77,123 28.7 29.4 34.3 33.6 

4570136 0000000 Shasta Union High 1,500,508 267.09 982,659 28.2 20.5 28.9 44.3 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



2065243 0100016 Sherman Thomas Charter 52,615 276.92 44,381 33.3 24.1 42.6 19.4 

5071274 0000000 Shiloh Elementary 73,033 514.32 34,636 33.9 31.4 29.7 38.1 

2673668 2630085 Sierra Charter 237,809 612.91 209,022 11.8 10.8 27.6 18.5 

4610462 0000000 Sierra County Office Of Education 5,139 302.29 0 5.9 23.5 5.9 29.4 

1573742 0000000 Sierra Sands Unified 2,430,086 433.79 1,200,259 29.5 35.8 33.7 42.2 

1075275 0000000 Sierra Unified 662,128 270.04 363,805 29.0 36.5 27.6 52.4 

4670177 0000000 Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified 349,801 538.98 128,778 27.3 34.2 33.5 42.1 

0961986 0000000 Silver Fork Elementary 13,892 1389.20 1,652 14.3 42.9 42.9 42.9 

5672603 0000000 Simi Valley Unified 4,878,260 224.53 1,740,656 28.0 43.7 30.4 48.6 

4710470 0000000 Siskiyou County Office Of 

Education 

38,442 346.32 13,722 8.8 26.4 10.4 28.8 

4770466 0000000 Siskiyou Union High 230,682 282.01 149,698 30.0 18.3 32.8 45.9 

2465839 0000000 Snelling-Merced Falls Union 

Elementary 

69,669 819.64 36,574 24.2 40.9 34.8 27.3 

3673957 0000000 Snowline Joint Unified 1,853,853 246.62 866,134 24.9 28.4 32.1 35.7 

3768387 0000000 Solana Beach Elementary 578,383 218.01 130,113 12.5 79.0 14.2 77.7 

4810488 0000000 Solano County Office Of Education 227,595 477.14 210,774 11.2 5.8 11.6 13.7 

4269336 0000000 Solvang Elementary 222,407 340.59 63,693 22.9 53.7 33.5 48.3 

5672611 0000000 Somis Union 264,131 543.48 159,346 33.9 28.9 30.7 42.0 

4970953 6111678 Sonoma Charter (Elem) 5,332 23.49 0 35.7 36.3 27.5 52.7 

4910496 0000000 Sonoma County Office Of Education 567,440 635.43 334,550 5.4 9.5 9.9 13.3 

5572371 0000000 Sonora Elementary 523,351 655.83 295,700 33.2 44.8 34.0 44.8 

5572389 0000000 Sonora Union High 640,932 370.70 388,851 29.0 21.6 33.5 42.6 

4469849 0000000 Soquel Union Elementary 928,772 504.22 429,148 28.0 52.8 29.9 54.5 

5572397 0000000 Soulsbyville Elementary 271,594 391.35 150,610 28.7 53.9 28.3 57.0 

1263032 0000000 South Bay Union Elementary 372,790 830.27 212,365 23.1 42.6 28.7 35.4 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



3768395 0000000 South Bay Union Elementary 6,299,866 681.51 2,956,682 30.0 34.5 34.7 24.6 

1563784 0000000 South Fork Union Elementary 263,001 706.99 141,181 35.0 17.4 37.9 26.2 

1965029 0000000 South Pasadena Unified 855,422 203.72 218,784 20.5 62.0 18.9 70.9 

4169070 0000000 South San Francisco Unified 2,404,268 256.81 712,754 29.9 36.1 36.9 36.2 

1965037 0000000 South Whittier Elementary 2,358,584 517.69 1,130,172 30.2 32.6 35.6 24.4 

1964733 0106856 Southern California School Of 

Arts And Scienc 

139,446 700.73 125,339 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1263040 0000000 Southern Humboldt Joint Unified 898,605 911.36 554,592 28.9 26.5 33.1 35.0 

1563776 0000000 Southern Kern Unified 1,206,024 369.15 582,618 31.9 23.9 37.8 26.6 

5373833 0000000 Southern Trinity Joint Unified 124,145 713.48 75,401 35.7 27.1 36.4 33.6 

3567553 0000000 Southside Elementary 43,867 179.05 3,446 26.4 58.4 25.3 59.6 

2766225 0000000 Spreckels Union Elementary 170,211 182.83 28,075 32.5 42.9 28.8 51.0 

5472132 0000000 Springville Union Elementary 231,934 513.13 155,026 30.4 38.2 35.0 35.3 

3467439 0101048 St. Hope Public School 7 (Ps7) 77,672 417.59 68,119 25.0 19.1 27.0 12.5 

1563792 0000000 Standard Elementary 1,362,932 507.99 754,207 30.2 30.4 31.1 27.6 

4168999 0109561 Stanford New School 0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

5010504 0000000 Stanislaus County Office Of 

Education 

305,655 314.78 248,747 5.8 3.6 12.3 6.2 

5071282 0000000 Stanislaus Union Elementary 2,075,566 626.30 1,117,816 32.8 34.7 34.8 35.0 

1964733 0100669 Stella Middle Charter Academy 76,855 415.43 66,757 37.4 30.9 43.1 20.3 

3968676 0000000 Stockton City Unified 35,126,384 933.77 18,789,066 24.4 23.2 32.3 18.8 

5472140 0000000 Stone Corral Elementary 293,459 1943.44 173,209 22.1 10.6 23.0 8.0 

1162653 0000000 Stony Creek Joint Unified 86,535 721.13 50,096 25.0 10.7 38.4 16.1 

5472157 0000000 Strathmore Union Elementary 730,161 942.14 390,193 32.4 25.8 37.0 18.8 

1965045 0000000 Sulphur Springs Union Elementary 1,354,406 243.03 427,150 27.5 51.6 31.6 47.7 

5572405 0000000 Summerville Elementary 264,517 612.31 136,919 33.0 40.4 38.0 41.8 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



5572413 0000000 Summerville Union High 166,228 249.59 73,798 30.8 11.8 30.0 44.3 

5071134 6119705 Summit Charter Academy 5,428 16.60 0 34.5 28.6 30.2 27.5 

5572413 0100222 Summit Preparatory High 3,795 22.72 0 24.4 15.4 28.2 60.3 

5472173 0000000 Sundale Union Elementary 335,715 539.73 187,467 27.2 36.9 35.8 32.8 

5472181 0000000 Sunnyside Union Elementary 510,373 1181.42 301,143 28.7 23.7 28.5 20.7 

4369690 0000000 Sunnyvale Elementary 2,002,549 336.00 518,530 25.5 48.3 29.2 45.4 

0175119 0000000 Sunol Glen Unified 45,554 226.64 10,948 40.9 34.0 30.2 59.1 

2565896 0000000 Surprise Valley Joint Unified 150,891 721.97 90,431 30.7 26.4 39.9 36.8 

1864196 0000000 Susanville Elementary 756,454 577.89 424,748 32.8 32.6 36.0 30.9 

5110512 0000000 Sutter County Office Of Education 24,883 70.89 10,787 8.9 6.1 16.8 8.1 

5171449 0000000 Sutter Union High 106,277 133.51 65,548 23.5 10.5 39.4 36.5 

3768411 0000000 Sweetwater Union High 13,392,902 375.80 6,793,375 27.4 15.5 33.1 29.1 

5071290 0000000 Sylvan Union Elementary 2,590,050 334.93 1,238,617 29.8 45.9 34.1 42.6 

1964733 0106427 Synergy Charter Academy 56,292 469.10 49,046 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1563800 0000000 Taft City Elementary 1,497,472 686.28 850,875 29.7 23.8 31.9 22.5 

1563818 0000000 Taft Union High 366,589 369.17 257,272 22.3 9.8 35.2 29.2 

3166944 0000000 Tahoe-Truckee Joint Unified 1,201,334 263.51 394,123 27.4 33.5 28.4 44.6 

2165482 0000000 Tamalpais Union High 439,265 113.53 232,296 32.8 28.2 16.5 65.2 

5210520 0000000 Tehama County Office Of Education 132,791 1412.67 91,603 15.0 18.0 16.0 28.0 

3375192 3330917 Temecula Preparatory 6,876 19.21 0 17.1 64.5 22.6 64.8 

3375192 0000000 Temecula Valley Unified 3,420,097 149.19 1,179,525 28.0 47.5 28.4 56.0 

1965052 0000000 Temple City Unified 1,454,189 255.03 534,175 21.5 59.6 25.3 57.8 

4068841 0000000 Templeton Unified 701,542 257.83 412,233 24.0 35.4 25.1 47.9 

5472199 0000000 Terra Bella Union Elementary 1,159,691 1350.05 724,629 30.4 20.9 36.8 11.0 

3467439 0106898 The Language Academy Of 

Sacramento 

132,022 581.59 118,527 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



1975697 1996693 The School Of Arts And Enterprise 41,690 320.69 34,060 10.3 1.6 32.5 19.8 

0461549 0000000 Thermalito Union Elementary 2,783,943 1912.05 1,878,822 32.7 26.5 36.9 20.1 

5472207 0000000 Three Rivers Union Elementary 120,489 665.69 66,969 26.6 50.9 33.7 42.0 

5472215 0000000 Tipton Elementary 366,761 701.26 180,631 36.7 29.6 37.9 20.5 

1910199 0102020 Today's Fresh Start Charter 159,383 583.82 141,688 24.7 22.1 29.9 15.6 

1965060 0000000 Torrance Unified 5,141,641 203.80 1,716,259 25.9 46.3 29.3 53.6 

3975499 0000000 Tracy Joint Unified 3,336,685 211.68 970,559 26.8 25.5 32.9 32.3 

5472223 0000000 Traver Joint Elementary 280,513 1188.61 155,151 38.0 18.4 38.0 17.3 

4870565 0000000 Travis Unified 898,846 167.07 345,219 31.1 42.7 31.7 53.0 

3567561 0000000 Tres Pinos Union Elementary 26,289 196.19 0 34.2 39.3 30.8 51.3 

1263057 0000000 Trinidad Union Elementary 146,823 1299.32 77,067 17.0 42.0 28.0 38.0 

5371761 0000000 Trinity Center Elementary 14,830 370.75 0 32.4 41.2 23.5 64.7 

5310538 0000000 Trinity County Office Of 

Education 

14,882 275.59 9,605 13.9 12.5 6.9 22.2 

5371779 0000000 Trinity Union High 154,404 339.35 106,134 24.1 17.8 32.7 36.8 

3667892 0000000 Trona Joint Unified 353,785 1007.93 217,447 26.6 16.5 33.5 28.4 

3768338 6040018 Tubman (Harriet) Village Charter 127,171 428.19 100,816 33.5 33.0 36.8 36.8 

5472231 0000000 Tulare City Elementary 5,799,116 718.69 3,137,550 28.8 37.6 35.6 29.2 

5410546 0000000 Tulare County Office Of Education 409,653 343.09 249,736 11.0 11.6 12.6 17.9 

5472249 0000000 Tulare Joint Union High 2,009,326 457.71 1,287,741 23.0 9.5 33.4 29.0 

2573593 0000000 Tulelake Basin Joint Unified 552,047 975.35 367,744 30.5 32.9 34.1 32.5 

5510553 0000000 Tuolumne County Office Of 

Education 

30,565 413.04 23,161 12.4 7.9 22.5 16.9 

5075739 0000000 Turlock Unified 5,866,873 432.88 2,744,793 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

3073643 0000000 Tustin Unified 5,810,418 306.78 2,040,845 27.0 42.2 28.8 48.2 

5572421 0000000 Twain Harte-Long Barn Union 302,521 588.56 163,136 29.5 37.5 24.1 51.5 




CD 

Code 

School 


Elementary 

2004-05 

ConApp 

Entitlement 

2004-05 

Entitlement 

Per Student 

2004-05 

Title I 

Entitlement 


Attachment 1 







Basic 


Advanced or 


Basic 

Advanced or 


4970961 0000000 Twin Hills Union Elementary 173,732 265.65 26,269 26.6 38.9 21.5 49.3 

2966415 0000000 Twin Ridges Elementary 367,636 166.96 171,842 28.7 28.9 27.6 40.7 

4970979 0000000 Two Rock Union Elementary 82,741 513.92 35,995 29.5 55.2 35.2 44.8 

2365615 0000000 Ukiah Unified 3,713,120 582.45 2,089,868 28.5 23.7 31.5 29.8 

4369708 0000000 Union Elementary 996,493 256.70 187,604 23.8 59.2 25.3 61.6 

2966407 0000000 Union Hill Elementary 162,665 211.80 63,201 25.2 61.6 26.9 61.3 

2165516 0000000 Union Joint Elementary 12,018 667.67 0 37.5 37.5 25.0 37.5 

5071134 6118178 University Charter 6,110 27.90 0 18.6 66.5 26.7 63.4 

5672553 6120620 University Preparation School At 

Csu Channel 

88,713 233.46 77,656 28.0 39.8 31.3 39.0 

3968585 6116594 University Public 63,842 181.37 50,305 25.4 52.2 30.2 51.7 

3675069 0000000 Upland Unified 3,941,856 322.31 1,915,678 25.9 47.8 33.1 44.4 

1764063 0000000 Upper Lake Union Elementary 427,470 679.60 234,012 33.7 22.1 28.8 27.2 

1764071 0000000 Upper Lake Union High 117,823 258.38 70,991 15.9 3.8 29.4 25.9 

4870573 0000000 Vacaville Unified 3,933,100 280.02 1,754,313 27.1 29.9 30.1 36.2 

3375242 0000000 Val Verde Unified 5,637,102 370.28 2,831,752 29.8 25.6 37.7 25.4 

1965078 0000000 Valle Lindo Elementary 513,905 376.49 181,075 30.9 32.0 34.6 32.1 

0561580 0000000 Vallecito Union 474,165 524.52 266,270 27.1 48.5 27.6 53.7 

3768437 0000000 Vallecitos Elementary 160,695 664.03 87,720 27.1 41.2 37.2 42.2 

4870581 0000000 Vallejo City Unified 8,414,501 454.25 4,168,763 26.6 19.6 33.9 25.2 

3775614 0000000 Valley Center-Pauma Unified 1,617,429 352.15 702,124 28.0 31.3 29.5 38.0 

5071324 0000000 Valley Home Joint Elementary 117,614 708.52 67,759 22.1 37.9 32.9 37.9 

5610561 0000000 Ventura County Office Of 

Education 

671,297 752.58 546,426 9.8 7.1 9.6 14.5 

5672652 0000000 Ventura Unified 6,684,064 375.64 3,070,844 27.2 42.2 29.2 45.7 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



3667918 0000000 Victor Elementary 5,230,782 533.43 2,970,113 28.2 40.9 35.3 32.8 

3667934 0000000 Victor Valley Union High 3,591,630 414.07 2,434,765 27.0 14.8 34.1 27.0 

5472256 0000000 Visalia Unified 15,147,122 601.86 8,751,280 27.2 25.2 32.2 29.1 

4269344 0000000 Vista Del Mar Union 54,690 701.15 25,884 29.8 38.6 35.1 43.9 

3768452 0000000 Vista Unified 10,525,308 398.11 5,057,497 27.9 33.0 30.2 35.6 

1062174 1030774 W.E.B. Dubois Public Charter 106,103 576.65 74,445 3.6 0.4 10.4 1.6 

0761812 0000000 Walnut Creek Elementary 590,936 175.30 103,636 20.9 67.8 20.0 69.3 

1973460 0000000 Walnut Valley Unified 2,814,217 181.89 973,741 24.4 57.1 24.6 63.6 

3775416 0000000 Warner Unified 121,925 389.54 71,564 29.2 13.6 34.0 27.2 

1563842 0000000 Wasco Union Elementary 2,574,870 840.64 1,387,112 26.2 18.8 30.7 13.2 

1563859 0000000 Wasco Union High 664,956 461.45 426,559 16.5 7.7 24.8 18.2 

1062513 0000000 Washington Colony Elementary 366,584 793.47 156,797 37.7 27.7 39.0 29.8 

5772694 0000000 Washington Unified 5,463,187 791.54 2,963,204 28.1 29.7 33.9 27.1 

2766233 0000000 Washington Union Elementary 135,971 136.93 20,307 17.9 72.6 18.8 72.2 

5075572 0000000 Waterford Unified 878,791 453.69 362,723 33.0 23.1 35.3 24.8 

1964733 6114912 Watts Learning Center (Charter) 120,631 533.77 104,903 30.3 45.2 40.6 39.4 

4970995 0000000 Waugh Elementary 153,668 178.68 24,339 22.7 62.8 22.6 64.3 

5472264 0000000 Waukena Joint Union Elementary 142,443 647.47 83,462 31.5 18.5 31.5 16.3 

2465862 0000000 Weaver Union Elementary 1,397,757 785.26 758,361 31.1 33.8 38.7 22.3 

5371787 0000000 Weaverville Elementary 192,005 413.80 101,496 27.6 44.2 29.4 44.5 

4770482 0000000 Weed Union Elementary 410,397 996.11 239,876 30.0 36.3 30.6 34.5 

0761796 0000000 West Contra Costa Unified 19,389,900 574.52 10,270,238 23.3 20.9 29.8 23.5 

1965094 0000000 West Covina Unified 3,028,631 281.13 1,175,282 27.9 34.8 35.3 38.8 

1062174 0000000 West Fresno Elementary 1,742,065 1997.78 1,128,677 19.4 10.8 24.7 9.4 

1062539 6112387 West Park Charter Academy 98,590 644.38 73,569 20.9 9.7 23.3 18.2 

1062539 0000000 West Park Elementary 251,636 1543.78 139,948 17.5 14.1 32.3 9.4 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



4971001 0000000 West Side Union Elementary 54,212 349.75 19,889 25.6 46.3 26.4 46.3 

3166951 0000000 Western Placer Unified 1,464,842 377.44 762,327 30.6 29.7 34.8 35.6 

3066746 0000000 Westminster Elementary 7,011,283 683.83 3,488,372 26.8 44.1 33.8 36.7 

1062547 0000000 Westside Elementary 224,293 679.68 86,827 22.5 18.9 34.4 9.1 

1965102 0000000 Westside Union Elementary 1,716,391 230.91 719,164 30.1 45.7 34.4 44.4 

1864204 1830132 Westwood Charter 167,305 148.19 141,557 16.3 6.7 27.5 13.0 

1864204 0000000 Westwood Unified 308,482 731.00 190,243 26.8 16.0 32.9 27.4 

5872751 0000000 Wheatland Elementary 624,598 421.74 287,132 32.7 41.7 32.0 48.3 

5872769 0000000 Wheatland Union High 226,594 327.45 126,312 27.0 13.4 33.0 36.5 

4570169 0000000 Whitmore Union Elementary 54,493 2476.95 29,938 28.0 28.0 44.0 28.0 

1965110 0000000 Whittier City Elementary 3,790,171 693.41 1,844,563 30.9 30.3 37.8 26.0 

1965128 0000000 Whittier Union High 2,798,230 247.87 1,140,277 23.1 9.1 33.6 27.7 

1964634 0101667 Wilder's Preparatory Academy 

Charter 

76,605 196.93 64,344 28.9 44.6 32.5 53.4 

0661622 0000000 Williams Unified 715,624 678.32 339,930 28.5 24.6 32.8 19.7 

2365623 0000000 Willits Unified 1,230,249 596.05 680,685 26.9 21.9 28.9 30.6 

4770490 0000000 Willow Creek Elementary 22,856 415.56 1,612 25.5 10.9 23.6 20.0 

3567579 0000000 Willow Grove Union Elementary 16,360 629.23 0 37.5 29.2 41.7 37.5 

1162661 0000000 Willows Unified 1,370,654 742.50 813,956 34.0 26.5 36.0 34.4 

4971019 0000000 Wilmar Union Elementary 82,624 384.30 32,012 28.2 53.7 28.2 52.3 

1965151 0000000 Wilsona Elementary 1,502,147 720.11 857,718 27.1 38.7 37.3 22.7 

4975358 0000000 Windsor Unified 1,092,970 227.80 299,289 28.6 31.9 31.5 40.2 

5171456 0000000 Winship-Robbins 14,516 354.05 0 24.2 6.1 39.4 12.1 

5772702 0000000 Winters Joint Unified 888,084 441.39 388,472 28.4 30.7 31.4 29.5 

2465870 0000000 Winton Elementary 1,812,804 1002.66 990,507 28.7 24.2 34.2 19.9 

1965169 0000000 Wiseburn Elementary 383,976 191.22 62,609 30.7 43.0 35.3 48.6 





Attachment 1 







2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 


CD School 


Advanced or 

Advanced or 



5472272 0000000 Woodlake Union Elementary 1,624,936 995.67 996,320 27.4 24.3 33.7 13.5 

5472280 0000000 Woodlake Union High 498,002 619.41 331,172 15.6 2.3 30.8 22.0 

5772710 0000000 Woodland Joint Unified 4,292,559 411.87 1,899,232 26.7 24.1 31.8 31.3 

4169088 0000000 Woodside Elementary 84,429 198.19 14,398 13.0 79.3 14.5 77.8 

5472298 0000000 Woodville Union Elementary 897,722 1486.29 527,414 29.3 14.9 32.6 14.7 

4971035 0000000 Wright Elementary 497,654 335.80 148,698 28.6 47.5 36.0 36.8 

5710579 0000000 Yolo County Office Of Education 76,042 342.53 43,422 5.2 6.9 7.4 10.8 

2073734 0000000 Yosemite Joint Union High 238,153 173.33 69,140 28.4 22.4 30.8 48.6 

4770508 0000000 Yreka Union Elementary 766,581 710.46 471,686 33.3 43.4 36.9 35.7 

5171464 5130125 Yuba City Charter 84,902 216.59 66,684 20.3 12.1 29.7 28.3 

5171464 0000000 Yuba City Unified 5,568,906 483.03 2,923,101 29.8 33.3 33.4 34.0 

5810587 0000000 Yuba County Office Of Education 130,648 0.00 85,075 8.7 3.4 20.1 5.9 

3667959 0000000 Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified 2,699,495 276.93 1,239,521 26.7 27.0 34.5 38.5 

08/22/2005 

$3,092,647,200 

1157 Total Number of LEAs in the report 

Total ConApp entitlement for districts receiving regular approval



aab-sad-sep05item05 

SUBJECT 

ITEM #15 



Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: Including, 

but not limited to, Report on the 2005 Results 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) review the STAR Program results and take action as deemed 

necessary and appropriate. 


The STAR Program includes four components: 

• California Standards Tests (CSTs) 

• California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) in 2003 

• California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition Survey (CAT/6 Survey) 

• Spanish Assessment of Basic Education, Second Edition (SABE/2) 

The governor signed legislation reauthorizing the STAR Program through 2011 during 

August 2004. The reauthorized program reduced the administration of the CAT/6 

Survey from grades two through eleven to only grades three and seven. No other 

changes affected the spring 2005 administration. Results are reported by August 15 

each year. 

The CSTs are a major component of California’s accountability system for schools and 

districts. CST and CAPA results are the major components used for calculating each 

school’s Academic Performance Index (API). These results are also used for 

determining if elementary and middle schools are making adequate year progress in 

helping all students become proficient on the state’s academic content standards as 

required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM




Preliminary 2005 school, school district, county, and state results including more than 

4.8 million students were released on the Internet on Monday, August 15. California 

Education Code Section 60641(b) specifies that the CDE shall make the grade, school, 

school district, and state results available on the Internet by August 15 of each year. 

The first preliminary release did not include results for approximately 30,000 students in 

five districts that have approved SBE waivers to operate non-standard school years that 

span two fiscal years. These five districts completed testing during August, and their 

results will be posted on or about September 16. The five districts are Fresno Unified, 

Long Beach Unified, South Bay Union Elementary, Stockton Unified, and Tracy Unified. 

Districts have the option of correcting incorrect student demographic data that was 

submitted by them. The data correction process will be completed by the end of 

October, and final 2005 results will be posted on the Internet during December. 

Districts began receiving the 2005 reports of results the week of July 11 with delivery of 

The STAR Student Reports beginning about a week later. Except for the 

parents/guardians of students in the five late testing districts, parents/guardians should 

receive the student reports by mid-September. Educational Testing Service (ETS) and 

the CDE produced a post-test guide and held post-test workshops for district STAR 

coordinators during August to present information on the interpretation and use of the 

test results. The ETS and the CDE also presented a post-test Web cast on Monday, 

August 22 that all district STAR coordinators could access. The Web cast has been 

archived and is available for district coordinators to continue to use. 

The attached 2005 summary of results were part of the August 15 press release. The 

results show growth in the percentages of students scoring proficient and advanced on 

the California Standards Tests (CSTs) in almost every subject and grade level tested 

between spring 2004 and spring 2005, as well as over the five-year period from spring 

2001 through spring 2005. 

State, county, district, and school results for all tests within the Program are available at 

http://star.cde.ca.gov. 


All program costs associated with releasing the results are funded under the CDE 

contracts for the STAR Program. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: 2005 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program Summary of 

Results (16 Pages) 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM

JACK O’CONNELL 

State 

Superintendent of 

Public Instruction 

CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION 

2005 


Attachment 1 


Standardized 

Testing and 

Reporting 

(STAR) Program 

Summary of 

Results 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM

Background 

Standardized Testing 

and Reporting (STAR) Program 

Summary of 2005 Results 


Attachment 1 


• In 1997, Senate Bill 376 authorized the Standardized Testing and Reporting 

(STAR) Program for English-language arts and mathematics in grades two 

through eleven and in history-social science and science in grades nine through 

eleven. The State Board of Education (SBE) designated the Stanford 

Achievement Test, Ninth Edition (Stanford 9) for use in the STAR Program. 

• In 1998, the Stanford 9 was administered. 

• In 1999, the Stanford 9 was augmented with California Standards Test (CST) 

questions for English-language arts and mathematics. The CSTs are designed to 

assess the achievement of students in California public schools on the state 

content standards that specify what students are to learn in each grade level and 

subject area. 

• In 2001, CSTs in history-social science and science for grades nine through 

eleven were added to the STAR Program. The CSTs in English-language arts for 

grades four and seven were expanded to include a writing assessment. 

• In 2003, the CSTs in English-language arts for grades two through eleven and 

the CSTs in mathematics for grades two through seven were separated from the 

Stanford 9 and became stand-alone tests. The CST in history-social science for 

grade nine was moved to grade eight. The content of this test was changed from 

assessing the history-social science content standards for grades four through 

eight to assessing the content standards for grades six through eight. 

• In 2004, a CST in science for grade five that assesses the science content 

standards for grades four and five was added to the STAR Program. 

• In 2005, two science tests required by the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act 

of 2001 were field-tested. The grade eight test assesses content standards for 

grade eight, and the grade ten test assesses selected middle school life science 

and high school biology content standards. 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM

Reporting CST Results 


Attachment 1 


• The CST results are reported using five performance levels: advanced, proficient, 

basic, below basic, and far below basic. 

• The percentage of students scoring at each performance level is reported by 

grade level and subject area. 

• The state target is to have all students score at the proficient or above levels. 

Summary of CST Results 

English-Language Arts 

• The 2005 results showed increases over 2004 in the percentages of students 

scoring at proficient or above in grades two through eleven. 

• The greatest gain for the two-year comparison (2004 and 2005) in the 

elementary and middle grades was in grade four with an increase of 8 

percentage points, followed by grades two and seven with a 7 percentage-point 

increase, and grade eight with a 6 percentage-point increase. 

• Increases also occurred in high school with a 6 percentage-point increase in 

grade nine and a 4 percentage-point increase in grade eleven. 

• The percentages of all students scoring at proficient or above between 2001 and 

2005 has increased for all grade levels tested. 

• The greatest growth from 2001 to 2005 was in grades five and nine where there 

was a 15 percentage-point increase over the five-year period. Grade four 

followed with a 14 percentage-point gain. 

• Subgroup results for 2005 showed increases in the percentages of all students 

scoring at proficient or above between 2004 and 2005, as well as between 2001 

and 2005. 

• Within the various subgroups, the greatest gains between 2001 and 2005 were 

exhibited for reclassified-fluent English proficient (R-FEP) students. A 10 

percentage-point difference between R-FEP students and students whose first 

language is English (English only students) in 2001 had decreased to a 1 

percentage-point difference in 2005. (Forty-eight percent of R-FEP students 

scored proficient or above compared to 49 percent of English only students.) 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM

Mathematics 


Attachment 1 


• Compared with 2004, the percentages of students scoring at proficient or above 

increased in all grade levels and courses except integrated mathematics 1. In 

2005, results for this course remained the same as 2004. Results in elementary 

grades showed 5 or 6 percentage-point increases between 2004 and 2005. 

• Between 2001 and 2005, there was an increase in the percentages of students 

scoring at proficient or above in grades two through seven, general mathematics, 

integrated mathematics 2 and 3, and summative high school mathematics. 

• The number of students taking algebra I, geometry, algebra II, and summative 

high school mathematics increased from 2001 to 2005 and between 2004 and 

2005. The number of students achieving at proficient or above also increased in 

these subjects, showing more students are becoming better prepared in college 

preparatory mathematics courses. 

• In 2005, subgroup data showed: 

– Increases in the percentages of students scoring at proficient or above for all 

subgroups. 

– Forty-one percent of R-FEP students scoring at proficient or above, which is 

almost on par with English only students at 43 percent. 

– A continuing gap between highest performing subgroups and lowest 

performing subgroups (2001–2005). 

– The percentage of economically disadvantaged students scoring at proficient 

or above is increasing at a greater rate than that of non-economically 

disadvantaged students. The gap between these two groups of students 

closed by 4 percentage points between 2001 and 2005. 

History-Social Science 

• The CST in history-social science for grade eleven (U.S. history) showed 37 

percent of students scoring at proficient or above. This is a 5 percentage-point 

increase since 2004 and a 6 percentage-point increase since 2001. 

• The CST in history-social science for grade ten (world history) showed 31 

percent of students scoring at proficient or above. This is a 4 percentage-point 

increase over the previous two years and a 7 percentage-point increase since 

2001. 

• The percentage of students scoring at proficient or above on the CST in historysocial 

science for grade eight increased to 31 percent. This is a 4 percentagepoint 

increase over scores in 2003 and 2004. 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM

Science 


Attachment 1 


• Between 2001 and 2005, the number of students in grades nine through eleven 

taking CSTs in science increased by approximately 376,000 with the greatest 

increase found between 2003 and 2004. 

• Approximately 55,000 more students took the CST in biology in 2005. This is an 

increase of 14 percent over 2004. 

• Twenty-eight percent of students in grade five scored at proficient or above. This 

is a 4 percentage-point increase over 2004. 

• Between 2004 and 2005, the percentage of students scoring at proficient or 

above on integrated science 1 increased by 3 percentage-points. 

• Between 2004 and 2005, the percentage of students scoring at proficient or 

above on integrated science 4 increased by 18 percentage-points. 

Summary of California Achievement Tests, 

Sixth Edition Survey (CAT/6 Survey) 

• The CAT/6 Survey was administered only to students in grades three and seven. 

The tests had previously been administered in grades two through eleven. The 

reduction in grade levels tested was based on legislative changes made when 

the STAR Program was reauthorized in 2004. 

• Between 2004 and 2005, the average percentile scores for all content areas 

tested increased for grades three and seven. 

Summary of CST Results for Selected School Districts 

Between 2001 and 2005, the results for students tested in five selected school districts 

were analyzed for English-language arts and mathematics. The school districts are Los 

Angeles, Sacramento City, San Bernardino City, San Diego City, and San Francisco. 

• Between 2004 and 2005, the percentages of students scoring at proficient or 

above increased in English-language arts and mathematics for all five school 

districts. 

• Between 2001 and 2005, the percentages of students scoring at proficient or 

above increased in English-language arts and mathematics for all five school 

districts. 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM

Grade 

Table 1 

Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program 

California Standards Test Results 

2001–2005 

ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTS 

Percent of Students Scoring 

At Proficient or Above* 

Change in Percent 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2001–2005 2004–2005 

2 32 32 36 35 42 10 7 

3 30 34 33 30 31 1 1 

4 33 36 39 39 47 14 8 

5 28 31 36 40 43 15 3 

6 31 31 36 36 38 7 2 

7 32 33 36 36 43 11 7 

8 32 32 31 33 39 7 6 

9 28 33 38 37 43 15 6 

10 31 33 33 35 36 5 1 

11 29 31 32 32 36 7 4 

Total 31 33 35 35 40 9 5 


Attachment 1 


*Data for 2001 through 2004 are final state results. 2005 data are preliminary and include results for approximately 99 percent of the students in 

grades two through eleven. Complete results will be available in October and final results in December. 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM

Test 

Table 2 




MATHEMATICS 


Attachment 1 






Grade 2 40 43 53 51 56 16 5 

Grade 3 38 38 46 48 54 16 6 

Grade 4 33 37 45 45 50 17 5 

Grade 5 30 29 35 38 44 14 6 

Grade 6 31 32 34 35 40 9 5 

Grade 7 29 30 30 33 37 8 4 

General Mathematics NA 16 20 20 22 6 2 

Algebra I 21 22 21 18 19 -2 1 

Geometry 30 29 26 24 26 -4 2 

Algebra II 28 26 29 24 26 -2 2 

Integrated Mathematics 1 10 7 7 7 7 -3 0 

Integrated Mathematics 2 18 25 28 21 29 11 8 

Integrated Mathematics 3 20 21 21 27 32 12 5 

Summative High School Math 37 40 43 41 45 8 4 

Total 32 30 35 34 38 6 4 

*Data for 2001 through 2004 are final state results. 2005 Data are preliminary and include results for approximately 99 percent of the students in 

grades two through eleven. Complete results will be available in October and final results in December. 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM

Test 

Table 3 


Number of Students Taking the California Standards Tests 


MATHEMATICS 


Attachment 1 


Number of Students Tested Change in Number 


General Mathematics NA 448,150 435,695 415,461 372,513 NA* -42,948 

Algebra I 366,633 422,194 491,579 613,017 680,702 314,069 67,685 

Geometry 213,795 240,500 263,104 300,905 333,148 119,353 32,243 

Algebra II 126,997 148,309 158,619 181,878 195,966 68,969 14,088 

Integrated Mathematics 1 42,732 24,056 13,919 9,612 8,726 -34,006 -886 

Integrated Mathematics 2 28,446 24,746 9,440 7,928 6,703 -21,743 -1,225 

Integrated Mathematics 3 17,909 15,387 9,693 4,430 3,559 -14,350 -871 

Summative High School Math 51,792 70,577 74,010 80,504 90,849 39,057 10,345 

Total** 848,304 945,769 1,020,364 1,198,274 1,319,653 471,349 121,379 

* The change in General Mathematics from 2002 to 2005 was a decrease of 75,637. 

** Totals do not include General Mathematics that was first administered in 2002. 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM

Grade 

Table 4 




HISTORY-SOCIAL SCIENCE 





Attachment 1 



8 NA NA 27 27 31 4** 4 

10 24 24 27 27 31 7 4 

11 31 31 34 32 37 6 5 

Total 27 29 29 28 33 6 5 

* Data for 2001 through 2004 are final state results. 2005 data are preliminary and include results for approximately 99 percent of the students 

in grades two through eleven. Complete results will be available in October and final results in December. 

** Change in percent between 2003 and 2005. 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM

Test 

Table 5 




SCIENCE 





Grade 5 NA NA NA 24 28 -- 4 

Earth Science 20 21 21 22 23 3 1 

Biology 34 37 37 30 32 -2 2 

Chemistry 28 29 31 28 27 -1 -1 

Physics 30 28 29 29 31 1 2 

Integrated 1 NA NA 7 5 8 1** 3 

Integrated 2 NA NA 8 8 6 -2** -2 

Integrated 3* NA NA 7 8 8 1** 0 

Integrated 4 NA NA 12 8 26 14** 18 

Total 30 32 29 24 27 -2 3 


Attachment 1 


* Data for 2001 through 2004 are final state results. 2005 data are preliminary and include results for approximately 99 percent of the students 

in grades two through eleven. Complete results will be available in October and final results in December. 

** Change in percent between 2003 and 2005. 

NOTE: Approximately 30 percent of the science tests were taken by students in grade five, an additional 30 percent of the tests were for biology, 

and approximately 25 percent of the tests were for earth science and chemistry. 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM

Test 

Table 6 


Number of Students Taking the California Standards Tests 


SCIENCE 


Attachment 1 


Number of Students Tested Change in Number 


Grade 5 Science -- -- -- 485,806 482,626 NA -3,180 

Earth Science 69,255 80,018 89,676 134,953 173,827 104,572 38,874 

Biology 269,602 288,452 334,005 397,909 453,304 183,702 55,395 

Chemistry 132,908 144,930 153,491 181,420 196,663 63,755 15,243 

Physics 33,123 41,759 44,878 52,586 59,295 26,172 6,709 

Integrated 1 25,142 16,459 62,008 101,824 111,343 86,201 9,519 

Integrated 2 49,455 38,988 25,983 24,654 20,642 -28,813 -4,012 

Integrated 3 39,714 57,086 10,621 5,870 3,415 -36,299 -2,455 

Integrated 4 24,808 25,468 1,515 1,601 1,040 -23,768 -561 

Total* 644,007 693,160 722,177 900,817 1,019,529 375,522 118,712 

* Totals do not include Grade 5 Science that was first administered in 2004. 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM

Grade 

Table 7 


California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition (CAT/6 Survey) Results 


Percent of Students Scoring At or Above the 50th National Percentile Rank 

Reading Language Mathematics Spelling 


Attachment 1 


2003 2004 2005 Chg 2003 2004 2005 Chg 2003 2004 2005 Chg 2003 2004 2005 Chg 

3 34 35 36 2 42 43 44 2 52 54 55 3 53 54 55 2 

7 45 45 46 1 41 43 45 4 46 48 49 3 53 55 57 4 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM

Table 8 

STAR Program: California Standards Test Results 

Percent of Students Scoring At Proficient or Above by Subgroups 




Attachment 1 


Demographic Subgroup 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Female 34 36 39 40 44 

Gender Male 28 29 31 32 36 

American Indian/ 

Alaskan Native 

26 28 31 31 36 

Asian 47 50 55 56 62 

Ethnicity 

Pacific Islander 

Filipino 

25 

40 

27 

44 

31 

48 

31 

50 

36 

55 

Hispanic/Latino 14 16 20 21 25 

African American 18 19 22 23 27 

White 48 50 53 54 58 

Economically Disadvantaged Students 14 16 20 21 25 

Non-Economically Disadvantaged Students 45 47 49 50 56 

Students Receiving Special Education Services 9 10 9 14 16 

Students With No Reported Disability 33 34 38 38 43 

English Only Students 39 41 44 44 49 

Initially Fluent English Proficient 38 41 46 48 53 

English Learner 6 8 10 10 12 

Reclassified Fluent English Proficient 29 33 40 42 48 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM

Table 9 

STAR Program: California Standards Test Results 

Percent of Students Scoring At Proficient or Above by Subgroups 


MATHEMATICS 


Attachment 1 


Demographic Subgroup 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Female 32 30 34 34 38 

Gender Male 34 32 35 35 39 

American Indian/Alaskan 

Native 

26 25 29 28 32 

Asian 54 56 60 60 65 

Ethnicity 

Pacific Islander 

Filipino 

26 

38 

26 

39 

31 

44 

31 

45 

35 

50 

Hispanic/Latino 17 18 23 23 27 

African American 15 16 19 19 23 

White 44 43 47 46 51 

Economically Disadvantaged Students 18 19 24 25 29 

Non-Economically Disadvantaged Students 42 41 45 44 49 

Students Receiving Special Education Services 13 13 13 16 18 

Students With No Reported Disability 32 32 37 36 41 

English Only Students 37 36 39 39 43 

Initially Fluent English Proficient 39 40 44 45 49 

English Learner 14 16 20 20 24 

Reclassified Fluent English Proficient 32 32 37 37 41 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM

School District 

Table 10 


California Standards Test Results for Selected School Districts 







Attachment 1 



Los Angeles Unified 18 20 23 24 27 9 3 

Sacramento City Unified 26 28 31 31 36 10 5 

San Bernardino City Unified 16 17 20 20 22 6 2 

San Diego City Unified 31 34 36 37 42 11 5 

San Francisco Unified 32 35 39 40 45 13 5 

State 31 32 35 36 40 9 4 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM

District 

Table 11 


California Standards Test Results for Selected School Districts 


MATHEMATICS 


At Proficient or Above 



Attachment 1 



Los Angeles Unified 17 20 26 26 29 12 3 

Sacramento City Unified 30 29 32 31 35 5 4 

San Bernardino City Unified 19 17 22 20 22 3 2 

San Diego City Unified 25 25 29 31 37 12 6 

San Francisco Unified 34 34 40 40 46 12 6 

State 31 31 35 34 38 7 4 

Revision: 1/19/2012 1:16:30 PM




SUBJECT 

ITEM #16 



California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE): Including, 

but not limited to, CAHSEE program update on 2004-05 test 

administrations and the release of summary test results 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) receive the report of 2004-05 CAHSEE results and take action as 

deemed necessary and appropriate. 


• SBE approved postponing the consequences of the CAHSEE to students 

graduating in 2005-06. 

• The CDE tested all grade 10 students in February, March, and May 2004 and all 

grade 11 students who had not yet passed both parts of the CAHSEE up to two 

times during the 2004-05 school year. 

• The SBE was provided with preliminary statewide summary results for each of 

the administrations during the 2004-05 school year. 


During the 2004-05 school year, the CAHSEE was offered in September, November, 

February, March, and May. Districts tested over 500,000 students. Grade ten students 

in the Class of 2007 took the CAHSEE for the first time in February, March or May. 

Grade eleven students in the Class of 2006 and adult students, who had not previously 

passed both parts of the exam, took the unpassed parts of the CAHSEE up to two times 

during the 2004-05 school year. All of these students must satisfy the CAHSEE 

requirement as a condition of graduation. 

Statewide, 76 percent of grade ten students in the class of 2007 passed the Englishlanguage 

arts part of the CAHSEE and 74 percent passed the mathematics part. 

Statewide estimates of the number of students in the class of 2006 who have fully met 

the CAHSEE requirement (i.e., passed both parts of the exam) will be provided by the 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:16:56 PM


independent evaluator for the CAHSEE in its annual report to be delivered on 

September 30, 2005. 



In the class of 2006, an estimated 88 percent of students have passed the Englishlanguage 

arts part of the CAHSEE, and an estimated 88 percent of students have 

passed the mathematics part of the CAHSEE. 

School districts received the results for students tested throughout the 2004-05 school 

year after each administration of the exam. 

Summary results from the 2004-05 CAHSEE test administrations were publicly released 

on Monday, August 15, 2005, on CDE’s DataQuest Web site at: 

http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest. 

The DataQuest Web site displays: 

• Summary results for the September and November 2004, as well as the 

February, March, and May 2005 administrations. 

• Summary results at the school, school district, county, and state levels. 

• Summary results for students by grade, gender, ethnicity, language fluency, 

socioeconomic status, and special education program participation. 

Individual student CAHSEE results are confidential and are not included in the Internet 

reports. 

CDE has provided school districts with several documents to assist them in 

understanding the format of the CAHSEE and the types of test questions that will be 

asked about a particular academic content standard. These documents include the 

2004 Released Test Questions and the 2004 Teacher Guides. The assistance packet 

for Reporting Individual Student Results for the 2005-06 School Year will be available in 

September. Additionally, each fall, CDE distributes CAHSEE Study Guides to school 

districts for every grade ten student and his or her parent/guardian. 


All items presented in this program update are currently funded under contracts with 

CDE. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: Summary of 2004-05 CAHSEE Results (8 Pages) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:16:56 PM

JACK O’CONNELL 

State 

Superintendent of 

Public Instruction 

CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION 

2004–05 


Attachment 1 


California High 

School Exit 

Examination 

(CAHSEE) 

Summary of Results 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:16:56 PM

Background 

California High School Exit 

Examination (CAHSEE) 

Summary of 2004–05 Test Results 


Attachment 1 


• State law authorized the development of the California High School Exit 

Examination (CAHSEE), which students in California public schools would have 

to pass to earn a high school diploma beginning in the 2005–06 school year. 

• The CAHSEE is designed to ensure that all high school graduates have achieved 

a solid foundation of knowledge and skills in English-language arts and 

mathematics, based on state-adopted content standards. 

• All public high school students must take the CAHSEE for the first time in grade 

ten. Students who do not pass the CAHSEE in grade ten will have up to five 

additional opportunities to take the part(s) not passed. 

• CAHSEE results from administrations prior to the 2003-04 school year are not to 

be compared to results from subsequent administrations due to changes in test 

content and score scales. 

Summary of State Cumulative Results 

for Grade Eleven Students (Class of 2006) 

• Estimates of the number of students in the class of 2006 who have fully met the 

CAHSEE requirement (i.e., passed both parts of the exam) will be provided by 

the independent evaluator for the CAHSEE in its annual report to be delivered on 

September 30, 2005. 

• In the class of 2006, an estimated 88 percent of students have passed the 

English-language arts part of the CAHSEE, and an estimated 88 percent of 

students have passed the mathematics part of the CAHSEE. 

• On the English-language arts part of the CAHSEE, White students have the 

highest estimated cumulative passing rate (96 percent), and Hispanic/Latino 

students have the lowest estimated cumulative passing rate (81 percent) by 

ethnicity. 

• On the mathematics part of the CAHSEE, Asian students have the highest 

estimated cumulative passing rate (96 percent), and African American students 

have the lowest estimated cumulative passing rate (75 percent) by ethnicity.


Attachment 1 


• Students in the class of 2006 will have up to three opportunities in grade twelve 

to take the part(s) of the CAHSEE not yet passed. 

Summary of 2004–05 State Results 

for Grade Ten Students (Class of 2007) 

• Nearly one-half million grade ten students took the CAHSEE (English-language 

arts and mathematics). 

• Statewide, 76 percent of grade ten students passed the English-language arts 

part of the CAHSEE and 74 percent passed the mathematics part. 

• Female students passed the English-language arts part of the CAHSEE at a 

higher rate than male students (females at 81 percent; males at 72 percent). 

• Male and female students passed the mathematics part of the CAHSEE at about 

the same rate (females at 75 percent; males at 73 percent). 

• On both parts of the CAHSEE, the passing rates of Asian, Filipino, and White 

students were higher than the state passing rate. 

• On both parts of the CAHSEE, the passing rates of Hispanic/Latino and African 

American students were lower than the state passing rate. 

• On both parts of the CAHSEE, the passing rates of economically disadvantaged 

students, students receiving special education services, and English learner 

students were lower than the state passing rate. 

• African American students performed better in English-language arts than in 

mathematics (64 percent in English-language arts; 55 percent in mathematics). 

• Hispanic/Latino students performed slightly higher in English-language arts than 

in mathematics (65 percent in English-language arts, 62 percent in mathematics). 

• Students receiving special education services performed slightly higher in 

English-language arts (33 percent) than in mathematics (30 percent). 

• Economically disadvantaged students performed slightly higher in 

English-language arts (63 percent) than in mathematics (61 percent). 

• 2004-05 results for English learners, economically disadvantaged students, and 

students receiving special education services each showed a 3 percentage point 

gain over 2003-04 results in the percentage passing English-language arts. 

These results showed the highest gains between the two years of any reporting 

category.

Comparison of State Passing Rates for First-Time 

Test Takers in the Classes of 2006 and 2007 


Attachment 1 


• Students in the class of 2006 took the CAHSEE for the first time as tenth graders 

in the 2003-04 school year; students in the class of 2007 took the CAHSEE for 

the first time as tenth graders in the 2004-05 school year. 

• Overall, first-time test takers in the class of 2007 passed the mathematics part of 

the CAHSEE at the same rate as first-time test takers in the class of 2006 (74 

percent). 

• Overall, first-time test takers in the class of 2007 passed the English-language 

arts part of the CAHSEE at a slightly higher rate than first-time test takers in the 

class of 2006 (75 percent for the class of 2006; 76 percent for the class of 2007). 

• In each demographic subgroup, first-time test takers in the class of 2007 

performed as well or better than students in the class of 2006 on both parts of the 

CAHSEE. 

• The most significant improvements between first-time test takers in the classes of 

2006 and 2007 occurred on the English-language arts part of the exam for the 

following demographic subgroups: Pacific Islander students, Hispanic/Latino 

students, economically disadvantaged students, students receiving special 

education services, and English learners.


Demographic Subgroup 

Table 1 

California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) 

Estimated Cumulative Passing Rates for the Class of 2006 

Estimated 

Enrollment* 

Number 

Passed in 

Grade 10 

Percent 

Passed in 

Grade 10 

Number 

Passed in 

Grade 11** 

Estimated 

Percent 

Passed in 

Grade 11 

Number 

Passed by 

End of 

Grade 11** 

Estimated 

Percent 

Passed by 


Grade 11 

ALL STUDENTS 449,606 334,617 75% 61,765 13% 396,382 88% 

Gender*** 

Ethnicity 


Attachment 1 


Female 223,652 173,909 79% 28,556 12% 202,465 91% 

Male 225,591 160,540 71% 33,136 15% 193,676 86% 

American Indian/Alaskan Native 4,059 2,990 73% 605 16% 3,595 89% 

Asian 43,582 35,788 85% 4,226 7% 40,014 92% 

Pacific Islander 3,178 2,155 71% 573 15% 2,728 86% 

Filipino 13,772 11,539 87% 1,488 8% 13,027 95% 

Hispanic/Latino 177,429 112,797 62% 30,968 19% 143,765 81% 

African American 35,815 22,386 63% 7,137 19% 29,523 82% 

White 167,124 143,886 88% 15,872 8% 159,758 96% 

Economically Disadvantaged Students 174,072 108,407 60% 30,647 20% 139,054 80% 

Students Receiving Special Education Services 34,976 11,723 30% 7,014 24% 18,737 54% 

English Learner Students 74,772 31,733 39% 16,665 26% 48,398 65% 

* Enrollment was estimated by summing (1) the number of students in the class of 2006 who passed this part of the CAHSEE in grade 10; (2) the number of 

students in the class of 2006 who passed this part of the CAHSEE in grade 11; and (3) the number of grade 11 students who did not pass this part of the 

CAHSEE during the spring 2005 administration. 

** Subgroup data are estimates; school districts have the opportunity to make demographic data corrections. 

*** The sum of females and males does not equal the number of all students, due to invalid or blank responses received for this demographic field.

MATHEMATICS 


Table 2 


Estimated Cumulative Passing Rates for the Class of 2006 

Estimated 

Enrollment* 

Number 

Passed in 

Grade 10 

Percent 

Passed in 

Grade 10 

Number 

Passed in 

Grade 11** 

Estimated 

Percent 

Passed in 

Grade 11 

Number 

Passed by 


Grade 11** 

Estimated 

Percent 

Passed by 


Grade 11 

ALL STUDENTS 445,735 328,866 74% 61,176 14% 390,042 88% 

Gender*** 

Ethnicity 


Attachment 1 


Female 219,873 163,626 74% 29,355 14% 192,981 88% 

Male 225,466 165,070 73% 31,719 14% 196,789 87% 

American Indian/Alaskan Native 3,882 2,776 69% 558 17% 3,334 86% 

Asian 43,856 38,493 91% 3,708 5% 42,201 96% 

Pacific Islander 3,115 2,152 71% 496 14% 2,648 85% 

Filipino 13,787 11,500 87% 1,462 7% 12,962 94% 

Hispanic/Latino 176,946 111,477 61% 31,563 20% 143,040 81% 

African American 34,509 19,302 54% 6,662 21% 25,964 75% 

White 165,013 140,243 87% 15,830 8% 156,073 95% 

Economically Disadvantaged Students 173,181 109,146 61% 29,959 19% 139,105 80% 

Students Receiving Special Education Services 31,559 10,437 30% 5,574 21% 16,011 51% 

English Learner Students 76,527 39,756 49% 16,520 25% 56,276 74% 

* Enrollment was estimated by summing (1) the number of grade ten students who passed this portion of the CAHSEE during the 2003–04 school year; (2) the 

number of grade eleven students who passed this portion during the 2004–05 school year; and (3) the number of grade eleven students who did not pass this 

portion during the spring 2005 administration. 

** Subgroup data are estimates; school districts have the opportunity to make demographic data corrections. 

*** The sum of females and males does not equal the number of all students, due to invalid or blank responses received for this demographic field.



Table 3 


Comparison of Passing Rates for First-Time Test 

Takers in the Classes of 2006 and 2007 

Class of 2006 Class of 2007* 

Number Tested as 

Tenth Graders 

Percent Passed as 

Tenth Graders 


Tenth Graders 


Tenth Graders 

ALL STUDENTS 448,005 75% 460,670 76% 

Gender** 

Female 

Male 

220,042 

227,600 

79% 

71% 

226,171 

233,865 

81% 

72% 

American Indian/Alaskan Native 4,070 73% 4,158 73% 

Asian 42,247 85% 42,476 86% 

Pacific Islander 3,021 71% 3,222 75% 

Ethnicity Filipino 13,229 87% 13,498 88% 

Hispanic/Latino 182,703 62% 191,490 65% 

African American 35,733 63% 38,153 64% 

White 162,719 88% 163,190 89% 

Economically Disadvantaged Students 180,446 60% 190,160 63% 

Students Receiving Special Education Services 38,468 30% 39,607 33% 

English Learner Students 80,909 39% 82,610 42% 

* Subgroup data are estimates; school districts have the opportunity to make demographic data corrections. 

** The sum of females and males does not equal the number of all students, due to invalid or blank responses received for this demographic field. 


Attachment 1 

Page 7 of 8

MATHEMATICS 


Table 4 


Comparison of Passing Rates for First-Time Test 

Takers in the Classes of 2006 and 2007 

Class of 2006 Class of 2007* 


Tenth Graders 


Tenth Graders 


Tenth Graders 


Tenth Graders 

ALL STUDENTS 446,264 74% 458,338 74% 

Gender** 

Female 

Male 

219,712 

226,178 

74% 

73% 

225,656 

232,039 

75% 

73% 

American Indian/Alaskan Native 4,005 69% 4,109 69% 

Asian 42,180 91% 42,332 92% 

Pacific Islander 3,019 71% 3,197 72% 

Ethnicity Filipino 13,223 87% 13,472 87% 

Hispanic/Latino 182,485 61% 190,795 62% 

African American 35,435 54% 37,889 55% 

White 161,605 87% 162,032 87% 

Economically Disadvantaged Students 179,878 61% 189,154 61% 

Students Receiving Special Education Services 35,146 30% 36,956 30% 

English Learner Students 80,795 49% 81,994 49% 

* Subgroup data are estimates; school districts have the opportunity to make demographic data corrections. 

** The sum of females and males does not equal the number of all students, due to invalid or blank responses received for this demographic field. 


Attachment 1 





SUBJECT 

ITEM #17 



California English Language Development Test (CELDT): 

Including, but not limited to, update on CELDT Program, new 

contract status, assessment of reading and writing in 

kindergarten and grade one, and a report from the Bureau of 

State Audits 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) receive a report and take action as deemed necessary and 

appropriate. 


In July 2005, the SBE received an update on the CELDT Program, test administration 

training, the status of the new contract, and CDE’s request to the United States 

Department of Education for a waiver of the requirement to assess reading and writing 

in kindergarten and first grade. 


June 30, 2005, was the last day for administration of Form D of the CELDT, the form 

that was authorized for 2004-05 testing. Scoring and reporting to local school districts of 

form D results will be completed by the end of August. A preliminary 2004-05 statewide 

summary report of administrations for initial identification of English learners will be 

available by the end of September and posted to CDE’s Web site by early November. 

CDE expects final approval of the next CELDT contract, awarded to CTB/McGraw Hill, 

before the planned October 1, 2005, start date. 

The 2005-06 state budget provides $1,400,000, pursuant to legislation effective on or 

before January 1, 2006, for the development of reading and writing assessments for 

English learners in kindergarten and grade one to comply with the federal No Child Left 

Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. CDE is in discussions with the California Legislature 

regarding the necessary legislation. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:17:10 PM




All costs for the current CELDT administration are included in the current CELDT 

contract ($12 million in 2004-05). The costs of developing additional tests for reading 

and writing in kindergarten and grade 1 are estimated at $1,400,000. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

None. 

1/19/20121:17:10 PM




SUBJECT 

ITEM #18 



Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: Approval 

of the 2005-06 Contract for the Aprenda, 3 rd Edition (Aprenda 3) 

with Harcourt Assessment, Inc. 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve the 2005-06 Harcourt Assessment, Inc., (Harcourt) scope of 

work and take action as deemed necessary and appropriate. 


The SBE discussed the background, key concepts and options for the Request for 

Submission (RFS) for a primary language achievement test at its March meeting and 

provided final direction at a Special SBE meeting on April 4, 2005. The RFS for the 

designated primary language test (DPLT) was released on April 6, 2005. 

The SBE received the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s (SSPI) 

recommendation for designation at its July 2005 meeting. Two submissions were 

received and evaluated and the SSPI recommended Harcourt. The SBE moved to 

approve the recommendation conditionally upon Harcourt satisfactorily meeting these 

conditions: 

• Present pretest training materials to all testing directors – not just workshop 

participants. 

• Ensure that the system for tracking materials shipments is sufficiently robust and 

does not rely solely on e-mail. 

• Describe a more flexible process whereby LEAs can estimate the number of 

scoreable and nonscoreable materials. 

• Fully describe the Spectrum System and ensure that all LEAs will have access to 

the system (e.g. using compatible software) for printing labels. 

• Provide student data files through the Spectrum System and provide CD-ROMS 

of data (test results) upon request. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:17:17 PM




• Clarify security, data exchange and confidentiality of data. 

• Address relationship with CSIS. 

• Provide a turnkey Web site and host a Web site that displays the DPLT results. 

• Provide a process for replacement of items and ensure that the effect of 

replacement items on scores is fully addressed. 

• Address these issues without a cost increase. 

If these conditions are not satisfied by the September 2005 SBE meeting, the SBE 

reserved the right to rescind this designation. 

Negotiations between Harcourt and SBE staff and liaisons, CDE staff, and the 

Department of Finance are occurring in August and the final negotiated scope of work 

will be provided as a last minute memorandum to the SBE. 


Currently, English learners who have been enrolled less than twelve months at the time 

of testing are required to take the DPLT, as well as the California Standards Tests and 

for grades three and seven students, the California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition 

Survey. Districts have the option of administering the DPLT to Spanish-speaking 

English learners who are enrolled twelve months or more. 

The previous DPLT was the Spanish Assessment of Basic Education, 2 nd Edition. A 

new program is needed for the 2005-06 test administration cycle. 


The cost for the administration of the DPLT is included in the annual STAR budget 

appropriation. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

The negotiated scope of work for 2005-06 will provided as a last minute memorandum. 

Rev. 1/19/20121:17:17 PM











SUBJECT: Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: Approval of the 

2005-06 Contract for the Aprenda, 3 rd Edition (Aprenda 3) with Harcourt 

Assessment, Inc. 

California Department of Education (CDE) staff, State Board of Education (SBE) staff, 

and Department of Finance (DOF) staff met with Harcourt to negotiate changes to the 

scope of work in order to satisfactorily meet the conditions set by the SBE at their July 

meeting. 

1. Harcourt agreed to provide pretest training materials to all testing directors. In 

the event a STAR DPLT test coordinator cannot attend the training workshops, 

Harcourt will make available all of the materials to the coordinator. 

2. Harcourt fully described their tracking for materials shipments. Shipments can be 

tracked by test directors through Harcourt’s Spectrum system. In addition, 

Harcourt will provide a contact phone number staffed by personnel trained to 

provide the information, to districts unable to use Spectrum. 

3. Harcourt provided a more flexible process whereby local education agencies 

(LEAs) can estimate the number of scoreable and nonscoreable materials. LEAs 

will be contacted by Harcourt one to two weeks ahead of pick-up of their test 

materials to provide an estimate of the number of boxes to be picked up. 

Harcourt will instruct the shipping company to have more boxes available in case 

the estimates are low. 

4. Harcourt provided a demonstration of the Spectrum system to CDE and DOF 

staff. The system is user friendly and appears to meet California’s needs. No 

specific software is required to use the system and internet connectivity and 

access to an ink jet or laser printer will enable LEAs to use the system and locally 

print labels, if needed. 

5. LEAs will have access to student data files through Spectrum and can download 

the data or request a CD-ROM be shipped to them from Harcourt. If the LEA 

does not have access to Spectrum, they can contact Harcourt to request the CD- 

ROM be shipped to them. 

Revised 1/19/2012 1:13 PM



6. Harcourt clarified security, data exchange, and confidentiality of data. New 

information regarding the security of test materials was added to section 3.7, 

Processing, Scoring, and Analysis, in the Scope of Work. 

7. Harcourt clarified that their information and technology systems are designed to 

be fully configurable and can modify files and file records to conform to CSIS. 

8. Harcourt included new narrative about hosting a website and providing a MS 

SQL version of all internet accessible databases and Microsoft Active Server 

Pages (ASP) or ASP.Net files necessary to support the public web site. 

9. Harcourt provided a process for replacement items should the SPAR panel reject 

any and indicated that California can replace up to 4 items in a particular subtest 

at a specific level and still maintain the integrity of the norms for Aprenda 3. 

All of the above issues were addressed without a cost increase. Harcourt also agreed 

to remove the cost to CDE for ownership of all materials developed under the contract 

as well as the cost for royalties and licensing. CDE asked Harcourt to reduce the 

number of grades in which practice tests will be available which also reduced costs. 

The initial contract total for three years was for $2,685,824. The revised total for three 

years is for $2,618,594. 

CDE recommends that the Scope of Work be approved with the following provisions: 

1. CDE and Harcourt may make non-material, technical changes to the Scope of 

Work that have no costs associated with them. 

2. CDE and Harcourt may make substantive changes to the Scope of Work that 

have no costs associated with them provided that the Harcourt Program Director, 

the SBE Executive Director, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction agree to 

them. 

SBE and the Department of Finance must approve any changes in the Scope of Work 

that result in increasing the contract costs. 

The following attachment is the final Scope of Work. 

Attachment 1: California Scope of Work for the Designated Primary Language 

Test (130 Pages) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:13 PM

California Scope of Work 

for the Designated Primary Language 

Test

Table of Contents 

2 


Attachment 1 


TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………2 

SCOPE OF WORK............................................................................................ 5 

Expert Program Management ...................................................................................... 5 

Assessment Products of the Highest Integrity ........................................................... 6 

Quality Endowed Processes and Procedures ............................................................ 7 

3.1. Component Task 1—Comprehensive Plan and Schedule for Project 

Deliverables and Activities .................................................................................... 8 

A. Narrative Schedule ............................................................................................................ 8 

B. Progress Reports ............................................................................................................. 12 

C. Management Meetings .................................................................................................... 14 

D. SBE Meetings and Technical Meetings ........................................................................... 15 

E. Records and Minutes ....................................................................................................... 15 

F. Reports ............................................................................................................................ 16 

G. CDE Ownership of Materials ........................................................................................... 17 

H. CDE Approval Schedule .................................................................................................. 17 

I. Transition .......................................................................................................................... 17 

3.2. Component Task 2—Program Support Services .............................................. 18 

A. Help Desk ........................................................................................................................ 18 

B. Collection and Monitoring of Information ......................................................................... 22 

C. Terminology ..................................................................................................................... 23 

D. Workshops ....................................................................................................................... 23 

3.3. Component Task 3—Designated Primary Language Test Requirements ...... 28 

A. Contact Person ................................................................................................................ 28 

B. General Information about the Proposed STAR DPLT .................................................... 29 

C. Number of Test Questions ............................................................................................... 29 

D. Availability of Test Forms and Results ............................................................................ 32 

E. Replacement Items .......................................................................................................... 32 

F. Test Development and Technical Manual ........................................................................ 33 

G. Purpose and Interpretation of Test Scores ...................................................................... 40 

H. Test Levels/Grade Levels ................................................................................................ 40 

I. Overall Quality of Test ....................................................................................................... 40 

J. Alignment to California Content Standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics . 45 

K. Norms .............................................................................................................................. 50 

Scope of Work 

Designated Primary Language Test (DPLT) in Reading, Spelling, Written Expression, and Mathematics 

Grades 2 through 11

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Proposal 

Copyright ©2005 by Harcourt Assessment, Inc. 


Attachment 1 


L. Accommodations for Disabled Students .......................................................................... 56 

References ............................................................................................................................ 60 

M. Royalty/Licensing Costs .................................................................................................. 61 

3.4. Component Task 4—Test Form Construction .................................................. 61 

A. Test Form Construction ................................................................................................... 61 

B. Answer Documents .......................................................................................................... 61 

C. Forms Design and Production for Students with Disabilities ........................................... 61 

References ............................................................................................................................ 69 

3.5. Component Task 5—Test Materials Production, Ordering, and Packaging ... 69 

A. Test Materials Production ................................................................................................ 70 

B. Ancillary Test Materials .................................................................................................... 73 

C. Pre-ID Process ................................................................................................................ 76 

D. Ordering ........................................................................................................................... 79 

E. Packaging ........................................................................................................................ 82 

3.6. Component Task 6—Delivery and Collection of Materials .............................. 84 

A. Delivery of Test Materials ................................................................................................ 85 

B. Collection of Test Materials ............................................................................................. 86 

3.7. Component Task 7—Processing, Scoring, and Analysis ................................ 89 

A. Test Processing ............................................................................................................... 89 

B. Scoring and Quality Assurance ..................................................................................... 107 

C. Analysis of Test Results ................................................................................................ 112 

3.8. Component Task 8—Reporting Test Results to LEAs .................................... 113 

A. Overall Reports .............................................................................................................. 114 

B. Production and Distribution of Paper Score Reports ..................................................... 115 

C. Electronic Student Data Files ........................................................................................ 119 

D. Interpretation Guidelines ............................................................................................... 120 

E. Narrative Report Specifications ..................................................................................... 120 

3.9 Component Task 9. Reporting Test Results to the CDE .................................. 120 

A. Internet Reports .............................................................................................................. 124 

B. Research Files ............................................................................................................... 125 

C. Internet Administrative Functionality .............................................................................. 126 

D. CDE Web Delivery Requirements ................................................................................. 127 

E. Secure Web Site ............................................................................................................ 127 

3.10 Component Task 10. Documentation and Electronic Data Management ..... 128 

A. Documentation ............................................................................................................... 129


Proposal 

Copyright ©2005 by Harcourt Assessment, Inc. 


Attachment 1 


B. Security .......................................................................................................................... 129 

C. Secure Data Exchange .................................................................................................. 129 

D. Confidentiality ................................................................................................................ 130

5 


Attachment 1 



The California Department of Education (CDE) has clearly delineated the requirements 

for a designated primary language achievement test (STAR DPLT) which will allow non- 

English speaking students to demonstrate achievement in reading, spelling, written 

expression, and mathematics. The Education Code, as amended by Senate Bill 1448, 

calls for the development of a standards-based test in Spanish, aligned to the same 

California academic content standards for reading/language arts and mathematics as 

are assessed through the California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) 

program. Until such a test can be developed and ready for administration, CDE needs 

an interim solution for assessing the achievement of California’s more than one million 

Spanish-speaking student population. 

As the premier publisher of high quality standards-based achievement tests, Harcourt 

Assessment, Inc. (Harcourt) is proud to be able to offer CDE the most current 

assessment solution—developed and designed for just this population—Aprenda ® , La 

prueba de logros en español, Tercera edición (Aprenda 3). Aprenda 3 is the highest 

quality, most culturally inclusive Spanish-language test of academic standards and 

provides the most up-to-date, norm-referenced information. Harcourt also recognizes 

that CDE not only needs products of the highest quality but must also have a contractor 

who will commit the resources to meet every requirement for the successful 

administration of the STAR DPLT and accurate reporting of STAR DPLT results. 

This response to the RFS confirms Harcourt’s commitment to being the contractor who 

will meet all expectations. Our proposal describes in detail how we will accomplish 

every task required to meet CDE’s needs and requirements and support the local 

education communities to ensure this is deemed an exemplary assessment program. 

Harcourt believes there are three major components to delivering an exemplary 

program: 

♦ Expert program management, fully supported by the necessary resources, 

tools, and levels of empowerment to get the job done 

♦ Assessment products of the highest integrity, in terms of content, in terms 

of technical quality, and in terms of meaningful results 

♦ Quality endowed processes and procedures designed to meet every 

timeline every step of the way 

We will provide all those components to CDE and our proposal provides a 

comprehensive description of how each is related to meeting the requirements of the 

RFS. Here we are providing a brief summary of how we will deliver these components: 

Expert Program Management 

CDE needs a program management solution that includes a comprehensive plan and 

schedule for transition and implementation of the STAR DPLT; a formalized 

communication plan; an integrated method for supporting district personnel; and a 

dedicated team of professionals who have prioritization authority for this program. 


Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


Harcourt’s program management plan is centered on a comprehensive schedule that 

includes all major tasks and milestones for transition and implementation activities. 

Transition activities will be woven seamlessly into the implementation activities, 

requiring the least amount of time and effort on the part of the CDE and the districts as 

the standards-based test in Spanish (STS) replaces the STAR DPLT. An important 

aspect of the management plan is addressed in our detailed description of the 

meetings, reports, and documentation to be provided to ensure CDE is fully apprised of 

the status of all activities and timelines and can be confident that all objectives are being 

met. The proposed schedule and the complete communication plan are presented in 

Section C.3.1. 

Harcourt’s management team for the STAR DPLT will have access to Harcourt’s 

complete support infrastructure, providing CDE and the districts with unparalleled 

customer service at all phases of program implementation. The STAR DPLT 

management team will oversee the production of test and support materials and 

conduct training sessions to prepare school personnel for all activities required to 

successfully administer the assessments and interpret the assessment results. 

Harcourt’s web-based pre-identification and data correction system has a proven record 

of success in providing both an easy-to-use interface for school personnel and accurate 

student demographic data. This system will be configured for consistency with those 

used in California’s other statewide testing programs. Harcourt’s Customer Support 

Center will provide fast and efficient assistance for all district coordinators, using an 

internal customer relationship management system to track all calls, all response times, 

and update all district contact information. These systems are described in Sections 

C.3.2 and C.3.5. 

The management professionals who will be overseeing all activities for the STAR DPLT 

are of the highest caliber. The management leadership and overall management team 

are fully described in Sections D.1 through D.3 of this proposal. These individuals will 

ensure that all needed resources are focused on the STAR DPLT program. 

Assessment Products of the Highest Integrity 

CDE needs an assessment product to administer as the STAR DPLT that is error free, 

aligned to the California standards, has accurate and clearly written ancillary materials, 

and produces valid, reliable results. 

Aprenda 3 is designed to measure the progress of ELLs toward achieving in the core 

academic subjects at high levels, so that they can meet the same challenging academic 

content and achievement standards that all children are expected to meet. 

Development of this outstanding assessment was guided by full attention to the 

International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English 

standards for language arts, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Principles 

and Standards for School Mathematics, and adherence to the Standards for 

Educational and Psychological Testing. The resulting product is highly aligned to the 

California standards. Published in 2004 with 2004 normative data, Aprenda 3 is 

6 



Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


supported by complete technical data ensuring valid, reliable results. Full descriptions 

of the research design and the resulting empirical data are provided in the technical 

manual, which is provided in the accompanying sample box. Designed for ease of 

administration, Aprenda 3 is engaging for students and not burdensome for teachers 

and district coordinators. Section C.3.3 addresses all the qualities of this assessment 

that make it the solution for the STAR DPLT. 

Sections C.3.4 and C.3.5 provide evidence of the attention to detail Harcourt has taken 

in the construction of the Aprenda 3 test forms and will continue to take in producing all 

testing materials for use as the STAR DPLT, including Braille and large-print versions of 

the tests. The available replacement items were developed under the same stringent 

requirements and Harcourt is prepared to make use of those items, if required, following 

review by the Statewide Pupil Assessment Review (SPAR) panel. 

In Sections C.3.8 and C.3.9 Harcourt provides the solution for reporting test results to 

the LEAs and to CDE. We will deliver all reports specified in the RFS, and will deliver 

them in the media required. We are also proposing to develop a custom, full-color 

Home Report that will assist parents in understanding what their child knows and can 

do. Harcourt Spectrum is designed to provide online results as well as to allow for 

data management and correction of information prior to final reporting, ensuring that 

results are accurate and on-time. Harcourt will deliver school- and district-level reports 

by August 8, and the state level research files will be posted and available for school 

district access by August 10. 

Quality Endowed Processes and Procedures 

CDE needs to be fully confident that this assessment program has impeccable integrity, 

that all stakeholders view every aspect as valid and reliable, and—the ultimate goal— 

that it is valuable to the educational needs of California students. 

Harcourt’s quality policy defines the expectations for all members of the Harcourt family: 

to deliver valid and reliable, defect-free products and services to our customers and to 

each other; to continuously improve our processes and internal systems; and to uphold 

the performance standard of zero defects. 

Throughout this proposal we clearly define the quality checks and procedures that are 

standard as we implement assessment programs and will be the standard for all 

activities and tasks related to the STAR DPLT. Those checks are embedded in the test 

form construction process, the print and production process, the packing and shipping 

process, and the collection, receiving, scoring, and reporting process. 

Harcourt’s quality commitment to CDE will be evident in every deliverable, every 

contact, every service related to the STAR DPLT. We are confident that our proposal 

provides CDE with an outstanding solution for meeting the educational needs of the 

Spanish-speaking student population. 

7 



Grades 2 through 11

3.1. Component Task 1—Comprehensive Plan and Schedule for 

Project Deliverables and Activities 

8 


Attachment 1 


Harcourt‘s comprehensive plan details the preparations, implementations, and 

continuous improvements planned for the STAR DPLT program. The information 

presented in Task 1 demonstrates how Harcourt has incorporated an understanding of 

CDE’s approval schedule and communication processes into a plan that is responsive 

to CDE’s needs for the STAR DPLT program. 

A strong and knowledgeable STAR DPLT management team led by Senior Director, 

Ms. Polly Lively, and consisting of a Program Manager, Mr. John Cernohous, and a 

Fiscal Manager, Ms. Melissa Ribar, will oversee and continuously monitor the 

completion of tasks to maintain the planned schedule and communicate progress to 

CDE. This STAR DPLT management team will work hand-in-hand with CDE to 

implement the management plan for the program. 

The executive team will also work closely with the STAR DPLT 

management team to recognize potential problems early and 

recommend solutions immediately. To provide CDE with the 

continuous program status information you need to manage 

the program, Harcourt has planned for meetings, reports, and 

Harcourt’s program 

management team will 

deliver to the schedule. 

records to review activities of the project. These will include quarterly management 

meetings, monthly progress reports, and submission of all project deliverables such as 

meeting minutes, and meeting participant lists. 

Harcourt will use the principles of the Project Management Institute (PMI) to guide our 

overall management program. In order to ensure that CDE receives a customized 

approach to managing this large and critical project, Harcourt will provide a STAR DPLT 

project plan. This detailed document will include the project objectives, project 

schedule, communications plan, scope-of-work change process, guidelines for the 

program, lists of products to be created, distribution and retrieval methods to be used, 

types of scores and reports to be provided, and other project information. 

A. Narrative Schedule 

Harcourt understands the importance of a comprehensive plan and schedule to ensure 

deliverables are of high quality and are delivered on time. This comprehensive 

schedule will also include a narrative schedule that outlines both by task and 

chronologically for the entire contract period, each activity to be performed under the 

contract. The schedule will include all activities related to training materials, 

administration materials, reports, interpretation materials, and logistics. The 

chronological schedule will also include proposed task initiation and completion dates 

and hours by task for proposed personnel including all subcontractors. Mr. Cernohous 

will be the creator and overall manager of the schedule, as well as each process for 

implementation of the STAR DPLT program. Once Mr. Cernohous finalizes the 

schedule with all the functional groups, he will deliver it to CDE for approval. 



Grades 2 through 11

Table 1. Program Schedule 

Task Start Date Task End Date Activity 

July 2005 Contract begins 

TBD TBD Management meeting (Task 1) 

TBD TBD Progress Report due (Task 1) 

TBD TBD SPAR panel meets to review test forms (Task 3) 

September 12, 2005 September 13, 2005 SBE/Technical meeting (Task 1) 

September 26, 2005 September 30, 2005 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

October 3, 2005 October 7, 2005 Production of forms begins (Task 4) 

October 24, 2005 October 28, 2005 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

9 


Attachment 1 


November 1, 2005 December 1, 2005 Open Spectrum for Districts (pre-ID records/enrollments) 

(Task 5) 

November 14, 2005 November 15, 2005 SBE/Technical meeting (Task 1) 

November 21, 2005 November 25, 2005 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

December 2, 2005 December 9, 2005 Notify LEAs of inaccurate/incomplete data from Spectrum 

(Task 5) 

December 5, 2005 December 5, 2005 Test Deck to Production (Task 7) 

December 12, 2005 December 13, 2005 Management meeting (Task 1) 

December 12, 2005 December 16, 2005 All files to Printer (Task 5) 

December 16, 2005 December 16, 2005 Finalize pre-ID/enrollment data (Task 5) 

December 26, 2005 December 30, 2005 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

January 16, 2006 January 17, 2006 SBE/Technical meeting (Task 1) 

January 23, 2006 January 27, 2006 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

February 1, 2006 February 10, 2006 DFAs/Coordinator Manuals posted for CDE (Task 5) 

February 1, 2006 February 15, 2006 Pre-test workshops (Task 2) 

February 13, 2006 February 17, 2006 Package all materials (Task 5) 

February 20, 2006 February 24, 2006 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

February 27, 2006 March 3, 2006 Materials arrive in schools (Task 6) 

March 13, 2006 March 14, 2006 SBE/Technical meeting (Task 1) 

March 13, 2006 May 18, 2006 Test Administration (Task 6) 

March 27, 2006 March 31, 2006 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

April 10, 2006 April 11, 2006 Management meeting (Task 1) 

April 15, 2008 April 16, 2008 Internet Project Team Kick-Off Design and Overview Meeting 

April 24, 2006 April 28, 2006 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

May 15, 2006 May 16, 2006 SBE/Technical meeting (Task 1) 

May 26, 2006 May 26, 2006 All make ups completed (Task 6) 

May 22, 2006 May 26, 2006 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

March 15, 2006 June 2, 2006 Materials arrive at Harcourt (Task 6) 

June 12, 2006 June 13, 2006 Management meeting (Task 1) 

June 13, 2006 June 14, 2006 Internet Site Project Team Update Meeting 

March 17, 2006 June 15, 2006 All scanning complete (Task 7) 



Grades 2 through 11


June 17, 2006 June 17, 2006 Mark Discrimination Report Due (Task 7) 

June 26, 2006 June 30, 2006 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

July 2006 Year 2 Contract Begins 

July 12, 2006 July 12, 2006 Preliminary file posted on web site (mock up) (Task 9) 

July 17, 2006 July 18, 2006 SBE/Technical meeting (Task 1) 

July 18, 2006 July 18, 2006 CDE reviews site and data (Task 9) 

July 24, 2006 July 28, 2006 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

July 29, 2006 July 29, 2006 Data Dictionary provided to CDE (Task 10) 

August 4, 2006 August 4, 2006 Research files posted on secure web site (Task 9) 

10 


Attachment 1 


August 8, 2006 August 8, 2006 District/county-level/state-level summary report due (Task 8) 

August 15, 2006 August 15, 2006 Internet file due (Tasks 8 and 9) 

August 21, 2006 August 22, 2006 Management meeting (Task 1) 

August 21, 2006 August 25, 2006 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

September 4, 2006 September 5, 2006 SPAR panel meets to review test forms (Task 3) 

September 18, 2006 September 19, 2006 SBE/Technical meeting (Task 1) 

September 20, 2006 September 20, 2006 Final electronic file with discrepancies to CDE 

September 25, 2006 September 29, 2006 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

October 2, 2006 October 6, 2006 Production of forms begins (Task 4.) 

October 23, 2006 October 27, 2006 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

November 1, 2006 December 1, 2006 Open Spectrum for Districts (pre-ID records/enrollments) 

(Task 5) 

November 13, 2006 November 14, 2006 SBE/Technical meeting (Task 1) 

November 20, 2006 November 24, 2006 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

December 4, 2006 December 4, 2006 Notify LEAs of inaccurate/incomplete data from Spectrum 

(Task 5) 

December 4, 2006 December 4, 2006 Test Deck to Production (Task 7) 

December 11, 2006 December 12, 2006 Management meeting (Task 1) 

December 11, 2006 December 15, 2006 All files to Printer (Task 5) 

December 15, 2006 December 15, 2006 Finalize pre-ID/enrollment data (Task 5) 

December 27, 2006 December 29, 2006 Progress Report due (Task 1) 







March 1, 2007 March 1, 2007 Materials arrive in schools (Task 6) 


March 12, 2007 May 18 2007 Test Administration 




Grades 2 through 11












July 2007 Year 3 Contract Begins 

July 12, 2007 July 12, 2007 Preliminary file posted on web site (Task 9) 






11 


Attachment 1 




August 20, 2007 August 21, 2007 Management meeting (Task 1) 

August 27, 2007 August 31, 2007 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

September 4, 2007 September 4, 2007 SPAR panel meets to review test forms (Task 3) 

September 17, 2007 September 18, 2007 SBE/Technical meeting (Task 1) 

September 20, 2007 September 20, 2007 Final electronic file with discrepancies to CDE 

September 24 2007 September 28, 2007 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

October 1, 2007 October 5, 2007 Production of forms begins (Task 4) 

October 22, 2007 October 26, 2007 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

November 1, 2007 December 3, 2007 Open Spectrum for Districts (pre-ID records/enrollments) 

(Task 5) 

November 12, 2007 November 13, 2007 SBE/Technical meeting (Task 1) 

November 26, 2007 November 30, 2007 Progress Report due (Task 1) 

December 3, 2007 December 3, 2007 Notify LEAs of inaccurate/incomplete data from Spectrum 

(Task 5) 

December 3, 2007 December 3, 2007 Test Deck to Production (Task 7) 

December 10, 2007 December 11, 2007 Management meeting (Task 1) 

December 10, 2007 December 14, 2007 All files to Printer (Task 5) 

December 14, 2007 December 14, 2007 Finalize pre-ID/enrollment data (Task 5) 

December 21, 2007 December 28, 2007 Progress Report due (Task 1) 





Grades 2 through 11






March 3, 2008 March 3, 2008 Materials arrive in schools (Task 6) 


March 10, 2008 May 16, 2008 Test Administration 











July 13, 2008 July 13, 2008 Preliminary file posted on web site (Task 9) 







12 


Attachment 1 




B. Progress Reports 

Harcourt’s program management team understands the need for effective progress 

reporting and communication of program status on a complex assessment program like 

STAR DPLT. Our program managers are accustomed to partnering with our customers 

to provide regular updates in the most effective format. The monthly progress reports 

will summarize project progress, any unanticipated challenges that have arisen during 

the management of the STAR DPLT, and the management team’s recommended 

solutions. The annual progress report will include a summary and analysis of the 

monthly progress reports for the entire assessment year and will offer suggestions for 

modifications of the next year’s schedule/plan, note process improvements to avoid 

future occurrence of issues that arose in the past year, and highlight program 

improvements that occurred during the past year. The reports will be complete, 



Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


concise, and easy to read. They will also include appropriate detail to fully inform CDE 

staff and other readers of all issues relating to the progress of the STAR DPLT project. 

Monthly Progress Report 

Harcourt will work with CDE staff to determine the appropriate format and content of the 

monthly progress reports. As a starting place, we propose that the information in the 

progress reports be organized by project task. For each relevant task, the following 

information would be provided for all current and upcoming activities and deliverables: 

♦ Initiation, milestone, and completion dates from the current project 

schedule 

♦ Actual or anticipated initiation, milestone, and completion dates, if different 

♦ Description of progress, including any discrepancies, unexpected 

outcomes, or potential problems 

♦ List and description of major project deliverables completed 

♦ List of items or issues needing review, approval, or decisions from CDE 

staff 

♦ Detailed list of invoices submitted and paid 

♦ Any unanticipated challenges and our recommended solutions 

The monthly progress reports will be emailed to CDE for review on the last Friday of 

each month by 12:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time. An original signed hard copy will be 

submitted by mail. 

Annual Progress Report 

Harcourt will provide an annual progress report for each year of testing. This report will 

not only include a summary of each monthly progress report, but also present an 

overview of how each administration was conducted, highlighting both the areas that 

should be reviewed and those activities that worked well. It will also include a list of 

assessment booklets that were not returned on time and the error log generated during 

the receipt of materials, which documents packaging errors by school. 

The annual progress report will review and identify areas of the program that require 

special attention. As such, it will be a working document for implementing changes for 

the succeeding administration. This report will be based on information gathered by our 

project management staff as the program moves forward. The summary will address all 

test administration issues. 

The STAR DPLT management team will be the primary author of the annual progress 

report. The report will include information from: 

♦ Monthly annual reports 

♦ Customer satisfaction surveys 

♦ Error logs from materials distribution to districts 

13 



Grades 2 through 11

♦ Administrator comment forms 

♦ Missing materials reports 

14 


Attachment 1 


We will provide reports that list discrepancies from established procedures and the 

causes for those discrepancies. This report will also include recommendations for 

improvement to procedures, plans, and activities for subsequent administrations. 

C. Management Meetings 

Harcourt program teams know the importance of frequent communication to accomplish 

the ambitious goals of a program like the STAR DPLT. Effective collaboration requires 

productive meetings. Whether in person or through video- or teleconferencing, 

Harcourt’s management team for all elements of program planning, development, and 

administration knows the critical value that effective meetings afford, and is highly 

skilled in facilitating these meetings. As a management tool, Harcourt’s STAR DPLT 

management team will coordinate bi-monthly management meetings with the CDE staff 

by telephone, videoconference. In addition, the STAR DPLT management team and 

others on the Harcourt STAR DPLT team will, as needed, attend quarterly management 

meetings at CDE headquarters in Sacramento to review and discuss program 

implementation and status. 

Harcourt’s STAR DPLT management team will work closely with counterparts at CDE to 

ensure the focus of each management meeting is appropriate given where the project is 

in its yearly cycle and that the proper Harcourt team members are prepared to 

participate. Early management meetings will focus on ensuring all transition activities 

are clearly understood by all parties and CDE preferences for meeting conduct and 

minutes are established. Subsequent meetings would focus on items such as a 

successful review of items and forms, followed by planning for print and production, 

workshop preparations, test administration, and scoring and reporting. Prior to each 

meeting, Mr. Cernohous will collaborate with CDE to identify topics and lay out a draft 

agenda for CDE to review in advance. 

Our team members are accustomed 

to successfully facilitating a variety of 

meetings, and while doing so they will 

adhere to a set of standard meeting 

guidelines outlined in Table 2 in order 

to conduct a timely and effective 

meeting. 

At one of the early management 

meetings, the project manager will 

work with CDE on the preferred 

general format and content guidelines 

for the meeting agendas. For 

Table 2. Harcourt’s Meeting Guidelines 

Start the meeting on time 

Conduct an introduction 

Record a list of all participants that includes institutional 

affiliation and contact information 

Describe the ground rules for the general conduct of the 

meeting 

Keep the meeting on target 

Discuss one topic at a time 

Ensure that decisions and action items are captured in the 

minutes (with owners and due dates assigned) 

example, an agenda item for each meeting would include a review of the previous 



Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


meeting’s minutes and status of action items. Every meeting agenda will also include 

time for each participant to report any critical news about the program. 

Effective bi-monthly management meetings will help us ensure that we achieve our 

goals: 

♦ Effectively managing project personnel and tasks 

♦ Ensuring adherence to project schedules and deadlines 

♦ Ensuring high-quality products and outcomes 

♦ Identifying potential problems early and seeking solutions immediately 

♦ Maintaining frequent communication with CDE 

♦ Monitoring and controlling project expenditures 

D. SBE Meetings and Technical Meetings 

The California State Board of Education (SBE) and technical testing advisors play a 

critical role in making important decisions that affect the education of the students of 

California. Harcourt and the STAR DPLT management team will be readily available to 

fully support the CDE when meeting with these groups by providing comprehensive 

periodic reports, both oral and written. In addition, Harcourt’s staff is eager to be 

actively involved in the SBE and Technical meetings and has planned to attend up to six 

of the meetings for the program held in Sacramento, California. Harcourt's cost proposal 

includes costs for sending two San Antonio Harcourt personnel to a total of six SBE 

and/or Technical Meetings per year. These personnel would be content experts, 

psychometricians, or other assessment specialists, as determined by CDE's and SBE's 

needs. If CDE and SBE determine that these type of personnel are required for less 

than six SBE and/or Technical Meetings per year, Harcourt will remove some or all of 

these costs from its cost proposal. 

Mr. Cernohous will take the lead in informing and coordinating the attendance of all SBE 

and technical meeting members needed from relevant Harcourt departments. 

We know from long experience that CDE will have many constituencies to please and 

inform when fielding an assessment program like STAR DPLT. Harcourt’s commitment 

is to be nothing less than a trusted advisor that CDE can rely on for support and counsel 

about all aspects of the program in interactions with these constituents. 

E. Records and Minutes 

All Harcourt’s program team members recognize the importance of capturing decisions, 

action items and notes from all program-related meetings in a complex assessment 

program like STAR DPLT. Mr. Cernohous will take the lead in ensuring that the 

appropriate team members capture effective notes for all meetings for the program that 

include, but are not limited to: 

♦ Item reviews 

♦ Managements meetings 

♦ Technical advisory groups 

15 



Grades 2 through 11

16 


Attachment 1 


Our STAR DPLT team members are accustomed to successfully facilitating a variety of 

meetings and capturing useful notes 

while doing so. Our STAR DPLT 

team members will adhere to the 

general meeting minutes/summary 

notes guidelines outlined in Table 3 in 

order to properly capture minutes for 

each meeting. 

The management team will discuss 

with CDE appropriate meeting minute 

formats and guidelines that are 

acceptable and meet the CDE 

standards. 

A major area of focus for the management team will be to ensure that decisions and 

action items from each meeting are captured effectively. As a matter of course, project 

decisions will be memorialized in meeting minutes and transferred into appropriate 

planning documents. General project decisions will be captured in the overall program 

plan for the STAR DPLT program. Print and production decisions will be captured in the 

STAR DPLT production specifications and scoring and reporting decisions will be noted 

in the scoring and reporting specifications. 

Harcourt’s preferred procedure for action items is to maintain an action item log which is 

incorporated as part of a weekly management update to our client. This provides 

maximum visibility to all parties on the status of each actionable item. Naturally, 

Harcourt will work closely with CDE on its preferences for the maintenance of action 

items. 

Mr. Cernohous will ensure that all meeting minutes and records of participants are 

submitted to CDE within ten working days of every meeting. The records of participants 

will be submitted in an electronic Excel spreadsheet using a format approved by CDE. 

F. Reports 

Table 3. Harcourt’s Meeting Minutes Guidelines 

Use the agenda as an outline for the meeting minutes. 

Record the name, the time and date, the location, the 

attendees, and the sponsor or leader of the meeting. 

Do not try to keep up with recording every comment made 

during the meeting. 

Record information, not emotions. 

Record decisions, important issues, and action items (and 

capture owners and due dates). 

Be professional both in style and content. Write as if the 

CEO of the company is going to read the minutes. 

Circulate the minutes among attendees prior to publishing. 

Harcourt’s program management team always strives to exceed our customer’s 

expectations for program documentation and they appreciate the importance of clear, 

consistent program documentation. Mr. Cernohous will work closely with key STAR 

DPLT team members to ensure that all reports submitted will include the full text and 

appendices containing all relevant tabularized materials. All the versions of the reports 

and all electronic deliverables will be provided in both a PC-compatible format and a 

PDF version suitable for Web posting. Data files for the program will be delivered as 

tab-delimited text files with an accompanying text file layout indicating column or field 

names and brief descriptions. Harcourt will also submit a standard word processing 

original of documents and standard spreadsheets for any tables or technical 

appendices. 



Grades 2 through 11

17 


Attachment 1 


Mr. Cernohous and every member of the team will work in diligent cooperation with 

CDE to ensure that all reports for the STAR DPLT program will conform to professional 

standards for writing. The management team is familiar with the guidelines set forth in 

the Style Manual for the California Department of Education (CDE Press, 2002) and the 

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (Fifth Edition, 2001), and 

will work with CDE to determine the applicable guidelines for each document. 

G. CDE Ownership of Materials 

See contract conditions. 

H. CDE Approval Schedule 

Harcourt’s detailed narrative schedule and project plan fully accounts for CDE’s 

timelines for approval. CDE has been charged by the state of California to manage the 

implementation of a successful program that meets the needs of all stakeholders and 

complies with the intent of the education code. In support of CDE, Harcourt will 

♦ Not disseminate any information or materials regarding the STAR DPLT 

without written approval from CDE 

♦ Provide CDE sufficient review time for all materials and any modifications 

to those materials 

♦ Allow a minimum of ten days for CDE review and approval of all 

submissions 

♦ Make all CDE-required modifications within three working days 

♦ Allow CDE three working days to review all modifications. 

In fact, Harcourt’s philosophy for successful implementation of any assessment program 

encompasses the need for constant communication, full understanding of program 

requirements, and total approval by CDE of all deliverables and schedules. 

I. Transition 

Harcourt will work with CDE in coordinating the transition from administering the STAR 

DPLT to administering the STS so that the STAR DPLT for a grade will be eliminated 

when the STS for that grade is available for operational testing. Harcourt will administer 

the STAR DPLT to grades 2 through 11 in 2005-06; grades 3 through 11 in 2006-07; 

and grades 4 through 11 in 2007-08. This transition schedule is reflected in the 

schedule located in Section A. Narrative Schedule on page 8. 

If another contractor is selected for the implementation of the custom STS, Harcourt will 

work with CDE and the new contractor to ensure the LEAs are fully supported in their 

understandings and their ability to administer and return materials to multiple locations. 



Grades 2 through 11

3.2. Component Task 2—Program Support Services 

Responsive, fully staffed 

call center to meet 

district and state needs. 

18 


Attachment 1 


Successful implementation of the STAR DPLT requires CDE control and contractor 

response. Therefore, no materials or deliverables will never be disseminated by 

Harcourt without prior CDE approval—and Harcourt will provide CDE all required 

support to ensure the success of the STAR DPLT program. 

A. Help Desk 

California Customer Support Center 

Harcourt understands that providing excellent customer service for the state and district 

personnel is of the utmost importance to the STAR DPLT program. When California 

schools and districts receive the information they need in a timely manner, it results in a 

better STAR DPLT assessment program. To ensure excellent customer service 

Harcourt’s Customer Support Center (CSC) is dedicated to providing the highest level of 

customer service to the STAR DPLT personnel. This CSC team will assist STAR DPLT 

customers as needed by fax, telephone, and email Monday through Friday between 

7:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time. As part of the CSC’s commitment to 

providing the highest level of customer support, all customer inquiries will receive a 

response within 24 hours of receipt. Email has proven to be a highly effective way to 

communicate and accommodate customer needs, and will play a significant role within 

the customer support structure. Additionally, the CSC staff will follow up any email 

responses with a telephone call as necessary to ensure effective and immediate 

communication. 

The CSC will be managed by Mr. Ric Jimenez. Mr. Jimenez possesses extensive 

management experience in call center operations and 

customer service with large corporations such as SBC 

Communications and Cingular Wireless customer operations 

groups. Utilizing his experience, Mr. Jimenez will ensure that 

the Harcourt CSC is adequately staffed with personnel who 

have expert knowledge regarding the details of the STAR DPLT assessment programs, 

and are capable of answering a wide range of customer inquiries, including questions 

on ordering, receiving, and shipping test materials; using the Harcourt Spectrum preidentification 

service; using the electronic scoring template; and downloading 

administrative and interpretative materials from the STAR DPLT website. 

The CSC will work closely with the California management team to quickly respond to 

and resolve issues that are unique to particular districts. The CSC’s primary 

responsibilities are: 

♦ Verifying delivery status of materials orders, test dates, and return 

shipment information 

♦ Responding to test coordinators’ questions about student pre-identification 

procedures, deliveries, test administration, packaging, and returning 

materials 



Grades 2 through 11

CSC Structure 


Attachment 1 


♦ Notifying STAR DPLT test coordinators about any changes in delivery 

schedules 

♦ Monitoring return of materials from districts 

♦ Monitoring delivery of reports 

♦ Assisting STAR DPLT test coordinators with report interpretation 

The CSC will provide an 

immediate customer support 

system through a tiered 

layer approach. See Exhibit 

1. The CSC will consist of 

three tiers made up of 

program specialists in tier 1, 

program coordinators in tier 

2, and a CSC team lead in 

tier 3, all under the 

management of, 

Mr. Jimenez. 

Procedures to Log, 

Document, and 

Summarize Comments 

Each call that is answered 

by the CSC will be logged 

and documented within an 

internal customer relationship management system (CRM). The CRM system is a realtime 

database platform that will assist CSC staff in documenting and updating customer 

call records. The CRM system will store historical call records, allow for reporting by 

call type, and a CSC staff member will be associated with each call record. This system 

will also store contact and mailing information, categorize call types, and track follow-up 

calls if needed. An electronic version of the log will be sent to CDE with ten days prior 

notice. 

Benefits to the STAR DPLT program: 

Customer Support Center 


Cross-trained staff 

Tier 1: 3 Program Specialists 

Tier 2: 1 Program Coordinator 

Tier 3: 1 CSC Team Lead 

Exhibit 1. Three-Tier Customer Support Center 

The CSC will provide an immediate customer support system through a 

tiered layer approach. 

♦ Assigns accountability to each call 

♦ Provides a detailed history of call types and issues received 

♦ Allows analyses of various call types for creating “Frequently Asked 

Questions Guide” 

♦ Provides indirect evaluation of STAR DPLT test administration manuals 

19 

Managment Team 


Overflow Staff 

Cross-trained staff 

Tier 1: 4 Program Specialists 

Tier 2: 15 Program Coordinators 

Tier 3: 3 CSC Team Leads 



Grades 2 through 11

Development of Scripts and Frequently Asked Questions Guide 

20 


Attachment 1 


To ensure consistency for each call received, CSC management will be responsible for 

working with CDE to develop customized telephone scripts and referral guides for the 

CSC staff. Analysis of program requirements will be conducted to determine possible 

questions about the STAR DPLT testing activities in order to develop accurate and 

thorough scripts. The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Guide will be developed 

referencing the administration and interpretation manuals. The scripts and guide will be 

available electronically for CDE to review and approve before being used by the CSC 

staff. 

As an added level of customer service the FAQ Guide will be available for customers to 

view. This self-help document can be integrated into either the CDE website or within 

the Harcourt Spectrum web platform. This functionality will provide an immediate 

resource for customers to utilize in resolving common questions regarding the STAR 

DPLT. 

Quarterly CSC Reports 

For quality assurance, a quarterly CSC report on call performance will be provided to 

the CDE. The following report is a sample of the CSC’s weekly performance update. 

CSC metrics presented in the report include the following: 

♦ Inbound Calls—Total number of calls received for a given period of time 

♦ Percent Accessibility—The percent of inbound calls that were answered 

for a given period of time 

♦ Average Speed of Answer (ASA)—The average amount of time in 

seconds that it takes to answer calls for a given time period 

♦ Average Handle Time(AHT)—The average amount of time in seconds 

that it takes to handle a call from beginning to end 

The metrics captured (see Exhibit 2) provide visibility into several key areas impacting 

quality of service to our STAR DPLT customers and help to answer the following 

questions: 

♦ How many STAR DPLT customers needed customer support? 

♦ How many received assistance? 

♦ How long did it take to answer their calls? 

♦ How long did it take to provide customer support? 



Grades 2 through 11

21 


Attachment 1 


Exhibit 2. Sample Quarterly CSC Report 

The metrics captured provide visibility into several key areas impacting quality of service to our STAR 

DPLT customers. 



Grades 2 through 11

22 


Attachment 1 


B. Collection and Monitoring of Information 

In order to develop a complete and accurate database of all California STAR DPLT test 

coordinators and allow district coordinators (STAR DPLT Coordinators) to update 

information any time throughout the school year, Harcourt has outlined a data collection 

plan that details the initial methods of collection and verification for quality control: 1) 

Harcourt Spectrum; 2) Telephone/email survey; 3) Monthly CDE report; and 4) Security 

Agreement Collection. Harcourt recommends that during the initial planning stage of 

the STAR DPLT program, the STAR DPLT management team discuss Harcourt’s STAR 

DPLT coordinator information collection plan with CDE and customize the data 

collection method that works best for the STAR DPLT district coordinators. Harcourt will 

contact all districts to determine each district's STAR DPLT coordinator and the district’s 

internet capability for utilizing Spectrum. Harcourt will gather the needed information 

regarding technology. CDE will provide information on Charter Schools’ testing status 

to Harcourt. 

Harcourt Spectrum 

For the initial and primary data collection, Harcourt proposes the use of our versatile 

customer web portal, Harcourt Spectrum, allowing authorized STAR DPLT Coordinators 

to access, review, and update all of the following information: 

♦ Last name 

♦ First name 

♦ Job title 

♦ Affiliation 

♦ Work address 

♦ Work phone 

♦ Work email 

♦ County and district code 

♦ Enrollment 

♦ Information about security agreement completion/transmission 

Harcourt Spectrum is a web-native custom portal solution that brings together 

personalized real-time information regarding student data, enrollment data, tracking of 

orders and shipments, scoring status, and scoring alerts. 

Telephone Survey 

As a second data collection method, Harcourt proposes a conventional email or 

telephone survey for verification of the STAR DPLT coordinators contact information 

conducted by a program specialist out of the STAR DPLT CSC. This method will be 

used for any districts that are unable to update the information via the website. All initial 

information noted above for collection via Harcourt Spectrum will be verified by skilled 

Harcourt staff in sufficient time to make all arrangements for the delivery of the materials 

to school districts. STAR DPLT coordinators will be provided with instructions for 



Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


returning enrollment and contact information via email attachments (usually MS Excel 

files). For those STAR DPLT coordinators unable to return data via email, trained 

STAR DPLT staff will collect information via the telephone. The survey process will also 

serve to remind each STAR DPLT coordinator about the procedures for completing and 

returning the security agreement. 

Annual Survey of Charter Schools 

In addition to verifying contact information, the CSC program specialists will conduct an 

annual survey of all charter schools to determine their STAR DPLT administration 

status: independent or dependent. The CSC will follow up with charter schools that 

open during the school year in order to determine their status as well. 

Monthly CDE Report 

Harcourt’s STAR DPLT management team, in collaboration with the CSC, will provide 

CDE with a STAR DPLT district coordinator contact list in an electronic Excel 

spreadsheet using a format approved by CDE. In addition, the STAR DPLT 

management team will ensure that the list is posted on the CDE website or on a secure 

website or server for viewing by other STAR DPLT district coordinators. 

Security Agreement Collection 

The CSC program specialist and the STAR DPLT management team will ensure that a 

signed test security agreement is on file for each STAR DPLT Coordinator. Harcourt 

understands the importance CDE places on the signed test security agreement and will 

not ship any test materials until this security agreement is received. 

Given CDE requires all test coordinators to sign a non-disclosure security agreement 

before administering the DPLT, Harcourt will print a copy of that form in the test 

coordinator handbook. The handbook will direct the coordinators to sign and fax the 

form to a toll free number at Harcourt. Harcourt will collect the forms. 

C. Terminology 

Harcourt fully understands the issues district personnel encounter when administering 

different components of a testing program and interfacing with multiple contractors. In 

the initial planning meeting Mr. Cernohous will collect all current STAR materials 

available from CDE. Harcourt will develop an internal glossary and style guide for the 

STAR DPLT to ensure consistency of terminology and of the look and feel of materials, 

where appropriate, for the STAR DPLT program. 

D. Workshops 

STAR DPLT test administration requires that training workshops be developed and 

presented. These training sessions will be delivered by Harcourt’s professional 

development service consultants who fully understand the needs, topics, and purposes 

of each training event. Harcourt’s professional development services department has 

brought together top-notch training expertise and educational resources to offer these 

23 



Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


program support services. These workshops will support CDE in their efforts to 

introduce the STAR DPLT assessment procedures, scoring, and logistical plan to 

district and school-based assessment coordinators. 

Training for the transition between SABE and Aprenda will be provided specifically 

emphasizing differences in administration and results. The STAR DPLT Coordinators 

will also receive training specific to the utilization of Harcourt Spectrum. 

In the event a STAR test coordinator cannot attend one of the training workshops, 

Harcourt will make available to the coordinator, through the coordinator’s preferred way 

of communication, all the materials presented at the workshop. 

Staffing and Resources 

Harcourt offers its professional training consultant, Ms. Linda Alaniz, to lead the 

Harcourt team to manage and facilitate the development, delivery, communication, and 

evaluation of all training sessions delivered by Harcourt. Ms. Alaniz has thirty-four 

years experience in education and assessment which has included a focus on Englishas-a-Second-Language 

(ESL), including primary language, instruction, and 

assessment. Ms. Alaniz will provide the quality and knowledge that California expects. 

Ms. Alaniz has been integral in the development of the training component for ELL 

assessments at Harcourt. Some of the materials used in the teacher training sessions 

include PowerPoint presentations that can be made available for downloading from 

Harcourt’s STAR DPLT test coordinator’s website. 

Two additional professional development consultants, Ms. Vicky Mingus and 

Ms. Patricia DeForest will be available to assist Ms. Alaniz with developing and 

conducting the training sessions as needed. Ms. Mingus has over thirty-five years of 

experience in education and professional development. Ms. DeForest has fifteen years 

of experience designing and executing presentations from a regional-level training 

center perspective. These consultants bring an additional level of expertise to the 

STAR DPLT. 

Upon receiving CDE approval, Harcourt will provide the training materials designed 

specifically for test administrators and policymakers’ needs. 

Training Project Management 

Ms. Alaniz and the professional training staff will collaborate with CDE and Harcourt’s 

Mr. Cernohous in using project management best practices to deliver the California 

training requirements. These requirements are: 

♦ Professional Development Services (PDS) deliverables, such as all 

training materials and documents, resumes of professional development 

consultants, and the web-based training video will be part of the 

comprehensive plan and schedule for project deliverables and activities. 

These deliverables will become part of the CDE approval schedule. 

24 



Grades 2 through 11

25 


Attachment 1 


Harcourt is responsible for allowing sufficient time for CDE to review the 

materials and/or deliverables, and if necessary, for CDE to make 

modifications 

♦ Proposed plan and dates as 

determined in collaboration with 

CDE. 

These practices make certain that CDE has 

detailed, complete, and current knowledge of 

all activities that are occurring at any given 

time. The training plan reflects standard 

practices at Harcourt and has proven to meet 

the needs of our customers by providing the 

highest quality services. 

Communication and collaboration with CDE 

are critical factors in meeting the expectations 

for all test administration workshops. Each 

training system in the STAR DPLT will 

include the activities listed in Table 4. 

Harcourt will be responsible for all logistics 

and costs related to the workshops. Our 

assumptions are based on 11 regional 

workshops per year. 

We will collaborate with CDE to deliver the 

one-day training sessions at mutually agreed 

upon sites across the state of California. 

Table 5 provides a sample schedule for 

regional pre-test training workshops. 

Table 4. Training System Activities 

in the STAR DPLT 

Initial meeting with CDE to finalize training 

schedule 

Prepare agenda for planning meetings 

Submit agenda to CDE for approval 

Arrange for travel, accommodations, etc. for 

planning meeting 

Conduct planning meeting 

Submit minutes from planning meeting for 

approval 

Execute management plan 

Develop curriculum and materials 

Execute logistical plan 

Submit materials for approval 

Initiate composition, editing, and production of all 

materials 

Produce all materials 

Conduct workshops 

Issue certificates to participants 

Collect evaluation and feedback 

Submit evaluation summary 



Grades 2 through 11

Table 5. Sample Agenda 

CALIFORNIA STAR DESIGNATED PRIMARY LANGUAGE TEST 

Training for 2005-6 Test Administration 

[location] 

[city] 

[date] 

AGENDA 

8:30 Continental Breakfast and Registration 

9:00 Welcome and Opening Remarks 

Workshop Objectives 

9:15 Overview of the CA STAR DPLT Test 

10:00 BREAK 

10:15 Test Administration Procedures 

Test Security 

Preparation of Documents 

Successful Test-Taking Tips 

11:15 CA STAR DPLT Program Management Information 

• STAR DPLT Timelines 

• Handling of Materials 

• Scoring, Pre-Coding Procedures 

• Preparing Materials for Shipment 

12:15 Wrap Up 

12:30 End of Training 

26 


Attachment 1 


In addition to live, face-to-face training sessions, Harcourt can provide 

videoconferencing capabilities. Harcourt has videoconferencing facilities onsite in San 

Antonio, but if CDE prefers, we are willing to work with videoconferencing systems 

within the state of California. Harcourt will work alongside CDE IT personnel to resolve 

potential security or other technology-based issues associated with using other 

videoconferencing systems. Upon approval of CDE, a videoconference schedule with 

dates and locations will be developed. 

Announcements and confirmation forms will be mailed to the LEA testing directors. A 

registration form will be posted on the website that can be faxed or emailed back to 

Harcourt. A database of registered attendees will be developed which will provide signin 

sheets at the workshop, nametags, and the ability to print required certification of 

completion. 

Ms. Alaniz will direct, monitor, and ensure that the following activities are carried out: 

♦ Coordinate with program manager to determine training deliverables and 

schedule 

♦ Obtain approval for the training consultants and all training materials 

♦ Procure workshop sites, approved by CDE 

♦ Schedule videoconferences sites, approved by CDE 



Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


♦ Post training schedule on the website 

♦ Post registration form on the website 

♦ Develop a database for registered attendees 

♦ Notify and confirm registration of participants from each district 

♦ Prepare and produce workshop materials for participants 

♦ Register participants at the workshop site 

♦ Distribute materials at the workshop site 

♦ Coordinate with site staff prior to and during workshops 

♦ Provide certification of completion to attendees 

Harcourt has the capacity to change or add training components if requested to do so 

by CDE. 

Training Materials for STAR DPLT Trainings 

Harcourt’s development and production of training materials will be initiated by the 

professional development staff. The staff will work in collaboration with CDE to 

determine a complete outline of the content required in the training materials for each 

training workshop which will collectively give the STAR DPLT coordinators all the 

information needed. The training material that the professional development staff 

recommends producing for each training component of the professional development 

plan is included in Table 6. 

Training/Workshop 

Pre-Test 

Administration 

Workshop 

Table 6. Training for STAR DPLT Trainings 

Training Material Content 

Specifications 

• Overview of STAR DPLT 

content 

• Important dates 

• Test preparation 

• Test security 

• Test administration procedures 

• Preparation of answer 

documents 

• Handling of testing materials 

• Post-test activities 

• Preparing materials for 

shipment 

• Scoring, pre-coding services 

• Successful test-taking tips 

27 

Training Material 

Distribution 

Specifications 

Shipped annually in the 

following quantities: 

• One per person 

attending live training 

sessions 

Training Materials 

Delivery Method 

• Printed in a binder 

• Downloadable 

PowerPoint 

presentations and 

training documents 

posted on website 

• Videoconferencing 

capabilities at selected 

sites 

• Optional, web-based 

training video posted 

on website 



Grades 2 through 11

3.3. Component Task 3—Designated Primary Language Test 

Requirements 

28 


Attachment 1 


CDE requires a Spanish language test, aligned to the California academic content 

standards, which will provide valid, reliable scores for limited English proficient students 

in grades 2 through 11. This assessment will allow Spanish-speaking LEP students to 

demonstrate achievement in reading, spelling, written expression, and mathematics and 

must comply with the Education Code requirements for the STAR program. 

Aprenda ® , La prueba de logros en español, Tercera edición (Aprenda 3), will meet the 

requirement needs of CDE. Aprenda 3, Harcourt’s premier norm-referenced Spanish 

assessment, was developed in Spanish to build upon the strengths of the previous 

editions of this series and to expand upon those strengths to best measure students’ 

academic abilities. Each of the Aprenda 3 subtests was carefully constructed to fully 

assess a given subject area. Its innovative format and the fact that it was normed as an 

untimed test ensure that Aprenda 3 will engage students and keep them focused. 

Aprenda 3 meets CDE’s requirements with the following features: 

♦ Built on a tradition of assessment in Spanish that began in the 1970s 

♦ Linked to Aprenda 2 and Stanford 10 

♦ Reflects current state and national standards 

♦ As evidenced by the alignment study provided, beginning on page 48, 

Aprenda 3 is aligned to California State Standards so the information on 

the assessment reflects the curriculum taught in California classrooms 

♦ Normed in spring and fall of 2004, offering the most current norms 

available 

♦ Normed in an untimed format, allowing for the inclusion of more Spanishspeaking 

students than any other norm-referenced test in Spanish on the 

market 

♦ Produced in a four-color design, increasing student motivation to remain 

engaged throughout the test 

♦ Designed for ease of movement through the assessment and answer 

documents 

♦ Designed to provide accessible results through engaging color reports that 

are meaningful to the classroom environment 

♦ Available in Braille and large print 

A. Contact Person 

As the Program Manager, Mr. Cernohous 

will be responsible for the planning of 

contract execution through delivering of 

services and assessment products. He 

will also manage the scope of the project 

while interfacing with management team 

Table 7. Mr. Cernohous’ Contact Information 

Address: 19500 Bulverde Road 

San Antonio, Texas 78259 

Office Telephone: 210-339-5432 

Mobile Telephone: 210-392-1216 

Fax: 210-339-5986 



Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


members. He will work hand-in-hand with the CDE and is the direct contact for all 

information regarding the STAR DPLT and channelling CDE’s expectations to all 

management team members for execution, delivery, reporting, and ensuring quality 

control. See Table 7 for Mr. Cernohous’s contact information. 

B. General Information about the Proposed STAR DPLT 

Harcourt is proposing the Aprenda 3 

complete battery to be used as the STAR 

DPLT solution for California. Aprenda 3 is 

available for the assessment of 

mathematics, reading, language and 

spelling for grades 2 through 12. A 

description of Aprenda 3 as Harcourt’s 

solution for the STAR DPLT is provided in 

Table 8. 

C. Number of Test Questions 

Copyright Year 2004 

Table 9 is a scope and sequence which 

provides, by grade and content area, the numbers of test questions and recommended 

working time. Harcourt is proud to be the first publisher to offer an untimed normreferenced 

test based on the concepts of universal design. Administration time is one 

of the more challenging difficulties to overcome when applying universal design to 

norm-referenced tests. Harcourt has overcome this challenge. Aprenda 3 provides 

CDE with an assessment solution that includes norm-referenced data and allows all 

students to work productively for as long as they need during the testing sessions. 

29 

Table 8. Description of the Proposed Test 

Title Aprenda ® , La prueba de logros 

en español, Tercera edición 

Acronym Aprenda 3 

Edition Third 

Content Areas Language Arts and 

Mathematics 

Form Form A 

Norm Year 2004 



Grades 2 through 11

Test Levels/Niveles 

de Prueba 

Sounds and Letters 

(Sonidos y Letras) 

Word Reading 

(Lectura de 

Palabras) 

Sentence Reading 

(Lectura de 

Oraciones) 

Reading Vocabulary 

(Vocabulario) 

Reading 

Comprehension 

(Comprensión de 

Lectura) 

Total Reading (Total 

Lectura) 

Mathematics 

(Matemáticas) 

Mathematics 

Problem Solving 

(Matemáticas: 

Resolución de 

Problemas) 

Mathematics 

Procedures 

(Matemáticas: 

Procedimientos) 

Total Mathematics 

(Total Matemáticas) 

Language 

(Lenguaje) 

C. SCOPE OF WORK 

Table 9. Aprenda 3 Scope and Sequence, Complete Battery Select (Batería Completa Selecta) 

Test Levels, Recommended Grade Ranges, Tests, and Administration Times 

30 


Grades 2 through 11 


Attachment 1 


P2 P3 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 A1 A2 

Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade 

2.5-3.5 3.5-4.5 4.5-5.5 5.5-6.5 6.5-7.5 7.5-8.5 8.5-9.5 9.0-9.9 10.0-12.9 

K T K T K T K T K T K T K T K T K T 

30 20 30 20 30 20 30 20 30 20 30 20 30 20 30 20 30 20 

40 40 54 50 54 50 54 50 54 50 54 50 54 50 54 40 54 40 

70 60 84 70 84 70 84 70 84 70 84 70 84 70 84 60 84 60 

44 50 46 50 48 50 48 50 48 50 48 50 48 50 

30 30 30 30 32 30 32 30 32 30 32 30 32 30 

74 80 76 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 

50 50 50 50 

48 45 48 45 48 45 48 45 48 45 48 45 48 45 48 40 48 40

31 





Attachment 1 


P2 P3 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 A1 A2 

Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade 

2.5-3.5 3.5-4.5 4.5-5.5 5.5-6.5 6.5-7.5 7.5-8.5 8.5-9.5 9.0-9.9 10.0-12.9 

Spelling (Ortografía) 36 30 38 35 40 35 40 35 40 35 40 35 40 35 40 30 40 30 

Complete Battery 

Select (Batería 

Completa Selecta) 

Total Testing Time 

(Tiempo Total de 

Prueba) 

228 215 246 230 252 230 252 230 252 230 252 230 252 230 222 180 222 180 

3 hrs. 

35 min. 

K = No. of Items (Numero Total de Preguntas) 

T = Time in Minutes (Tiempo en Minutos) 

3 hrs. 

50 min. 

3 hrs. 

50 min. 

3 hrs. 

50 min 

3 hrs. 

50 min. 

3 hrs. 

50 min. 

3 hrs. 

50 min. 

3 hrs. 3 hrs.


D. Availability of Test Forms and Results 

32 


Attachment 1 


The proposed Aprenda 3 form has not been distributed for use by any school or LEA in 

California. Contact information for districts which use Aprenda 3 are provided in 

Table 10. 

Dr. Edward M. Gilliland 

Student Assessment Bureau 

New Mexico Public Education Department 

300 Don Gaspar Avenue 

Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786 

Telephone: (505) 827-6631 

Fax: (505) 827-6590 

Ms. Sara Arispe 

Coordinator of Assessment and Accountability 

Fort Worth ISD 

1407 IM Terrell Circle South 

Ft. Worth, Texas 76102 

Telephone: (817) 871-2414 

Email: sairs@ftwortrh.isd.tenet.edu 

E. Replacement Items 

Table 10. Aprenda 3 Users 

Mr. David Guetzow, 

Supervisor Student Assessment 

Houston Independent School District - Test Materials Center 

5827 Chimney Rock 

Houston, Texas 77081 

Telephone: (713) 349-7460 

Fax: (713) 349-7461 

Email: dguetzow@houstonisd.org 

As part of the Aprenda 3 development process, Harcourt established procedures to 

eliminate testing bias during all stages of test development, including the way the items 

were constructed, the item review procedures, and the statistical analyses associated 

with the National and International Item Tryout and Standardization Research 

Programs. As part of this review process, Harcourt convened a Bias and Sensitivity 

Advisory Review Panel of experts in Latino/Hispanic cultures, usage of the Spanish 

language in different countries, bilingual/bicultural studies, ESL educators, and other 

sensitivity considerations related with ethnicity and disabilities. This panel conducted a 

thorough bias and sensitivity review of all items in the test. Each panel member flagged 

items they considered could have any kind of bias, including regional language bias, or 

that could disadvantage any group of students. Flagged items were evaluated by 

Harcourt test development experts and excluded from the test if considered appropriate. 

Harcourt also performed a statistical bias analysis of the items according to Mantel- 

Haenszel procedures, which examine differential item functioning between reference 

and focal groups in order to eliminate bias between males and females. We have taken 

great measures to ensure that Aprenda 3 uses only standard Spanish that is free of any 

kind of bias, including race, gender, disability, socio-economic status, cultural or 

regional bias, or stereotyping and that all Spanish-speaking students can understand. 

Panel reviews and statistical analysis, together with Harcourt expert evaluation of all 

Aprenda 3 items ensure that Aprenda 3 is completely free from any sensitivity issue that 


Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


may create unwarranted discomfort, uneasiness, or stress among any group of students 

taking the test. 

For the purpose of satisfying the requirement from California to have replacement items 

in case the SPAR panel rejects any item in the test, Harcourt 

has an Aprenda 3 Item Bank with over 1,500 items in grades 

2–11 that can be readily used in Aprenda 3 Form A. 

California can replace up to 4 items in a particular subtest at 

a specific level and still maintain the integrity of the norms for Aprenda 3. 

33 

More than 1,500 

replacement items are 

available. 

If the SPAR Panel makes the decision to replace an item, Harcourt will take the 

following steps: 

• A few replacement items, that have been approved by SPAR and which 

match the content and psychometric characteristics of the deleted item will be 

selected by Harcourt test developers from the Aprenda 3 Item Bank and 

presented to the CDE for approval. 

• After the CDE/SPAR approves the replacement item, the new test form will be 

composed, reviewed, and printed. 

• Harcourt psychometrics group will rescale the base items and the new item 

together and create a new raw score to scaled score table. This table will be 

reloaded into the Aprenda 3 scoring system. It is this table that will allow us to 

access the Aprenda 3 norms. 

• The CDE has the choice to decide whether or not to include the replacement 

item as part of the reporting on the normative information. 

• If the CDE decides to include the item in the normative scores, our 

psychometrics group will post-equating of the two forms (Form A and Form A 

Prime). This will be done using a sample of 2000 student responses from the 

first operational administration in California. The cases would be entered as 

they are received at Harcourt so no delay in the delivery of score reports is 

expected to occur. 

• If the CDE decides not to include the replacement item in the normative 

scores, the equating of forms (Form A and Form A Prime) can be done as 

soon as the decision on replacement of the item is made by the CDE and the 

new form is printed. 

F. Test Development and Technical Manual 

The current edition of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing 

(American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological 

Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999) provides the 

most authoritative consensus of opinion on the meaning of validity in the field: 

Validity refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of 

test scores entailed in the use of tests … [and] is, therefore, the most fundamental 

consideration in developing and evaluating tests. (p. 9) 



Grades 2 through 11

34 


Attachment 1 


Harcourt psychometricians and test development experts are aware of the evolution of 

the concept of validity and have reviewed the earliest conceptualization from Lindquist 

(1942), Gulliksen (1950), Cronbach and Meehl (1955), Ebel (1961) through Guion 

(1980), and all the various editions of the Standards for Educational and Psychological 

Testing. Harcourt has also looked at the movement toward an integrated view of 

validity (Messick, 1989) and ongoing discussions. 

Harcourt’s definition of validity is based on the Standards for Educational and 

Psychological Testing. Hence, Harcourt views validity as an integrated and unifying 

concept as it relates to the development and evaluation of Aprenda 3. This view calls 

for descriptions of validity evidence that in the past would have been characterized as 

types of validity, e.g., content validity, criterion-related validity, or construct validity. This 

view also calls for evidence based on the consequences of test use and interpretation. 

Aprenda 3 supports the 24 validity-related standards (1.1 through 1.24) set forth in the 

Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Harcourt’s judgments about test 

validity are based primarily on the following sources of evidence of validity: 

♦ Test content 

♦ Response processes 

♦ Internal structure 

♦ Relationships to other variables 

♦ Convergent and discriminant analysis 

♦ Test criterion relationships 

♦ Consequences of testing 

According to Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, evidence of validity 

can be based on test content, i.e., “…an analysis of the relationship between a test’s 

content and the construct it is intended to measure” (p. 11); on response processes, i.e., 

“…the fit between the construct and the detailed nature of performance or response 

actually engaged in by examinees” (p. 12); on internal structure, i.e., “…the degree to 

which the relationships among test items and test components conform to the construct 

on which the proposed test score interpretations are based” (p. 13); on relationships to 

other variables, i.e., “Analyses of the relationship of test scores to variables external to 

the test…” (p. 13); and on consequences of testing, i.e., “…the incorporation of the 

intended and unintended consequences of test use…” (p. 16). The standards further 

state “…the validity of an intended interpretation of test scores relies on all the available 

evidence relevant to the technical quality of a testing system” (p. 17). 

Harcourt has integrated the various types of evidence of validity into a framework that 

supports the intended interpretation of Aprenda 3 test scores for specific uses. This 

framework encompasses evidence from previous studies as well as new Aprenda 3related 

studies. As Harcourt continues to study and document evidence of validity, the 

information may be used to identify areas needing further study, redefine directions for 

administering tests, or revise constructs. 



Grades 2 through 11

35 


Attachment 1 


The team responsible for developing Aprenda 3 has over 100 years of combined 

experience in classroom teaching and educational product development. The design of 

Aprenda 3 is evidence of Harcourt’s commitment to build tests that are engaging and 

compelling to all students. It was designed to motivate students while providing an 

accurate measure of their abilities. 

The Spanish-speaking subject-area professionals who developed Aprenda 3 are former 

teachers with intimate knowledge of effective teaching practices, curriculum theory, 

learning theory, and best test development practices. Partnering with the developers, 

our experienced staff of psychometricians and statisticians applied their expertise in 

conducting norming, scaling, and equating research studies to Aprenda 3 to ensure that 

it is the very best achievement 

test available. 

Aprenda 3 is the latest example of Harcourt’s national 

leadership and innovation in large-scale assessment. It is 

the third edition of the prestigious Aprenda norm-referenced 

test, which is parallel to but not a translation of Harcourt’s 

premier achievement test in English, the Stanford 

Third edition of Aprenda 

provides a solid solution 

for the STAR DPLT. 

Achievement Test Series, Tenth Edition (Stanford 10). The Stanford series has been 

providing valid, reliable test results for millions of students in American schools since 

the 1920s, and the Aprenda series has been a reliant source of test results for Spanishspeaking 

students since the 1970s. 



Grades 2 through 11

Harcourt used a common-person model to 

equate Aprenda 2 and Aprenda 3 as part 

of our national standardization research 

program. The Rasch Model was used to 

develop the scales for Aprenda 2 and for 

Aprenda 3. The Aprenda 2 and the 

Stanford 10 test blueprints were 

fundamental in the creation of Aprenda 3. 

Care was taken to preserve everything in 

the test blueprint that is relevant to the 

current consensus of what constitutes a 

valid educational curriculum. 

To ensure valid norm-referenced results, 

Aprenda 3 content was selected to 

represent an appropriate sample of the 

skills, knowledge, and understanding that 

are the goals of instruction for a national 

consensus curriculum following the highest 

standards of the content used on Stanford 

10. See Exhibit 3 for sample mathematics 

problem solving items. 

The construction of the Aprenda 3 

achievement battery began with 

36 


Attachment 1 


comprehensive reviews and careful analyses of the most recent editions of the major 

textbook series in every subject area both in Spanish and English, the most recent state 

and district school curricula and educational objectives, state content standards and 

ELL-EDL standards, and the trends and directions established by national professional 

organizations, including the International Reading Association, the National Council of 

Teachers of English and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 

On the basis of these reviews and analyses, test blueprints were created. These test 

blueprints address the content to be assessed at each grade level. The blueprint for 

each content area outlines the topics that are covered, the instructional objectives 

associated with each topic, and the proportion of test content devoted to each topic. 

After blueprints were completed, they were reviewed and revised by Harcourt’s 

Spanish-speaking editorial staff and distinguished Spanish-speaking content area 

professionals throughout the nation. 

1 Exhibit 3 is proprietary and confidential. 

Exhibit 3. Sample of Aprenda 3 Mathematics 

Problem Solving Items 1 

A clear, easy-to-follow design helps students work 

through the test. 



Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


♦ The Reading Comprehension subtest assesses and reports student 

achievement using three types of reading material: literary, information, 

and functional. Engaging art and authored passages were first used in the 

Aprenda 2 Reading Comprehension subtest, and we continued this 

practice in Aprenda 3. 

♦ Aprenda 3 uses the easy-hard-easy item arrangement of Aprenda 2. That 

is, hard items are often cushioned between two easy items so that 

students do not become discouraged by difficult items and become 

disengaged from the test. 

♦ Aprenda 3 uses enhanced multiple-choice items. These items are 

distinguished by four characteristics: 

• They are framed within situations that replicate those in the classroom 

or in real life. 

• They give teachers information about process as well as product. That 

is, they measure the strategies or processes that largely define the 

“doing” of the discipline. 

• They elicit actual performance from a student. 

• They integrate process with knowledge to assess a collection of 

information rather than a discrete fact. 

Enhanced multiple-choice items on the Reading Comprehension subtest probe 

students’ use of reading strategies to make inferences and draw conclusions. On the 

Mathematics subtests, enhanced multiple-choice items include problems that elicit 

mental problem-solving processes. These enhanced multiple-choice items require 

students to demonstrate how they perform mathematics to arrive at an answer. 

Fairness 

The primary and overarching purpose behind the development of Aprenda 3 was to 

provide an assessment system that accurately represents what a student knows and 

can do. This was possible only if each and every student to whom Aprenda 3 were 

administered was fully engaged, motivated, and given the opportunity to complete the 

test to the best of his or her ability. 

37 



Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


From making certain that content accurately represents what students are taught, to 

following procedures, to minimizing sources of bias in test items, to employing the 

statistical assessment of differential item functioning, Harcourt has diligently applied 

industry-standard procedures to the development of Aprenda 3. 

Reliability and Errors of Measurement 

The reliability of a test is reflected in evidence of test accuracy, precision, and 

consistency. Numeric indices provide quantified estimates of reliability. These indices 

may denote the consistency of scores as a form of correlation coefficient (coefficient 

alpha, alternate forms correlations, etc.) or as estimates of the amount of error in a 

given test score (standard error of measurement). 

Test reliability is an essential first condition to support validity but is not sufficient by 

itself. Reliability data must be used in conjunction with other sources of validity 

evidence. A test may demonstrate excellent reliability but show little validity for the 

intended use when other sources of validity evidence are reviewed. A test reporting 

lower reliability indices may demonstrate superior qualities from other sources of validity 

evidence. A test is validated by “the degree to which all the accumulated evidence 

supports the intended interpretation of test scores” (AERA, et al., 1999, p. 11). 

Indices of internal consistency and alternate-forms reliability as well as standard errors 

of measurement for Aprenda 3 are explained below. 

Internal Consistency 

The reliability coefficient that demonstrates internal consistency emphasizes the 

consistency of test performance from item to item. This is accomplished by subdividing 

a test into portions, typically halves, and correlating the scores from each portion. To 

overcome the possibility of non-equivalent portions, the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 

(KR20) is used to generate the KR20 reliability coefficient using the following formula: 

2 

⎛ n ⎞⎛ 

SD − ∑ ⎞ 

t piqi 

KR = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 

⎟ 

20 

2 

⎝ n −1⎠⎝ 

SDt 

⎠ 

where: 

n = the number of items in the test 

SDt = the standard deviation of the test scores 

pi = the proportion of correct item responses 

qi = the proportion of incorrect item responses 

This formula averages all possible half-test correlations. KR20 reliability coefficients are 

presented for each subtest across every grade level for the full-length and abbreviated 

formats of Aprenda 3 in the technical manual. These data were obtained from the 

spring and fall standardization samples. The KR20 reliability coefficients show that 

Aprenda 3 is reliable based on a high degree of internal consistency. 

38 



Grades 2 through 11

Classification Probabilities 

SEM = sx 1− 

rxx 

39 


Attachment 1 


Classification accuracy is the measure of agreement between the classification obtained 

from an assessment’s results and a hypothetical classification that would be obtained if 

all possible forms of the assessment could be administered to the student. 

Classification consistency is the measure of agreement between the classification 

obtained from an assessment’s results and the classification that would be obtained 

from a different form of the assessment of equivalent level and content. Our technical 

manual presents by assessment level and grade level the accuracy and consistency of 

the performance level boundaries for each subtest. 

Standard Error of Measurement 

A standard error of measurement (SEM) provides information regarding the degree to 

which chance fluctuation in test scores can be expected. An SEM represents 

inconsistencies occurring in repeated observations of obtained test scores around a 

student’s true test score, which is assumed according to classical test theory to remain 

constant across repeated measurements of the same trait. For example, an SEM of 3 

raw score units means that chance fluctuations within three points of the student’s ‘true’ 

test score can be expected roughly two-thirds of the time. 

The SEM values reported were calculated using the standard deviation of observed 

scores and the test reliability coefficient under the assumptions of classical test theory 

using the following formula: 

where: 

SEM = standard error of measurement 

sx = standard deviation of observed scores 

rxx = test reliability coefficient 

Conditional Standard Errors of Measurement 

The SEM value for a particular subtest and test level is not the same at all score levels; 

it is conditional upon the specific scaled score level. The SEM values at the top and 

bottom of the scaled score range for a given subtest and test level are typically larger 

than those near the middle of the range. This means that scores earned by students in 

the middle of the range are more accurate than scores that are at the high and low ends 

of the scaled score range. 



Grades 2 through 11

G. Purpose and Interpretation of Test Scores 

Aprenda 3 tests content 

that is instructionally 

relevant and valuable to 

measure. 

40 


Attachment 1 


The various types of scores that have been developed for Aprenda 3 have different 

uses and yield different kinds of information. Because the underlying properties of 

these scores are not necessarily the same, the particular score types to be used to 

interpret test results depend on the purpose for which the test was administered. 

Available scores include the following: 

♦ Raw scores 

♦ Scaled scores 

♦ Percentile ranks 

♦ Stanines 

♦ Grade equivalents 

♦ Normal curve equivalents 

♦ Achievement/ability comparisons 

♦ Group percentile ranks and stanines 

♦ Content cluster and process cluster performance categories 

♦ p-values 

♦ Performance standards 

H. Test Levels/Grade Levels 

Aprenda 3 is available for use as the STAR DPLT for grades 2 through 11, with options 

for LEAs who wish to test grades 1 and 12. Table 11 indicates levels (primary, 

intermediate, and advanced) and their appropriate grades. 

Table 11. Levels and Appropriate Grades 

Level P2 P3 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 A1 A2 

Grade 2.5–3.5 3.5–4.5 4.5–5.5 5.5–6.5 6.5–7.5 7.5–8.5 8.5–9.5 9.0–9.9 10–12.9 

I. Overall Quality of Test 

Test content is a critical indicator of validity for a nationally norm-referenced 

achievement test series. How well the test items represent the emphasis of subject 

matter and learning processes taught in the classroom is a vital element in judging the 

validity of test score interpretations. From the beginning of Aprenda 3 development, 

Harcourt staff conducted comprehensive reviews of current national instructional 

standards, state content standards and ELL-ELD standards, local curricula, and widelyused 

textbooks in Spanish and English to ensure that Aprenda 3 accurately reflected 

instruction and assessment practices in classrooms today. Harcourt staff also reviewed 

the literature on criteria for alignment of expectations, standards, and assessments. 

These extensive reviews aided Harcourt’s assessment 

specialists with their choices of content to include in 

Aprenda 3. Care was taken to develop test items that 



Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


assessed content which is important, both to teach and measure. Test items are further 

focused to reflect the specific constructs of each content domain. This was 

accomplished by writing test items to mirror instructional processes in classrooms by 

using vocabulary, to the extent possible, that is specific to the subject area, and by 

minimizing the amount of reading required to respond to test items in content domains 

other than reading. 

Aprenda 3 Reading 

The goal of reading instruction is to help students learn to construct meaning with 

various texts in a variety of situations. The selections and questions in the Reading 

Comprehension subtest are designed to mirror the developmental, process-oriented 

nature of good reading instruction and the kinds of materials used in exemplary 

programs. 

In the elementary school 

grades, the focus of instruction 

shifts to comprehension of 

printed discourse and, to a 

lesser degree, vocabulary 

acquisition and strategies. 

Emphasis is placed on the oral 

language development, basic 

story structure, conventions of 

print, decoding, and word 

recognition that are critical for 

beginning readers. See Exhibit 

4 for a sample reading 

comprehension passage and 

its related items. 

Reading Comprehension— 

The Reading Comprehension 

subtest contains increasingly 

complex selections of 

conceptually-appropriate text, 

each accompanied by multiplechoice 

questions. The Reading 

Comprehension subtest aligns 

with the National Assessment 

of Educational Progress 

(NAEP) and assesses students’ 

reading achievement within the 

2 Exhibit 4 is proprietary and confidential. 

Exhibit 4 Sample of Aprenda 3 Reading Comprehension 

Passage and Items 2 

Reading selections, written by authors of children’s and young 

people’s literature, include a variety of topics and diverse cultural 

themes to engage the greatest number of students. 

41 



Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


framework of three types of text, including: 

♦ Literary material typically read for enjoyment such as contemporary fiction, 

folktales, humor, poetry, and historical fiction 

♦ Informational and expository material with content from the natural, 

physical, and social sciences, as well as other nonfiction general 

information materials found in grade-appropriate textbooks 

♦ Functional material typically encountered in everyday life which is 

designed to help the reader perform a task, including directions, forms, 

advertisements, and labels 

Many of the Aprenda 3 narrative and informational passages were written by awardwinning, 

Spanish-speaking authors of children’s and young people’s literature originally 

from Latin America, Spain, and the United States. The accompanying illustrations, 

many created by well-known illustrators of children’s publications, help the students 

focus attention, recall and activate prior knowledge, and set purposes for reading. The 

Aprenda 3 Reading Comprehension selections closely resemble the kinds of materials 

that students read in school and in everyday life. The selections themselves, reflecting 

literature-based curricula taught in most classrooms, include a variety of topics and 

diverse cultural themes appealing to Latino students of varying backgrounds, 

experiential levels, and interests. 

The Reading Comprehension subtest consists entirely of increasingly complex literary, 

informational, and functional reading passages followed by multiple-choice test items. 

The Reading Comprehension subtest also assesses cognitive processes, including the 

following: 

♦ Initial Understanding—the ability to comprehend explicitly-stated details 

or relationships in a variety of reading selections 

♦ Interpretation—the ability to extend meaning, infer relationships, and 

form interpretations based on explicit and implicit information in the text 

♦ Critical Analysis—the ability to analyze and evaluate explicit and implicit 

information and relationships in a variety of reading selections 

♦ Strategies—the ability to recognize text characteristics and structures and 

select and apply appropriate reader strategies in a given situation 

Since scores are reported by type of text and cognitive process, teachers can use this 

information to determine students’ strengths and needs before developing instructional 

programs. 

Aprenda 3 Mathematics 

In developing the Aprenda 3 Mathematics subtests, careful attention was paid to the 

2000 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Principles and Standards for School 

Mathematics (NCTM Principles), which emphasizes the necessity of problem solving as 

the focus of school mathematics. 

42 



Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


The Aprenda 3 Mathematics subtests go beyond merely assessing skills at a basic level 

by emphasizing the following: 

♦ Use of logical and mathematical reasoning 

♦ Employment of communication skills to recognize alternative forms of 

equivalent values and alternative representations of data 

♦ Implementation of non-routine, problem-solving strategies 

Aprenda 3 was designed to encourage students to think and to enable them to 

demonstrate the extent to which their mathematics instructional programs have 

empowered them. It is also a fair and practical assessment of meaningful, valuable 

mathematics. Mathematics is most meaningful to students when it is presented in a 

relevant and culturally significant context. Therefore, many Aprenda 3 mathematics 

items are contextualized, that is, the items show the connection between mathematics 

and other content areas. 

Using Rulers and Calculators—Students demonstrate actual performance through the 

use of both customary and metric rulers as they take the Mathematics Problem Solving 

and Mathematics subtests. 

♦ Calculator use is optional for the Mathematics Problem Solving and 

Mathematics subtests, beginning at the Intermediate 1 test level up 

through the Advanced test levels. The Aprenda 3 norms are applicable 

with or without student use of calculators. 

In addition to incorporating the use of rulers and calculators into the assessment, 

Aprenda 3 Mathematics subtests reference common classroom instructional practices 

and tools, including thermometers and manipulatives such as base-10 blocks and 

tangrams. 

Content and Format of the Mathematics Subtests—The Aprenda 3 Mathematics 

subtests assess the breadth of mathematical content recommended by the NCTM 

Principles, including number theory, geometry, algebra, data analysis, and probability. 

It is not possible to capture which strategy a student employs when responding to a test 

item during the administration of a multiple-choice test. Therefore, each problem in the 

mathematics subtests was constructed so that one or more of the classic problemsolving 

strategies would be effective. In addition, regardless of the strategy employed, 

reasoning skills are required to arrive at a solution. Some test items require or 

encourage students to guess and check, work backwards, make a list, analyze data, 

make predictions, and validate conclusions. Other test items are designed to 

encourage students to draw pictures or to construct diagrams or models in order to find 

solutions. Distracter options are typically based on errors students commonly make. 

Mathematics Problem Solving—The items in the Mathematics Problem Solving 

(grades 2 through 9) and Mathematics (grades 9 and above) subtests assess student 

proficiency with the fundamental concepts and processes of mathematical problem 

43 



Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


solving in keeping with the NCTM Principles. Students will encounter situations that 

encourage them to use virtually every problem-solving strategy appropriate to their 

grade level. Although some Mathematics Problem Solving and Mathematics test items 

are easy, many require understanding of concepts and procedures far beyond recall or 

simple use-of-knowledge levels. These items generally call for careful analysis, 

synthesis of information, attention to detail, and the selection and use of appropriate 

strategies. 

Aprenda 3 distinguishes between mathematical concepts and mathematical vocabulary. 

For example, a Mathematics Problem Solving test item may require students to 

recognize the pattern in a factor tree that is associated with a prime number in order to 

answer the question rather than asking students to simply “select the prime number 

from the numbers listed below.” This example also illustrates assessment of thinking 

skills as a process required to respond to mathematics test items. 

Many of the Mathematics Problem Solving test items are contextualized so that 

students relate to them and become engaged in the test. In Aprenda 3, however, 

“problem context” is not equivalent to “word problem.” Nearly all problems are 

accompanied by illustrations that clarify, restate, or complete the verbal portion of the 

item. Reading included in the mathematics items is on or below grade level so that 

student reading ability should not impact performance. 

Mathematics Procedures—The Mathematics Procedures subtest focuses on 

successfully applying the computational procedures of mathematics. According to the 

NCTM Principles, computational proficiency plays a valuable role in establishing the 

foundations of effective and fluent problem solving. Calculator use is not allowed during 

the administration of the Mathematics Procedures subtest, because of the 

computational construct being assessed. 

The Mathematics Procedures subtest includes some traditional computation items that 

use symbolic notation rather than a context. However, about half of the items are 

enhanced by relevant context and engaging artwork. Natural and varied contexts were 

purposely selected for the computation items. For example, problems with fractions and 

decimals were integrated within realistic situations or scenarios that students are likely 

to recognize. In this way, Aprenda 3 compares students’ abilities to perform traditional 

algorithms to their abilities to apply algorithms to a problem presented in a textual 

context. 

Aprenda 3 Language 

The Language subtest measures proficiency in mechanics and expression that form 

effective writing. Mastery of language mechanics—capitalization, punctuation, and 

usage—is measured with questions that resemble an actual editing task. Language 

expression is measured as students demonstrate their understanding of sentence 

structure and writing objectives. Students’ prewriting and composing skills are also 

measured with questions on planning and editing self and peer writing. 

44 



Grades 2 through 11

Aprenda 3 Spelling 

45 


Attachment 1 


Beginning at the Primario 2 test level, the new Aprenda 3 Spelling subtest consists of 

sentences with three underlined words. Students must recognize and mark the 

misspelled word in each sentence. Primario 3 through Avanzado 2 levels include a 

fourth “No mistake” option. The Spelling items include the most commonly found 

misspellings in student writing in Spanish. Because research indicates that seeing 

spelling errors in print tends to reinforce them, each item contains only one misspelled 

word rather than one correctly spelled word that students must find among the incorrect 

ones. 

Test Format 

Aprenda 3 is formatted to be student friendly with test pages that have carefully 

designed navigational elements, such as framing each question and visually highlighting 

question numbers. Aprenda 3 has a consistent, intuitive, and uncluttered design to help 

students work through the test and elicit their best performance. Equally easy to 

navigate, the answer document helps students stay on track while completing the test. 

Answer spaces are visually organized according to the questions on each page in the 

test booklet and content area to provide a clear road map for guiding students through 

the process of marking their answers. 

J. Alignment to California Content Standards in English Language Arts 

and Mathematics 

Harcourt is pleased to provide California educators with our alignment of Aprenda 3 to 

the California Language Arts Public Schools Framework (2001) and California 

Mathematics Public Schools Framework (1997). This document provides a listing and 

analysis of the alignment of the Reading, Language, Spelling, Listening (although not 

included on the STAR DPLT), and Mathematics items from Aprenda 3 that correlate to 

each of the Public Schools Frameworks. 

The results of the Aprenda 3 alignment reflect the depth and scope of measurement of 

the California Public Schools Framework by multiple-choice items. An extensive 

correlation across grades and content areas indicates a comprehensive alignment of 

the Aprenda 3 with the state-defined Public Schools Framework. It was the intent of 

both the Stanford 10 and Aprenda series to assess those standards common to a vast 

majority of state standards documents. For most district-level assessments, this 

standard for alignment has generally been deemed sufficient. However, it was also 

anticipated that when states adopted one of these instruments some augmentation 

might be required. Our approach in designing both instruments allowed for 

augmentation with additional items or by the use of replacement items to achieve the 

desired degree of alignment. 

For the Public Schools Framework in Language Arts and Mathematics, we aligned 

items from all subtests in Aprenda 3. Table 12 is a list of the subtests in the eleven test 

levels. 



Grades 2 through 11

SUBTEST 

Table 12. List of Subtests 

46 

Grades 2-8 

Test Levels P2-I5 

Grades 9-12 

Test Levels A1-A2 

Reading Vocabulary (V) X X 

Reading Comprehension (RC) X X 

Language (L) X X 

Spelling (O) X X 

Listening (CA) X No test at this level 

Mathematics Problem Solving (MPS) X No test at this level 

Mathematics Procedures (MP) X No test at this level 

Mathematics (M) No test at this level X 


Attachment 1 


Items were aligned to the most detailed standard level when possible and to more than 

one standard when appropriate. However, items whose alignment is viewed as “the 

best fit,” or most appropriate alignment, are listed in the Primary column. In keeping 

with an integrated framework, items requiring the application of skills described in more 

than one content standard are aligned with as many standards as they actually 

measure. Thus, some items may be aligned to only one standard, while others may 

appear several times, aligning with several standards. Harcourt employed an alignment 

process that calls for content assessment specialists to use the following criteria: 

♦ Curricular complexity provides three specificity levels of examination: Full, 

Average, and Narrow. Some skill statements are multidimensional and 

are embedded with several expectations. For example, a skill statement 

may indicate that students will “be able to represent and use whole 

numbers, fractions, decimals, whole number percentages, and ratios.” An 

item might be considered an alignment if it asks the student to describe or 

use any one of the five types of numeric representations (e.g., whole 

number, fraction); thus, there are ten combinations of items that could 

represent an alignment to this expectation. Since some skill statements 

may be written in broad terms, items can match all or part of a given skill 

statement. Curricular complexity is determined to be “Full” if the item 

matches 75 percent or more of the dimensions of the skill statement; 

“Average” if it is in the range between 25 percent and 75 percent; and 

“Narrow” if the item matches fewer than 25 percent of the dimensions of 

the skill statement. A normal specificity level encompasses the range 

between 25 percent and 75 percent. Skill statements and items will be 

aligned if the curricular complexity is determined to be within the full 

specificity level range for a primary correlation and a normal specificity 

level range for all secondary correlations. 

♦ Depth of Knowledge asks the content assessment specialists to closely 

examine the type of thinking presented by the target item and the thinking 

described by the skill statement the item is intended to measure. Webb’s 



Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


Depth of Knowledge taxonomy is used to categorize these judgments. 

The knowledge and skills students use in the thinking process, and the 

thinking processes described in skill statements, are necessary to make 

this most detailed level of analysis. Skill statements and items are aligned 

if what is elicited from students on the item is as cognitively demanding as 

what students are expected to know and do in the skill statement. Skill 

statements and items will be aligned if both have approximately the same 

level of cognitive complexity. How closely a comparison between skill 

statements and items can be made will depend on the specificity of the 

skill statement. Regardless, the item should be at the same cognitive 

level as the targeted skill statement. 

In accordance with No Child Left Behind, Aprenda 3 helps to measure the progress of 

English Language Learners in achieving at high levels in the core academic subjects, so 

that they can meet the same challenging academic content and achievement standards 

that all children are expected to meet. 

Coverage of the Public Schools Framework 

During the development process, an extensive review was completed of the standards 

frameworks that were adopted by the various states and national academic 

organizations. The information from this review was used to identify curriculum 

elements that were common across states. Recent reviews of the standards 

frameworks that were developed by many of the states reveal that there are differences 

among these standards, and, in some cases, these differences are significant. It should 

not be surprising, therefore, if at least some of the standards frameworks that were 

adopted by a particular state were not measured by these tests. In fact, the extent to 

which the state’s standards frameworks are measured by the Aprenda 3 may be viewed 

as one index to which the state’s standards differ from those of other states. 

Language Arts 

Table 13 provides information about the number and percentage of the California 

Language Arts Public Schools Framework that are measured by one or more of the 

items in the Aprenda 3 Reading, Language, Spelling, and Listening subtests. 

As the table shows, the percentage of language arts standards that are measured by 

Aprenda 3 is consistent across grade levels. A review of the Public Schools Framework 

at the most detailed level shows that there are common themes or areas across the 

grades and that the language arts standards for the lower grades represent the 

foundation for the language arts standards for the upper grades. 

At grades Kindergarten through 8, the table reports that an expected portion (75 

percent) of the state’s language arts standards is measured by Aprenda 3. Only 

Standard II, direct Writing, is not measured by Aprenda 3. 

47 



Grades 2 through 11


Attachment 1 


At grades 9 through 12, 50 percent of the California Language Arts Public Schools 

Framework are measured by Aprenda 3. In addition to Standard II, Writing, Aprenda 3 

does not test Listening at the high school level. 

Table 13. Percentage of California Language Arts Public Schools Framework Standards 

Measured by One or More Items in Aprenda 3 Reading, 

Language, Spelling, and Listening Subtests 

Test Level 

Grade 

Percentage of 

Standards 

Aligned 

Mathematics 

PP2 

K 

P1 

1 

P2 

2 

P3 

3 

I1 

4 

48 




I2 

5 

I3 

6 

I4 

7 

I5 

8 

A1 

9 

A2 

10-12 

75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 50% 50% 

Table 14 provides information about the percentage of the Mathematics Public Schools 

Frameworks that are measured by one or more of the items in the Aprenda 3. 

As the table shows, the percentage of Mathematics Public Schools Framework that are 

measured by Aprenda 3 is consistent across grade levels. A review of the Public 

Schools Framework at the most detailed level shows that there are common themes or 

areas across the grades. The Public Schools Framework for the lower grades 

represent the foundation for what is specified in the Public Schools Framework for the 

upper grades. 

The percentage of the Public Schools Framework in Mathematics that is measured by 

the Aprenda 3 ranges from 78 percent to 100 percent. 

The percentage of Public Schools Framework that is measured by the Aprenda 3 varies 

slightly. The lowest percentage is noted for grades 10-12 where 78 percent of the 

standards are measured. However, for grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9, 100 percent of 

the Public Schools Frameworks are measured by the Aprenda 3. 

Test Level/Grade 


Standards Aligned 

Table 14. Percent of California Public Schools Framework Standards 

Measured by One or More Items in Aprenda 3 

PP2 

K 

Test Item Alignment 

P1 

1 

P2 

2 

P3 

3 

I1 

4 

I2 

5 

80 100 100 100 100 80 100 100 100 100 78 

We encourage CDE to consider the following guidelines when reviewing test item 

alignment information: 

♦ More is better. Tests for which all of the items align to one or more of the 

state’s standards are best. The lower the percentage of items that align to 

I3 

6 

I4 

7 

I5 

8 

A1 

9 

A2 

10-12


Attachment 1 


the standards, the more serious are the problems that arise from the use 

of that test. 

♦ If a test has features that make it particularly attractive (it may have items 

similar to those used in the state tests or may provide good detailed 

information about student achievement), it may be used even if the item 

alignment is not perfect. 

Language Arts—Item Alignment 

Table 15 reports the number and percentage of items in all of the Reading, Language, 

Spelling, and Listening (CA) subtests in the Aprenda 3 battery that measure one or 

more of the California Language Arts Public Schools Framework. 

Test Level 

Grade 

Total Number 

of Items 

Aligned 

Total 


Items on Test 

Aligned 

Table 15. Number and Percent Of Items in Aprenda 3 Reading, Language, Spelling, Listening, 

and Comprehensive Language Subtests 

Measured by One or More California Public Schools Framework 

PP2 

K 

P1 

1 

P2 

2 

P3 

3 

I1 

4 

49 




I2 

5 

319 681 378 476 343 312 297 335 328 301 499 

I3 

6 

I4 

7 

I5 

8 

A1 

9 

A2 

10-12 

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

All of the items in the Aprenda 3 Reading, Language, Spelling, and Listening subtests 

correlate at grade level with the California Language Arts Public Schools Framework. 

All of the items for all grades in Reading Vocabulary, Reading Comprehension, Spelling, 

Language, and Listening are content valid. 

Mathematics—Item Alignment 

Table 16 reports the number and percentage of items in all of the mathematics tests 

and subtests in the Aprenda 3 battery that measure one or more of the California 

Mathematics Public Schools Framework.

Test Level 

Grade 

Total Number 

of Items 

Aligned 

Total 


Items on Test 

Aligned 

Table 16. Number and Percent of Items in Aprenda 3 Mathematics 

Subtests Measured by One or More California Public Schools Framework 

PP2 

K 

P1 

1 

P2 

2 

P3 

3 

I1 

4 

50 


Attachment 1 





I2 

5 

83 148 147 119 426 409 360 281 84 58 74 

I3 

6 

I4 

7 

I5 

8 

A1 

9 

A2 

10-12 

100% 97% 100% 100% 100% 90% 96% 93% 81% 100% 96% 

Almost all of the Aprenda 3 items in mathematics align with the California Mathematics 

Public Schools Framework at grade level and all of the Aprenda 3 items in mathematics 

align with the California Mathematics Public Schools Framework either below or above 

grade level. 

K. Norms 

The research programs for Aprenda 3 took place during the spring and fall of 2004. The 

purpose of the research programs was to provide the data used to do the following: 

♦ Equate the levels of the test 

♦ Equate editions of the Aprenda series 

♦ Establish the statistical reliability and validity of the tests 

♦ Develop normative information descriptive of achievement in schools 

nationwide 

The primary national research programs comprised the following: 

♦ Spring Standardization Program 

♦ Equating of Levels Program (vertical scaling) 

♦ Equating of Aprenda 3 to Aprenda 2 

♦ Fall Standardization Program 

Testing for the Spring Standardization Program, the Equating of Levels Program, and 

the Equating of Aprenda 3 to Aprenda 2 took place from April 5 to May 28, 2004. A total 

of 1,842 students from 35 school districts participated in the Spring Standardization, 

with another 24,447 students from 146 school districts participating in the equating 

programs. Some students participated in more than one program. All students 

participating in the standardization programs also completed the Naglieri Nonverbal 

Ability Test ® (NNAT). 

In addition to the Spring and Fall Empirical Norms for Aprenda 3, Harcourt has 

developed Mid-year Norms and Interpolated Norms that have been adjusted according 

to the different testing periods outside of the standardization window. Districts can


Attachment 1 


select to administer the test any time during the CDE approved window from mid-March 

to mid-May. By clearly indicating their specific testing period in the Order for Scoring 

Services, Harcourt will score each district’s documents using the appropriate norms. 

All subtests of Aprenda 3 were empirically standardized during the Spring and Fall 

Standardization Programs. All participating students were administered one of two 

groupings of full-length subtests. One grouping of subtests comprises the following: 

♦ Total Lectura (Total Reading)—including the Sonidos y Letras (Sounds 

and Letters), Lectura de Palabras (Word Reading), Lectura de Oraciones 

(Sentence Reading), Vocabulario (Reading Vocabulary), and 

Comprensión de Lectura (Reading Comprehension) subtests, depending 

on the test level 

♦ Lenguaje (Language)—Traditional or comprehensive at the Primario 

(Primary) 1 through Avanzado (Advanced) 2 test levels 

♦ Ortografía (Spelling)—At the Primario (Primary) 1 through Avanzado 

(Advanced) 2 test levels 

All students were administered Aprenda 3 subtests under untimed conditions. The 

proposed schedule of approximate testing times in the Aprenda 3 Directions for 

Administering (DFA) was used by test administrators for planning purposes only. The 

DFA recommends that test administrators allow students to continue with a test as long 

as they are working productively. 

Aprenda 3 Practice Tests were administered to each student participating in the 

National/International Standardization Programs who was administered the Aprenda 3 

Prepimario (Preprimer) 1 through Avanzado (Advanced) 2 test level. Because of the 

administration of practice tests during standardization, Harcourt recommends their use 

when Aprenda 3 is administered as the STAR DPLT. 

Table 17 demonstrates the grades at which each level of Aprenda 3 was standardized. 

Note that there was an intentional overlap of grades per test level to ensure a balance 

of easy-to-hard items for each level and grade-to-grade progression of difficulty. 

51 



Grades 2 through 11


Table 17. Grades at Which the Aprenda Was Standardized, by Test Level 

52 




Attachment 1 


Grade/Test Level K.1 K.8 1.1 1.8 2.1 2.8 3.1 3.8 4.1 4.8 5.1 5.8 6.1 6.8 7.1 7.8 8.1 8.8 9.1 9.8 10.1 10.8 11.1 11.8 12.1 12.8 

Premario (Preprimer) 1 X X 

Premario (Preprimer) 2 X X X 

Primario (Primary) 1 X X X 



Intermedio 

(Intermediate) 1 

Intermedio 


Intermedio 


Intermedio 


Intermedio 


X X X 

X X X 

X X X 

X X X 

X X X 

Avanzado (Advanced) 1 X X 

Avanzado (Advanced) 2 X X X X X X

Sampling Procedures 

53 


Attachment 1 


School districts were selected for participation in the Aprenda 3 National/International 

Research Programs according to demographic features that matched variables in the 

stratified cluster sampling design (classrooms served as clusters). Twenty states and 

schools from Puerto Rico and Mexico participated. 

The stratification variables were urbanicity and country of origin. Urbanicity was divided 

into three categories: urban, suburban, and rural. Information relating to the 

stratification variables was obtained from the Census of Population and Housing (2000) 

and the National Center for Education Statistics (2000–2001). This information was 

used to evaluate, and weight where necessary, the Fall and Spring Standardization 

samples to approximate the desired proportional representation. Table 18 

demonstrates the final weighted percentages of students representing the various 

groups. 

Table 18. Demographic Characteristics of School Districts and International Schools 

Participating in the Spring 2004 Standardization Programs 

Percentage of Total 

U.S. Spanish-Speaking 

School Enrollment 

Percentage of Student 

Representation in Spring 

Standardization Programs 

Northeast 

U.S. Geographic Region 

13.6 13.3 

Midwest 8.3 9.1 

South 10.2 9.1 

West 67.9 

Country or Continent of Origin 

68.5 

Central America 4.9 2.5 

Cuba 3.0 0.2 

Mexico 61.9 55.7 

Puerto Rico 8.5 21.4 

South America 3.6 1.5 

Other 18.1 

Special Condition 

18.7 

Autism — 0.00 

Visual Impairment — 0.00 

Deafness-Blindness — 0.00 

Developmental Delay — 0.01 

Hearing Impairment — 0.01 

Orthopedic Impairments — 0.01 

Multiple Disabilities — 0.00 

Mental Retardation — 0.00 

Emotional Disturbance — 0.01 

Speech and Language Disorders — 0.03 

Specific Learning Disabilities — 0.4 

Other Health Care Needs — 0.85 

Traumatic Brain Injury — 0.04 

Source: Census of Population and Housing (2000) and the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education (2000–2001) 


Grades 2 through 11

H. REQUIREMENTS 

Participation by Students with Disabilities 

54 


Attachment 1 


Students receiving instruction as part of a regular education classroom who would 

normally test with other students in the regular classroom were asked to be part of the 

standardization sample. Schools were instructed to test all students except those 

classified as severely/profoundly mentally disabled or those who could not be tested 

under the prescribed standardization conditions. The percentage of special populations 

(students with disabilities) who participated in the standardization programs reflects the 

percentage of special education students routinely tested by participating schools rather 

than the percentage of special education students attending these schools. 

Weighting Procedures 

The Aprenda 3 standardization sampling methodology involved three steps: 

♦ Selection based on demographic data descriptive of the school districts 

♦ Description based on the previous step and on responses to a 

questionnaire distributed to participating districts 

♦ Statistical weighting of test scores after testing is completed, but before 

norms are derived, to effect final improvements in the sample 

The purpose of this statistical weighting was to achieve a better approximation to 

national characteristics of those variables that show the highest relationship to test 

performance. The weighting procedure itself involved random deletion or duplication of 

complete student records until the desired sample characteristics were obtained. 

Equating of Levels Program 

The development of scaled score and normative information presented in the Spring 

Multilevel Norms Book began with the Equating of Levels Program. This program 

provided the elements to create the continuous score scale that permits the 

interpretation of scores across levels of a test. To accomplish this, students in 

Kindergarten through grade 11 completed two adjacent test levels. For each test in 

every content area that supported the program testing design, students were 

administered the on-grade level test and one level lower. Each dual-level test 

administration resulted in approximately 900 to 1,100 scores to develop this important 

component of the Aprenda 3 multilevel assessment. 

To control for test order and fatigue factors, a counterbalanced design was used to 

randomly administer the order of tests—lower level/higher level, higher level/lower level, 

and content grouping administered—to each participating classroom. One content 

grouping comprised Total Lectura (Total Reading), Lenguaje (Language), and 

Ortografía (Spelling). The other content grouping comprised Total Matemáticas (Total 

Mathematics), Medio Ambiente (Environment) or Ciencias (Science) and Ciencias 

Sociales (Social Science), and Escucha Palabras y Cuentos (Listening to Words and 

Stories) or Comprensión Auditiva (Listening). Each classroom was randomly assigned 



Grades 2 through 11


55 


Attachment 1 


to a content grouping in a manner that ensured the administration of all content areas 

within a school district. To the extent possible, student participation in the Equating of 

Levels Program adhered to the demographic percentages displayed in Table 18 on 

page 53. 

Equating of Aprenda 3 to Aprenda 2 

A major issue in the revision of an assessment series is the comparison of scores on 

the new edition with scores from the previous edition. That is, to what extent are scales 

of the two editions comparable? The equating of Aprenda 3 to Aprenda 2 furnished this 

type of information. 

A common-persons design similar to that of the Equating of Levels Program was utilized 

to ensure that scaled score conversions from Aprenda 2 to Aprenda 3 and those of 

Aprenda 3 to Aprenda 2 indicated equivalent achievement. A group of students 

different from the previous two programs was administered the appropriate on-grade 

test level from both Aprenda 2 and Aprenda 3. Approximately 2,200 students per grade 

participated. The content groupings, random assignments, and counterbalancing 

procedures as explained above were applied in this program. 

Setting Performance Standards 

Performance standards refer to the level of performance each individual score 

represents. This determination is usually done by panels of expert teachers in each 

particular content area at each grade level. For Aprenda 3, this research was 

conducted using the judgment of teachers who reviewed the Aprenda 2 battery and 

determined the performance levels for every item in the test. The performance 

standards to which the items were mapped are level 4 (Advanced), level 3 (Proficient), 

level 2 (Basic), and level 1 (Below Basic). Through psychometric analysis, Aprenda 3 

was mapped to the same performance standards. 

A recent trend in educational assessment involves providing information about students 

that goes beyond the norm-referenced information typically associated with 

achievement batteries. Educators and parents want to know more than just how a 

student’s performance compares with that of other students. Of growing interest is 

“what level of performance does a score represent?” Moreover, the No Child Left 

Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) now provides and mandates that each state set 

achievement standards. Performance standards for Aprenda 3 were determined by 

empirically equating Aprenda 3 scaled scores with Aprenda 2 scaled scores. Research 

linking the Aprenda 3 scale to the Aprenda 2 scale enabled a direct translation of 

performance standards for Aprenda 3. 

After Aprenda 3 was standardized, approximately 50 bilingual teachers representing 

school districts from around the country were brought to a three-week series of standard 

setting meetings, with each meeting lasting one week. The teachers were selected 



Grades 2 through 11


56 


Attachment 1 


based on recommendations from principals, school or state department administrators, 

or other educators. They represented all content areas, grade levels, school district 

demographic variables, and ethnicities/cultures. Teachers were assigned to groups on 

the basis of their grade level/subject area expertise; each group consisted of eight or 10 

teachers, with five groups in all. The Aprenda battery was divided into corresponding 

grade level/subject area combinations of subtests. 

After a general orientation session that included training and practice, the teachers 

broke into small group sessions, where they were given the opportunity to ask further 

questions and receive further training. Then they were asked to actually take the tests 

that they would be evaluating. The standard setting was then accomplished through 

use of a modified Angoff procedure. Teachers were asked to make three independent 

judgments about each item in the Aprenda 3 battery and to decide how students of 

various performance levels should perform on the item. For each multiple-choice item, 

the teachers were to judge what percentage of borderline students at the Basic level 

(level 2) should answer the item correctly; what percentage of borderline students at the 

Proficient level (level 3) should answer the item correctly; and what percentage of 

borderline students at the Advanced level (level 4) should answer the item correctly. 

After the initial judgments were made, the data were compiled into frequency 

distributions, and the teachers received this feedback on their initial judgments. They 

were also provided the national p-value statistics for each item. The items and 

judgments were discussed, and teachers had the opportunity to revise their judgments, 

based on the discussion. The raw-score cut point for each performance level for each 

subtest was obtained by summing the ratings for all items in that subtest and averaging 

the sums across teachers. 

L. Accommodations for Disabled Students 

As shown in Table 19, students using accommodations marked under “standard 

administration” can receive norm-referenced scores that are considered to be valid and 

can be aggregated with those of other students. Harcourt recognizes that some 

students with disabilities require the use of accommodations when our assessments are 

administered. Often, the conditions under which accommodations are used differ from 

those present when the test was standardized. These differences, in some cases, 

reach a level sufficient to jeopardize the validity of interpretations. However, based on 

available evidence, most of the accommodations listed are considered to be “incidental 

to the construct intended to be measured by the test” (AERA, et al., 1999, p. 101). 



Grades 2 through 11


Table 19. Accommodations for Students with Disabilities 

Accommodation 

Breaks between subtests 

Time of day most beneficial to student 

Frequent breaks within a subtest 

Test in a small group with Special Ed. teacher 

Test individually with Special Ed. teacher 

Test in regular classroom 

Home/hospital setting 

Environmental modifications: special lighting, adaptive 

furniture, noise buffers, carrels, special seating 

Sign language (ASL, cued speech) for directions 

Timing/Scheduling 

Setting/Administration 

Presentation Format 

Large print (20 point text) 

Repeating directions 

Simplifying directions 

Visual aids (magnifiers, templates) 

Audio amplification equipment 

Calculator/talking calculator use allowed for Mathematics 

Problem Solving subtest, grades 4 and up (disable device's 

programming capability) 

Audio recordings/audio (except decoding and reading 

comprehension) 

Abacus for visually impaired (VI) students 

Braille 

Visual aids (graph paper, templates, rulers) 

Special pencil, pen, pencil grip 

Auditory aids 

Braille 

Response Format 

Other 

57 

Standard 


Augmentative, assistive, or adaptive technology (contact local DOE) 


Attachment 1 


Non-standard 





X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X


Accountability of Students with Limited English Proficiency 

58 


Attachment 1 


Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was amended by the No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Under NCLB, all students are to be included in 

the measurement of progress toward state achievement standards. In order to evaluate 

the progress made by schools toward these standards, states must disaggregate and 

report the performance of English Language Learners (ELLs), as well as students with 

disabilities and disadvantaged students. Furthermore, states must compare the 

performance of these groups to the performance of the general population and report on 

the findings. States must also disaggregate and report the performance of ELLs within 

different ethnic groups. Aprenda 3 responds to the need for Spanish-speaking ELLs to 

be assessed in their native language. 

Harcourt is committed to making STAR DPLT as accessible as possible to all students. 

The blueprint and development process for STAR DPLT (Aprenda 3) is modeled after 

the Stanford Achievement Test Series, Tenth Edition (Stanford 10). During the 

development process, the reference population used for the national standardization 

study consisted of students who attend school in regular classrooms, including disabled 

students who rely on certain accommodations (Case, 2003). Harcourt has determined 

which of these accommodations do not affect the inferences that can be made from 

STAR DPLT scores. Interpretations of scores from students who use allowed 

accommodations during administration of STAR DPLT are the same as for scores from 

students who do not use accommodations. Scores received from administration of 

STAR DPLT to students who use allowed accommodations can also be included in 

summary data for schools, districts, counties, and the state. Harcourt’s policy and 

research basis for the use of accommodations for students with disabilities follows. 

Braille and Large Print 

Harcourt will provide California school districts with Braille versions of Aprenda 3 test 

booklets, as well as provide the ancillary materials necessary for the administration of 

the test to visually-impaired students. 

Harcourt provides adjusted norms for Braille versions of Aprenda 3. A total of nine 

items have been identified as being unable to translate into Braille across five levels of 

the test. The Aprenda 3 Scoring Program for Braille already takes into account these 

omissions. Aprenda 3 was rescaled and a new raw score to scaled score tables were 

developed by psychometrics to account for these changes. The same Aprenda 3 norms 

are then applied to score the students taking the Braille form. A list of those items is 

identified in the Scope of Work. 



Grades 2 through 11


59 


Attachment 1 


Items Omitted from Reading, Spelling, Language, and Mathematics Subtests 

Intermediate 1 

Mathematics Problem Solving 

• Page 43, #40 This item is omitted in the Braille test. 

• Page 44, #42 This item is omitted. in the Braille test. 



• Page 42, #40 This item is omitted. 



• Page 43, #41 This item is omitted from the Braille test. 





Advanced 2 

Mathematics 




(See Federal Register, December 9, 2003, new regulations for alternate assessment.) 



Grades 2 through 11


60 


Attachment 1 


A large-print edition of Aprenda 3 is available in black and white. This edition does not 

differ in content from the regular-print edition, although some graphics have been 

adjusted based on the recommendation of a panel of experts in consultation with 

Harcourt assessment specialists. Answer documents are also available in a large-print 

format. 

References 

American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), 

& National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (1999). Standards for 

educational and psychological testing. Washington, D. C.: AERA. 

Bielinski, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2000). Interpreting trends in the performance of special 

education students (Technical Report 27). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 

National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved May 20, 2002 from the World Wide 

Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/TechReport27.htm. 

Case, B. J. (2003). Accommodations on Stanford 10 for students with disabilities. San Antonio, 

TX: Harcourt Assessment, Inc. 

Elliott, S. N. (2001). Including students with disabilities in assessments. ECE Today, 8(3). 

Koretz, D. (1997). The assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky (CSE Technical 

Report 431). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Center for the Study of 

Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. 

Koretz, D., & Hamilton, R. (1999). Assessing students with disabilities in Kentucky: The effects 

of accommodations, format and subject (CSE Technical Report 498). Los Angeles, CA: 

University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research 

on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. 

National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2001). Crosswalk of Title I and IDEA assessment 

and accountability provisions for students with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: University of 

Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. 

Phillips, S.E. (1993). Legal implications of high-stakes assessments: What states should know. 

Oak Brook, IL. North Central Regional Laboratory. 

Thurlow, M. L., Elliott, J. L., & Ysseldyde, J. E. (1998). Testing students with disabilities. 

California: Corwin Press, Inc. 

Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. (1999). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for 

defining accommodations. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Mid-South Regional 

Resource Center. 



Grades 2 through 11

M. Royalty/Licensing Costs 


61 


Attachment 1 


There will be no separate or additional charge for the CDE, LEAs, and schools to use 

Harcourt’s proprietary Aprenda 3 test and ancillary materials in accordance with the 

terms of the Contract and this SOW, including making additional copies of Directions for 

Administering and coordinator’s manuals from the secure website on which they will be 

posted. Harcourt has waived its typical license fees for such use of its proprietary 

materials in the course of the negotiation of this contract. 

3.4. Component Task 4—Test Form Construction 

A. Test Form Construction 

CDE requires test forms that are in full compliance with Universal Design Principles and 

provide for the collection of all demographic and identification data required by state 

statute and state regulations. 

As fully described in the preceding section, Aprenda 3 test booklets and answer 

documents are fully compliant with Universal Design Principles. Harcourt will be 

responsible for producing and printing all test materials according to CDE specifications. 

Harcourt will print sufficient quantities of test materials, plus overage, to be delivered to 

the districts. Harcourt will provide for each school and adult education center five 

percent overage and each district will receive a 10 percent overage of all materials 

excluding customized materials for students with disabilities. Harcourt understands that 

these percentages may be adjusted after the first operational year. Additionally, a three 

percent overage will be maintained in San Antonio to accommodate emergency 

shortages in California districts. 

B. Answer Documents 

All answer documents and consumable test booklets will have space for gridding 

demographic and student identification information; however, pre-ID labels will be 

included with the materials shipments which will preclude the need for individual 

gridding. 

As described in the section on pre-identification, Harcourt Spectrum allows for last 

minute updating of student information and for local printing of pre-ID labels, another 

feature that virtually eliminates the need for individual gridding of information. 

Whether hand-gridded or pre-ID’d, all answer documents will be processed and all 

records will be maintained as a single record per student. 

C. Forms Design and Production for Students with Disabilities 

Timeline for Design, Review, and Production 

CDE will complete its review of the products within ten working days of receipt and 

either approve the design of the products as submitted or provide specifications for 



Grades 2 through 11


62 


Attachment 1 


modification. Harcourt will plan schedules and begin work early enough to permit 

sufficient time for CDE approval at each stage of the process and will take into account 

the volume of documents to be reviewed. 

Developing Test Materials with Universal Design Principles 

Since 1997, Harcourt has been a recognized leader in the incorporation of universal 

design into the development of standardized assessments. Applying the principles of 

universal design, Harcourt has successfully completed several complex testing 

programs and developed flagship assessment products which accommodate all 

students, such as the Stanford 10 and Aprenda 3. Harcourt’s resource for universal 

design and special needs students is Dr. Betsy Case, Director of Research on Special 

Populations, who has written numerous papers and made presentations on the topic 

since 1997. Dr. Case has developed a checklist that ensures the use of universal 

design on all Harcourt projects. Hence, the principles of universal design were built into 

the entire development process for Aprenda 3 and will be consistently applied for any 

modifications requested by CDE. 

The application of the principles of universal design to assessments entails a blend of 

good test design, consideration of as many users as possible, use of assistive 

technology as necessary, and appropriate visual design (Dolan and Hall, 2001). 

Harcourt’s use of universal design draws from the findings of leading educational 

researchers. The Center for Universal Design (1997) published seven Principles of 

Universal Design and associated guidelines that can be applied to the fields of 

architecture, product development, and education. These principles and guidelines are 

summarized in Table 20. 

Table 20. Principles of Universal Design 

(adapted from Center for Universal Design, 1997). 

Principle Guidelines 

Equitable Use Provide the same means of use for all users. Avoid segregating or 

stigmatizing any users. Provide equal availability for privacy, security, and 

safety. Make the design appealing to all. 

Flexibility in Use Provide choice in methods of use. Accommodate right- or left-handed access 

and use. Facilitate the user's accuracy and precision. Provide adaptability to 

the user's pace. 

Simple and Intuitive Eliminate unnecessary complexity. Be consistent with user expectations and 

intuition. Accommodate a range of literacy and language skills. Arrange 

information in order of importance. Provide effective prompting and feedback. 

Perceptible Information Use pictorial, verbal, and/or tactile modes for presentation of essential 

information. Provide adequate contrast between essential information and its 

surroundings. Differentiate elements in ways that can be easily described. 

Provide compatibility with devices used by people with sensory limitations. 

Tolerance for Error Arrange elements to minimize hazards and errors. Provide warnings and failsafe 

features. Discourage unconscious action in tasks that require vigilance. 



Grades 2 through 11


Low Physical Effort Allow user to maintain a neutral body position. Use reasonable operating 

forces. Minimize repetitive actions and sustained physical effort. 

Size and Space for 

Approach and Use 

63 


Attachment 1 


Provide a clear line of sight to important elements for any seated or standing 

user. Make comfortable for any seated or standing user. Accommodate 

variations in hand and grip size. Provide adequate space for the use of 

assistive devices or personal assistance. 

Studies by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) have demonstrated 

that these principles of universal design can be effectively applied to the following 

elements of a universally designed assessment (Thompson, Johnstone, and Thurlow, 

2002): 

♦ inclusive assessment population 

♦ precisely defined constructs 

♦ accessible, non-biased items 

♦ amenable to accommodations 

♦ simple, clear, and intuitive instructions and procedures 

♦ maximum readability and comprehensibility 

♦ maximum legibility 

These elements are addressed by the principles of universal design as show in Table 

21. 

Table 21. Relationship between Principles of Universal Design and Assessments 

(adapted from Thompson, Johnstone, and Thurlow, 2002) 

Universal Design Principle Elements of Universally Designed Assessments 

Equitable Use Reflected in all elements. 

Flexibility in Use Reflected in elements 1, 3, 4, and 6. 

Simple and Intuitive Use Reflected in elements 5, 6, and 7. 

Perceptible Information Reflected in elements 4, 5, and 7. 

Tolerance for Error Reflected in elements 2 and 5. 

Low Physical Effort Reflected in element 7. 

Size and Space for Approach and Use Reflected in elements 4 and 7. 

Harcourt’s implementation of universal design begins when a test is conceptualized. 

The principles of universal design are applied early in the assessment development 

process, e.g., during the formulation of the standards upon which the assessment 

system is based. As Harcourt builds the test blueprints and set specifications, 

applicable state standards are reviewed according to the criteria of universal design. 

Accessibility is considered from the earliest product definition phases. When 

developing the planning documentation, accessibility is included with the initial product 

requirements. 



Grades 2 through 11


64 


Attachment 1 


To illustrate the many opportunities available for the application of the principles of 

universal design, key steps taken by Harcourt during the development of an 

assessment system are as follows: 

♦ Review of standards and objectives on which assessment and 

accountability are based 

♦ Test conceptualization 

♦ Test mapping/blueprint design 

♦ Test construction 

♦ Test tryouts on as many populations as possible 

♦ Item analyses 

♦ Item review by experts 

♦ Test revision 

The principles of universal design are applied the development of the assessment at 

each of these steps. Checklists similar to the one given in Table 22 are used to screen 

every item for the universal design principles. 

Table 22. Considerations for Universally Designed Assessments 

Meets general criteria for measuring what it is intended to measure 

a. Reflects the intended content standard (reviewers have information about content being 

measured) 

b. Minimal skills required that are extraneous to those being measured 

Respects the diversity of the assessment population 

a. Accessible to test takers (consider gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic level) 

b. Avoids content that might unfairly advantage or disadvantage any student subgroup 

Has a clear format for text 

a. Standard typeface 

b. Font size appropriate for age group (12 point minimum for all print, including captions, footnotes, 

and graphs) 

c. Sufficient spacing between letters, words, and lines 

d. Staggered right margins (no right justification) 

e. Blank space around paragraphs and between columns 

Has clear pictures and graphics (when essential to item) 

a. Clear, non-fuzzy pictures 

b. Dark lines (minimum use of gray scale and shading) 

c. Sufficient contrast between background and text 

d. Color is not relied on to convey important information or distinctions 



Grades 2 through 11


65 


Attachment 1 


Has concise and readable text 

a. Commonly used words 

b. Vocabulary appropriate for grade level 

c. Minimum use of unnecessary words 

d. Idioms avoided unless idiomatic speech is being measured 

e. Technical terms and abbreviations avoided (or defined) if not related to the content being 

measured 

f. Sentence complexity is appropriate for grade level 

g. Question to be answered is clearly identifiable 

Allows changes to its format without changing its meaning or difficulty (including visual or 

memory load) 

a. Allows for the use of Braille or other tactile format 

b. Allows for signing to a student 

c. Allows for the use of oral presentation to a student 

d. Allows for the use of assistive technology 

e. Allows for translation into another language 

Has an clean and organized overall appearance 

a. All images, pictures, and text provide information necessary to respond to the item 

b. Information is organized in a manner that is consistent with an academic English framework (leftright, 

top-bottom flow) 

During form construction, Harcourt uses in-house content and fairness experts to 

ensure that forms are constructed according to the principles of universal design. An 

important feature of Harcourt’s test development process is that during item review, 

items are submitted to a group of people representing minority and disabled groups who 

screen the content in terms of appropriateness for various groups as well as for bias. 

Harcourt also relies on a combination of external advisors and experts on staff to assist 

assessment developers with particular items. 

Harcourt has a well-established history of developing large-scale assessments using 

universal design. Stanford 10, the model for Aprenda 3, was the first assessment 

product created at Harcourt that incorporates the principles of universal design. Today, 

Stanford 10 is recognized as an assessment product that is inclusive, accessible, and 

valid for the widest range of students, including students with disabilities and students 

with limited English proficiency. 



Grades 2 through 11

Braille Versions of Test Forms 

Braille forms of Aprenda 3 were 

constructed for administration to visuallyimpaired 

students. Harcourt’s certified 

Braillist on staff, Dr. Betsy Case, is a 

member of the Test Advisory Panel (Test 

Central) of the American Printing House 

for the Blind (APH) and lifetime member of 

the Braille Authority of North America 

(BANA). 


Braille materials are transcribed and 

proofread using the various Braille codes 

and conventions shown in Exhibit 5 and 

Exhibit 6. Braille materials for students, 

as well as interpretive materials, will be 

transcribed using Braille Formats 

Principles of Braille Transcription (1997) 

and English Braille American Edition (1994). 

Braille Codes (continued) 

Type of Braille: 

Contracted 

b r a i l l e 

o f t h e s h a l l 

Exhibit 6. Contracted Codes 

Harcourt uses various forms of Braille to meet the 

needs of students. 

66 

Braille Codes 


Attachment 1 


Literary Braille Code (contracted): Reading, History, 

Social Studies, Language Arts, Writing tests 

Literary Braille Code (uncontracted): Spelling tests 

Nemeth Braille Code: Mathematics, Biology, 

General Science tests 

Chemistry Braille Code: Chemistry tests 

Computer Braille Code: Computer notation; e.g., 

website addresses 

Music Braille Code: Music material 

Exhibit 5. Sample Braille Codes 

Harcourt uses Braillers who are capable with the various 

Braille codes. 

Staff members, such as graphic design 

specialists, are also experienced in Braille 

test modification and preparation. The 

graphic design team hand-draws each 

piece of art. Hand-drawn art provides a 

clearer, more pristine tactual resolution, 

giving the student a greater range of 

texture and tactile experience than 

computer-generated art. The variety of 

texture, depth, thin and thick lines that are 

captured with hand-drawn illustrations are 

clearer and easier to read than the dotted 

lines drawn on computers. Details are 

much more refined in hand-drawn art. 

Harcourt’s workflow for processing Braille begins upon final proof approval of the 

regular test booklets. Electronic text, hard copy, and PDF files are prepared. Upon 

receipt of the electronic files, the transcribers and proofreaders check the Braille test 

items against the regular test booklets for accuracy, appropriate modification, and 

adherence to standard Braille format requirements. The hard copy is used by the 

transcribers to obtain format and layout information for each test item. PDF files are 

utilized for evaluating text and graphic accuracy. 



Grades 2 through 11


67 


Attachment 1 


In the rare case that an item cannot be adapted, the item is only omitted as a last resort 

with the approval of the content area specialists, and the lead psychometrician. For the 

achievement scale for visually-impaired students to be as close as possible to the 

achievement scale for all other students, the only alteration in scaling and equating 

procedure is the removal of scaled item parameters from the scoring tables (item 

parameter scales) for the deleted items. The remaining items retain the same item 

parameter values as used for all other students. A total of nine items have been 

identified as being unable to translate into Braille across five levels of the test. 

Any recommended modifications are submitted for final approval and resolution. When 

approval has been received on all modifications, a careful translation and proofing 

process occurs. Prior to duplication, Braille tests go through a rigorous proofing 

process and are also sent to an outside, independent proofreader. 

We will provide the Braille versions of the STAR DPLT test coordinator instructions and 

test examiner directions. Special instructions are prepared in accordance with CDE 

requirements and accompany each test. To assist the test examiner, the manuals will 

include the script of all items, special instructions for test administration, a special 

symbols section, special directions, and the Braille transcribers’ notes for each test. 

The Braille notes summarize the transcribers’ changes in wording, omission of graphics, 

special symbol pages, and special directions to the test administrator. The notes also 

summarize where a picture description is needed in place of a picture. 

Harcourt recommends that each set of Braille materials be separately packaged for 

each student who is administered the Braille test. The package should include: 

♦ A materials needed list 

♦ A print version of the test 

♦ The Braille version of the test 

♦ Directions for administration 

♦ A copy of the Braille notes 

♦ Any special instructions for the visually impaired 

This package list will need to be finalized with the administration contractor. Harcourt 

will oversee production of additional Braille materials, such as rulers, protractors, 

mathematics reference sheets, and practice tests. 

Large-Print Versions of Test Forms 

For students with disabilities who have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 

Section 504 Plan that requires large-print materials, Harcourt has standardized largeprint 

product specifications. Harcourt prepares these materials on a regular basis and 

relies on a supplier who has proven expertise and capacity to provide quality materials. For 

equity and validity purposes, all materials provided to regular students also will be 

provided to those students requiring large print (for example, large-print answer 



Grades 2 through 11


68 


Attachment 1 


documents, large-print references sheets, and a standard-sized ruler with large-print 

numbers). Harcourt will produce and distribute interpretive products in large print. 

Harcourt will also produce test coordinator instructions and test examiner directions to 

accompany the large-print version of the test. 

Upon final proof approval of the regular test booklets, the text is converted to 20-point arial 

font, as specified by universal design principles. Before 

being submitted to the print vendor, forms are checked for 

quality and accuracy, and inspections continue throughout 

the production process. Harcourt’s editorial staff will provide 

critical input on items that cannot be enlarged (e.g., 

measurement-type items) before the large-print production 

process begins. 

Large-print and Braille 

versions are constructed to 

adhere to universal design 

principles. 

Using the standards set by the APH Test Central Advisory Committee, Harcourt has 

developed product standards that support the special needs of children who require largeprint 

test materials. For example, once formatted for large print, graphics are examined for 

clarity and accuracy of size. All art is developed with universal design requirements for 

readability in mind and is modified for large print if necessary. The pages are printed on 

70# cream colored, high opacity sheets of paper, which reduces eyestrain and minimizes 

images showing through from one page to another. Plastic coil binding makes page turning 

easy and allows for the booklets to lay flat when reading. These details will be finalized 

with the administration contractor. 

For the production of large-print test materials Harcourt has published step-by-step 

procedures with quality assurance inspections included throughout. These steps 

include: 

♦ a thorough editorial review of all items 

♦ a review of image quality and clarity upon enlargement 

♦ compliance with specifications published by APH for large-print test 

booklets 

♦ a quality check of the enlarged file before it is sent to the print vendor 

♦ a quality check of sample proof from the printer 

Harcourt will provide electronic files in correct format for large print to the administration 

contractor for production. Prior to delivery, the print vendor provides Harcourt with a 

certificate of inspection for 100 percent of large-print material. 

Determining Quantities of Braille and Large-Print Materials 

For each year of testing, Harcourt will print the appropriate number of test booklets as 

outlined by the RFS. If required for the assessment program, Harcourt has the capacity 

to increase the quantity of booklets produced, including changes in student enrollment. 



Grades 2 through 11


69 


Attachment 1 


Harcourt will provide special attention to the development of Braille and large-print 

materials to maintain equity in the assessment process for all students in California. 

To estimate the numbers of materials needed early in the production process, Harcourt 

will send survey forms to the districts for quantities of large-print materials, uncontracted 

Braille materials for students in grades 2 and 3, and contracted Braille materials for 

students in grades 4 through 11. Using the information gathered from this survey, 

Harcourt will produce the test materials with an overage of approximately 10 percent. 

To double check these estimates, Harcourt will, in advance of administration, ask each 

school for specific orders of Braille and large-print materials. 

References 

Braille Authority of North America. (1997). Braille formats principles of print to Braille 

transcription. Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind. 

Braille Authority of North America. (1994). English Braille American edition. Louisville, KY: 

American Printing House for the Blind. 

Center for Universal Design. (1997). What is universal design? North Carolina State University. 

Retrieved June 4, 2003 from 

http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/univ_design/princ_overview.htm 

Dolan, R. P., & Hall, T. E. (2001). Universal design for learning: Implications for large-scale 

assessments. Perspectives: International Dyslexia Association, 27(4), 22–25. Retrieved 

December 26, 2002 from: http://www.cast.org/udl/Dolan_IDA_Perspectives_2001.htm 

Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Universal design applied to 

large-scale assessment (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of 

Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. 

3.5. Component Task 5—Test Materials Production, Ordering, and 

Packaging 

In this section, we have included our plan to produce materials, obtain orders from 

LEAs, and package materials for delivery. Our plan is based on an anticipated number 

of test takers from the current Spanish DPLT (SABE/2) website (http://star.cde.ca.gov.). 

Our estimates for student counts by grade are listed in Table 23 and are the same as 

those used for the cost proposal. 

Year 

Table 23. Estimated Students Counts by Grade 

2 3 4 5 6 

Grade 

7 8 9 10 11 Total 

2006 21,382 18,045 12,101 9,735 6,113 5,252 4,398 7,015 4,160 2,117 90,318 

2007 18,045 12,101 9,735 6,113 5,252 4,398 7,015 4,160 2,117 68,936 

2008 12,101 9,735 6,113 5,252 4,398 7,015 4,160 2,117 50,891 

Note: n-counts lifted from CA STAR website: http://star.cde.ca.gov 



Grades 2 through 11


Harcourt will be responsible for all arrangements, including personnel and costs 

associated with this task. 

A. Test Materials Production 

70 


Attachment 1 


Harcourt will be responsible for producing and printing all test materials according to 

CDE specifications. Harcourt will print sufficient quantities of test materials, plus 

overage, to be delivered to the districts. Harcourt will provide five percent overage for 

each school and adult education center and each district will receive a 10 percent 

overage of all materials excluding customized materials for students with disabilities. 

Harcourt understands that these percentages may be adjusted after the first operational 

year. Additionally, a three percent overage will be maintained in San Antonio to 

accommodate emergency shortages in California districts. 

All eligible students in grades 2 through 11 as well as optional grade 1 and 12 students 

will receive the test materials listed in Table 24. Practice Tests will be made available to 

only grades 2 – 6. 

Table 24. Test Materials by Grade 

Grade STAR DPLT Test Materials 

2 Practice Test Booklet 

Practice Test DFA 

Consumable Test Booklet 

DFA 

Cardstock Ruler 



Consumable Test Booklet 

DFA 

Cardstock Ruler 



Test Booklet 

Machine-Scorable Answer Document 

DFA 

Ruler 



Test Booklet 


DFA 

Ruler 



Test Booklet 




Grades 2 through 11

Quality Control Procedures 


Grade STAR DPLT Test Materials 

DFA 

Ruler 

7 Test Booklet 

DFA 


Ruler 

Formula Sheet 


DFA 


Ruler 

Formula Sheet 


DFA 


Ruler 

Formula Sheet 

10 Test Book 

DFA 


Ruler 

Formula Sheet 

11 Test Book 

DFA 


Ruler 

Formula Sheet 

71 


Attachment 1 


Print Quality—Harcourt has implemented quality requirements for printing and collation 

including, but not limited to: pulling additional sheets/forms off press, and utilizing 

Signature Recognition Technology in our binding process. These additional quality 

steps are all designed to provide a defect-free product to the state of California by 

eliminating mis-collations within a test booklet. 

An additional quality step that Harcourt has added includes the addition of Program 

Identifier Codes (PICs) to all printed product. The PICs are added by our composition 

group to provide a visual reference at the footer of every page and consist of the state 

abbreviation + grade + form number. The PIC is a useful identifier for the printer to 

ensure that the appropriate signatures are picked up and bound together. It’s an added 



Grades 2 through 11


72 


Attachment 1 


measure to ensure the accuracy of each bound book that Harcourt has created for the 

state of California. 

Printing—Once the proofs are approved, plates are burned and another quality check 

is done at the press to ensure that no data have dropped off. The plates are then sent 

to the pressroom. The pressmen are required to pull a minimum of one sheet out of 

1000 to verify registration and color consistency. Signatures coming off the press are 

stacked on a skid. A colored tag identifies all signatures. The pressmen place the tags 

on two faces of each skid for easy recognition for bindery staff to guarantee a positive 

identification. 

Bindery—Corresponding colored tags have been placed on each individual pocket on 

bindery equipment for confident collation of materials. Each Harcourt print supplier has 

purchased and installed a form of Signature Recognition Technology. This system is 

designed to eliminate mis-collations within a test booklet. The system will print a 0.25” x 

0.25” barcode on the first page of each signature of a booklet; this barcode is uniquely 

coded to that specific signature and no other. The order of the unique barcodes is 

programmed into the system prior to binding a booklet so that as the signature passes 

through the stitcher for binding, an electronic eye reads the barcode, verifies its 

accuracy and placement, and will continue stitching. Any booklet that contains 

signatures out of order will cause an automatic shut down of the bindery equipment, 

allowing personnel to pull all defective books, find the source of the problem, and 

correct it. The bindery operator tests all collation equipment and sensors as part of the 

setup and performs tests to guarantee accuracy. 

Before live collation begins, the quality control supervisor physically verifies that the 

bindery units have the correct signatures in each pocket. During the binding process, 

one out of every 250 books coming off the conveyor belt is pulled to ensure all books 

meet proper quality control standards set by Harcourt. These materials are physically 

inspected by quality checkers within the manufacturing facility and 25 of these inspected 

booklets are sent to your manufacturing administrator at Harcourt. A Certificate of 

Inspection is completed and signed by bindery personnel as well as the quality checkers 

and sent along with the samples to the manufacturing administrator. 

This certificate indicates the total number of booklets manufactured, the number pulled 

for random inspection, and the parties responsible for inspection. These quality 

assurance standards exceed what is normal for the industry, but have been developed 

by Harcourt to provide the highest confidence in the quality our product. 

Printer’s Proof (monitor proof)—Our printers will pre-flight all provided electronic files 

and will generate a monitor proof from the provided files. This is the latest innovation in 

the printing industry and it represents what the manufactured product will look like. 

Monitor proofing will eliminate the need for overnight shipping because it is web-based 

and notification of a proof available for viewing is sent via an email with a hyperlink to 



Grades 2 through 11


73 


Attachment 1 


the proof’s location. The monitor proof can be viewed at any time or any location, 

provided the website address, login, and password are correct. The monitor-proof can 

be printed for hard copy review if needed. Monitor proofing allows for concurrent review 

by Harcourt personnel so it will save two to three days per proof during the print 

schedule. 

Monitor proofing uses financial, industry-standard security features of the Web. 

Harcourt creates a unique identification, password, and profile for each user, indicating 

which program and proofs they are allowed to review. Reviewers will only see the 

proofs for their program. Currently monitor proofing is available for all non-scannable 

test booklets and ancillary products. 

As such, our production and editorial staff reviews these proofs thoroughly to confirm 

that the pages are properly aligned and sequenced, the booklet is correctly laid out, and 

all colors are accurately reflected. Any content or editorial changes at this stage of the 

process are very expensive and will affect the overall schedule. 

Printed Sample—Harcourt receives advance copies of all printed pieces for review 

before they are delivered to our Distribution Center. We will proof those documents and 

deliver the required number of copies to the Editorial team. Advance samples will be 

checked internally for quality of printing, pagination, and comparison to other supporting 

materials. 

B. Ancillary Test Materials 

Harcourt will provide the following ancillary materials to each district and test site 

coordinator where the STAR DPLT will be administered: 

♦ Score Interpretation Guide 

♦ Test Coordinator Manual 

♦ Directions for Administration 

♦ District Coordinator Manual 

♦ Technical Manual 

♦ Norms Book 

Harcourt will perform extensive quality control checks on the materials provided for the 

STAR DPLT program. Our publishing quality assurance group is responsible for 

performing these checks. This group performs cold reads of all materials as a final 

quality assurance procedure to meet Harcourt’s zero defects policy. One important step 

taken by this group is the cross-checking of test booklets to test administration manuals 

for accuracy, consistency, and workability. This step ensures that page number 

references and sample items in the test administration manual, for instance, match the 

actual information in the final version of the test. All materials produced for the STAR 

DPLT will go through publishing quality assurance review prior to final submission to 

CDE. 



Grades 2 through 11


74 


Attachment 1 


The following steps provide standard operating procedure (SOP) for completing a 

publishing quality assurance review: 

♦ Following sign-off, the project lead editor or designee prepares material for 

submission to the publishing quality assurance group. Ideally, the order of 

submission/approval should be: (1) test booklet, (2) answer document, 

and (3) test administration manuals. The quality assurance group retains 

copies of all submitted materials to facilitate the cross-checking of 

materials as they are submitted. The submitting editor completes a 

submission form indicating requested turnaround time along with any 

other special instructions or required documentation. The submission 

form also serves as the error/query log. For test booklets, a copy of an 

assessment specialist-approved answer key should be submitted along 

with the test booklets. 

• The publishing quality assurance supervisor prioritizes submitted 

requests on an ongoing basis and assigns work to quality assurance 

editors. 

• Using a checklist developed by the quality assurance group for this 

review process, the quality assurance editor does a cold read of 

submitted material and notes any errors/queries on the submission 

form. 

• The quality assurance editor cross-checks test materials and notes any 

errors/queries on the submission form. 

• The quality assurance editor takes the tests, checks responses against 

the submitted key, and notes any errors/queries on the submission 

form. 

• The quality assurance editor photocopies the submission form 

containing all errors/queries and returns the form to the submitting 

editor. 

♦ Upon receiving the error/query log from the quality assurance editor, the 

project lead editor or designee does the following: 

• The project lead editor or designee reviews the quality assurance 

write-up, noting on the form a response to each editorial error/query 

noted. These responses will usually be very brief (e.g., a noted typo 

could be addressed by the word “fixing,” while a query might be 

addressed with the phrase, “okay as is” or “revising according to 

customer style”). 

• The project lead editor or designee then meets with the appropriate 

assessment specialist to obtain responses to any assessment-related 

queries/errors, and these responses are noted on the form. 



Grades 2 through 11


75 


Attachment 1 


• The project lead editor or designee marks copy for any needed 

corrections and submits the markup(s) to Harcourt’s production 

department. 

• Upon receiving pages back from production, the project lead editor or 

designee checks the new copy to ensure that the requested edits have 

been correctly made. Once all corrected pages have been approved 

by the project lead editor or designee, he or she signs off on the 

error/query log and returns the log, along with any corrected pages, to 

the publishing quality assurance group. 

♦ Upon receiving the signed-off error/query log and any corrected pages 

from the project lead editor or designee, the quality assurance editor does 

the following: 

• The quality assurance editor double-checks that all queries/errors have 

been addressed and that all corrected pages provided have 

adequately resolved the problem(s) noted. The quality assurance 

editor notifies the submitting editor if there are problems during this 

phase. 

• Once the quality assurance editor is satisfied that all errors/queries 

have been addressed and/or corrected, he or she signs off on the 

submission form and provides a copy of the sign-off to the submitting 

editor. This sign-off authorizes the project lead editor or designee to 

release the document to the printer. 

For CDE, Harcourt can provide files for any electronic delivery required. Throughout the 

composition, the production department prepares portable document format (PDF) files 

for both computer monitor use (monitor proofing) and manufacturing printer use. PDFs 

can also be prepared for client website delivery. Harcourt production staff is also 

capable of providing files for web delivery in HTML, as well as PDF format. 

Harcourt will work with CDE on refining the production timeline and delivery dates for 

the Interpretive Manual and any other ancillary material as needed for both printer and 

web-based delivery. 

Other file formats that have been delivered to Harcourt clients would include application 

source files containing all production elements including fonts and art files. Both high- 

and low-resolution files can be provided, if necessary. In all cases, the appropriate 

copyright permissions will be procured for planned product delivery. 

The electronic versions of the directions for administration and coordinator’s manual will 

be posted by February 1 of each year. 



Grades 2 through 11

C. Pre-ID Process 


76 


Attachment 1 


Harcourt understands the state’s need to minimize and eliminate student coding errors 

on the student answer document demographic page and plans to accomplish this by 

providing CDE and the LEAs with Harcourt’s Pre-Identification (Pre-ID) Service. Pre-ID 

information for the STAR DPLT must include all required student demographic data plus 

optional fields for LEA use. Additionally, the process and format must be consistent 

across all state assessment programs for ease of reporting and interpreting reported 

results. 

ePreID adds to timely, 

accurate reporting of 

DPLT results. 

Harcourt is especially pleased to offer California districts our 

web-based pre-identification service solution through the 

deployment of our customer-facing portal known as Harcourt 

Spectrum. This portal utilizes the most contemporary platform 

available on the market and provides CDE with a secure, 

extensible, scalable, and reliable web-native tool set fully integrated with Harcourt’s 

proven scoring and reporting system. Harcourt will contact all districts to determine each 

district's STAR DPLT coordinator. Harcourt will gather the needed information regarding 

technology. As part of that discussion Harcourt will determine the district's internet 

capabilities for utilizing Spectrum. 

The portal, which is accessed through widely available web browsers and an internet 

connection, is a highly-secure, highly-available system. Through the portal’s Role 

Management service, access to the various services and data is controlled and 

managed through roles-based permissions and entitlements. Users who are authorized 

to access the Student Management application will be able use our ePreID service to 

manage pre-identification data, student demographics, and generate on-demand 

barcode labels for real time, up-to-the-last-minute student additions or changes. 

Harcourt has designed this tool to be user friendly and no software, other than an 

internet browser is required; internet connectivity and access to an ink jet or laser printer 

will enable LEAs to utilize system and locally print Pre-ID labels. Harcourt's information 

and technology systems are also designed to be fully configurable and can modify pre- 

ID files and student data file records if necessary to conform to CDE requirements 

including but not limited to CSIS methodology. Harcourt will also conduct this process 

manually for LEAs without sufficient technology. 

Authorized users at the district or school level can enter student data directly into the 

ePreID service, or they can bulk load the data through a file import process. Districts 

not having access to the Internet will be able to order Pre-Identification Services through 

our customer support center where trained staff will provide complete instructions for 

districts to create and send us pre-identification files for uploading into our central 

scoring system. 

Once the initial ePreID file is loaded, periodic updates from the LEAs can easily be 

processed. Online updates can be performed directly into the ePreID service and can 



Grades 2 through 11


77 


Attachment 1 


be performed up to the point where pre-identification labels must be generated prior to 

the distribution of testing materials. The ability to correct pre-ID information at a very 

late date ensures delivery of labels to the LEAs within ten working days of the final 

correction period. Additionally, as described below, once the data are correct, labels 

may be printed at the school or district just prior to the test administration, ensuring 

each student document is returned with accurate information for scoring and reporting. 

Whether entered online or imported via a file transfer, a series of edit checks are built 

into the system to verify data consistency and accuracy. Harcourt requirements 

analysts will work with CDE to define and document the specific business rules to be 

applied to the pre-ID files. The system will then flag any records that do not conform to 

those business rules and the LEAs will have the option to correct those errors via the 

user interface or by importing a revised, corrected file. If errors are discovered, the user 

will have the option to resolve the errors immediately, or save the file or record and 

resolve the errors at a later date. Student data captured in the ePreID service can also 

be exported to Excel or Access for offline manipulation and analysis. For those directly 

entering their pre-ID information, notification is immediate and real time. As records are 

imported the user will be provided status messaging indicating if errors were 

encountered and identifying those records that may need correcting. If files are 

submitted to Harcourt for loading into the ePreID system, the same immediate real-time 

notification occurs, ensuring that we will be able to notify the LEA within two working 

days of receipt that the data are incomplete or inaccurate and requesting an updated file 

or assisting the LEA with manually correcting individual records. 

Once data are loaded and finalized, 

Harcourt will use the pre-identification 

data to generate bulk adhesive 

barcode labels that will be shipped to 

California districts to be affixed to 

students’ answer documents. In 

addition to specific eye-readable 

information (e.g., student name, the 

student’s identification number, 

gender, ethnicity, school name and 

code, district name), each barcode 

Exhibit 7. Pre-ID Sample Label 

These labels lessen the administrative burdens at schools 

and dramatically lessen the number of alerts upon scanning 

of student response booklets. 

label contains a unique student identification number, which will be used to link each 

student's completed answer document(s) with his or her demographic information. 

These labels eliminate the need to grid demographic data on test documents. Exhibit 7 

provides a sample pre-identification label. 

Harcourt will capture or assign unique student identification numbers during the preidentification 

process. By associating a unique number with each student record, 

longitudinal tracking may be accomplished. 



Grades 2 through 11


78 


Attachment 1 


Student data may be entered directly into the system on an ad hoc or “one off” basis. 

The local test administrator can then generate a label for local printing that can be 

affixed to the answer document prior to testing. Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9 display sample 

screen shots of the ePreID service. 

Exhibit 8. User Logon Screen 

Authorized users can access the system to either create or edit a file. 

Exhibit 9. Demographic Update Page 

Authorized users have the capability to update student demographic fields 

as specified by CDE. 



Grades 2 through 11


79 


Attachment 1 


Pre-ID files will conform to the current layout requirements as specified by CDE; 

however, if there is a need to modify the file layout and student record requirements, 

Harcourt will update the STAR DPLT specifications and formats to meet those new 

requirements. 

D. Ordering 

Materials ordering and tracking must meet all CDE requirements and those specified in 

the California Code of Regulations as they apply to the implementation of the STAR 

DPLT. This includes the ability of the contractor to bill individual LEAs for materials and 

processing for grades 1 and 12, which are not included in the state program. 

Mandatory testers are defined as those students in grades 2-11 who are English 

Learners who have been enrolled in California Public and Non-Public schools less than 

12 months. Optional testers are defined as English Learners in grades 2-11 who have 

been enrolled in a California Public or Non-Public school 12 months or more. All billing 

for mandatory and optional testers is included in this contract. 

Non-state funded materials include those materials for any students in grades 1 or 12 

and for any students in grades 2 – 11 who are English only or Fluent English Proficient 

(e.g. in a dual immersion program). All billing for these materials and associated tasks 

will be directed to LEAs and will not be the responsibility of CDE. For non-state funded 

materials, LEAs will call the Harcourt Customer Support Center to place their orders to 

ensure that billing for these materials is routed appropriately. 

Harcourt Spectrum is currently being expanded to include eCommerce functionality 

(available Summer 2006) which will allow all orders to be placed via Spectrum and for 

billing to be routed to the State or LEA as defined above. Therefore starting with the 

Spring 2007 administration, all orders can be placed and tracked on-line using Harcourt 

Spectrum. 

Harcourt is committed to and actively using state-of-the-art technology to support the 

STAR DPLT testing program and provide CDE and the LEAs with outstanding service. 

Our flagship technology offering, Harcourt Spectrum delivers the latest developments 

in technical innovation to customers. Harcourt realizes districts may have access to 

different levels of technology. Harcourt will contact all districts to determine each 

district's DPLT coordinator. Harcourt will gather the needed information regarding 

technology. As part of that discussion Harcourt will determine the district's internet 

capabilities for utilizing Spectrum. 

Harcourt Spectrum provides test administrators at all levels access to services that 

make test administration easier and more efficient. These services include the 

submission and management of test security agreements, student information, 

submission and status of orders for materials and services, and district-level billing for 

off-grades materials and processing. 



Grades 2 through 11


80 


Attachment 1 


Harcourt Spectrum serves as a gateway into our foundational systems, fully supporting 

the following services related to materials ordering: 

♦ Roles Management 

♦ Order Management 

Each of these services is tightly integrated into Harcourt’s fulfillment, distribution, 

imaging, scanning, scoring and reporting, and billing systems. 

Harcourt Spectrum, which is accessed through commercially available web browsers 

and an Internet connection is a highly-secure, highly-available system. Once a user 

logs into the portal, access to the various services and data is controlled and managed 

through roles-based permissions and entitlements. 

Roles Management—Users register to the website and provide information to Harcourt 

regarding the requested roles and organizational access. Requests are reviewed and 

granted by Harcourt’s portal administrator based on CDE’s access rules for district-level 

personnel, including district test coordinators. Harcourt Spectrum is based on a single 

sign-on solution where once a user passes the initial authentication process, they are 

able to access any service to which they are entitled. Password encryption and 

advanced hashing algorithms are used to secure user passwords. If desired by CDE, 

this could be extended further using dual factor authentication. There are no restrictions 

on the number of roles that can be created, and the entitlement granted to each role 

(permissions to different features) are fully configurable so that the specific needs of the 

client can be met without additional software development work required. 

Working from the updated list of district test coordinators and their contact information, 

Harcourt will ensure that no materials are distributed without receipt of a completed test 

security agreement. Given CDE requires all test coordinators to sign a non-disclosure 

security agreement before administering the DPLT, Harcourt will print a copy of that 

form in the test coordinator handbook. The handbook will direct the coordinators to sign 

and fax the form to a toll free number at Harcourt. Harcourt will collect the forms. 

Order Management— Harcourt will contact all districts to 

determine each district's STAR DPLT coordinator. Harcourt will 

gather the needed information regarding technology. As part 

of that discussion Harcourt will determine the district's internet 

School-to-district order 

information reduces 

district burden. 

capabilities for utilizing Spectrum. Users who are authorized to access the Order 

Management Service may enter enrollment data, submit orders for additional materials, 

update organizational and contact data, manage shipping locations, track shipments, 

generate the return of scorables and unused materials back to Harcourt and track 

secure materials as the materials are shipped to a state for testing. Harcourt Spectrum 

order tracking functionality is fully integrated to Harcourt’s fulfillment and shipping 

systems. This allows real time updated information to be made visible to our customers 

via the Order Tracking services in Harcourt Spectrum. This allows LEAs visibility to the 



Grades 2 through 11


81 


Attachment 1 


progress of the order within Harcourt from submitted status to inventory reserved status, 

and finally through picked and ultimately shipped status. The tracking numbers are 

passed from the shipment manifesting system into Harcourt Spectrum and that 

information can then be sent out to LEAs via email as well as visible through the 

Harcourt Spectrum web interface. To track returned materials the system relies on 

LEAs inputting materials packaged to return to Harcourt. The LEAs can print a returns 

label locally and the tracking information is available from the time the order is picked 

up. Spectrum integrates to the carriers’ websites to provide real time tracking 

information. For districts not using Spectrum, Harcourt will provide a contact phone 

number staffed by personnel trained to provide the information to the test coordinators, 

at their request. Orders are auto-generated following the entry and finalization of 

enrollment data by CDE, the districts, or schools. When reviewing the enrollment entry 

process, which automatically creates the order for materials, it is important to recognize 

that the Role Management Service described above provides a variety of ways for a 

client to manage their administrative processes, including enrollment and order 

management, because of the highly configurable nature of the application. As an 

example, if a client determines they want to distribute the enrollment entry process, they 

can create roles and set entitlement to allow school-level administrators to enter 

enrollment quantities, but not give them entitlement to finalize the enrollment (creating 

the order for materials) to Harcourt. At the district level, the enrollment data entered by 

the schools can be reviewed for approval before being finalized by the district thus 

submitting the order to Harcourt for processing. This configurable environment enables 

a client to distribute the enrollment data entry across locations or groups in order to 

reduce the administrative burden typically placed on the districts when they must enter 

all enrollment data for the district vs. reviewing enrollments submitted by schools and 

approving them. This feature is fully configurable so that if a client does not want to 

allow schools to enter enrollment data they do not need to grant permission to that 

feature. 

The Harcourt Spectrum enrollment and materials order interface is configured to utilize 

the naming conventions and taxonomy specific to each program. Thus, for the state 

STAR DPLT all Aprenda 3 materials required for testing (regular test booklets, answer 

documents, administration manuals, pre-ID labels, large print, Braille, etc.) will be 

available via Harcourt Spectrum under the STAR DPLT program, and materials for 

testing grades 1 or 12 will be available as either Aprenda 3 or as STAR DPLT offgrades, 

whichever designation CDE would prefer. Information for both programs will be 

accessed via a single user ID and password for each LEA, so there is no need to use 

separate log-ins. The programs themselves are defined separately within Harcourt 

Spectrum to ensure separate ordering, tracking, and billing for the state program 

materials and the LEA materials. For the STAR DPLT, all orders will include a ten 

percent overage for each school and five percent for the LEA. 

Electronic capture of all enrollment data and orders allows Harcourt to provide CDE with 

accurate accounting of all materials ordered and a means to verify which LEAs have 



Grades 2 through 11


82 


Attachment 1 


placed excessive orders—that is whose scored test counts are excessively lower than 

the materials ordered counts. When such conditions are evident, Harcourt will, at CDE 

direction, bill the LEA for the excess overages and not include those overages in the 

accounting for the STAR DPLT. 

E. Packaging 

Assembly and Kitting 

Bill of Materials 

A bill of materials is established for every assembly that is made from multiple quantities 

of a component or from multiple components. In other words, for anything that is more 

than a single loose item. 

Prior to the packaging or assembly of components into a package or kit, the items must 

be collected in the Value Add Assembly department. Each item is looked up on the 

warehouse management system and the material status code is changed from available 

(AVL) to Assembly (ASM). This change in status code triggers a task for a forklift 

operator to move this material to the Value Add department. This task is communicated 

via a radio frequency wrist-mounted barcode scanner that is worn by the forklift 

operator. When retrieved from the storage location, the forklift operator scans the 

location barcode and the ISBN barcode to verify they have the correct item. An 

additional barcode label (license plate) is placed on the material. This license plate is 

used to track the movement of the item within the distribution center. 

Packaging 

A unique component number or ISBN identifies each item during assembly and 

packaging. These components such as test booklets or answer documents are counted 

into package quantities and shrink-wrapped as specified by the bill of materials. In most 

cases, it is possible that automated feeders are employed that utilize the most current 

barcode technology, scanning each booklet identification code, verifying and ensuring 

forms used and quantities. In other cases, materials are hand counted and cross 

stacked prior to manual shrink-wrapping by distribution value add personnel. Shrinkwrapping 

is performed on a variety of automated, semi-automated and fully automated 

equipment. 

QC and Weight Checking 

A number of quality checks are made throughout the process of value add packaging. 

Three specific techniques are used: 

♦ The first technique is what has come to be known as the “count of ten” 

technique. Assemblies are built by grouping component items in groups 

of ten. Ten of each component are collected and then assembled. If 



Grades 2 through 11


83 


Attachment 1 


there is a leftover item or a shortage then all the packages or assemblies 

are rechecked to insure there were no miscounts or errors. 

♦ Secondly a weight scale is used to measure packages at the end of each 

assembly line. Once a correct sample has been assembled, each and 

every item after that is weighed and the weight should not vary. If a 

variation in weight is found, then the assembly is rechecked to determine 

the source of the error and to make corrections. 

♦ Lastly, a comparison is made with the weight and dimensions on the 

warehouse management system. If there is a deviation, the source of the 

difference is determined and the assembly is rechecked. If the assembly 

is found to be correct then the warehouse management system 

information is updated with the new correct weight and dimensions. 

Serialization and Secure Processing 

Bill of Materials 

A bill of materials is established for every serialized item or assembly that is made from 

multiple quantities of a component or from multiple components. In other words, for 

anything that is more than a single loose item or has not been modified by serialization. 

This will be determined in advance by mutual agreement among Harcourt’s program 

manager, CDE, and distribution personnel. Once established, the bill of materials is the 

document that specifies the composition of all serialized packages and kit assemblies. 

Launching Material To and From Value Add Secure Processing 

Prior to serialization and packaging or assembly of components into a serialized 

package or kit, the items must be collected in the Value Add Secure Processing 

department. The movement of the components now follows the same processes 

described above. 

With quality processes at each step, Harcourt assures CDE that each test site will 

receive the exact quantity of materials ordered, both for the STAR DPLT administration 

and for optional materials for grades 1 and 12. 

All materials will be packaged and labeled by school, but shipped to the authorized 

district STAR DPLT coordinator. Braille and large-print materials will be packaged and 

labeled separately but will be included with the single regular test materials shipment. 

This allows for ease of distribution within the LEA. 

STAR DLPT Order Fulfillment 

Big Five Pick Line Requirements 

The “Big Five” includes key information that is provided by Mr. Cernohous for the STAR 

DPLT program. This information is used to setup a pick line and is critical to determine 

things like how the pick line will be laid out, how much can be stored in a given location, 

what a replenishment quantity should be, etc. 



Grades 2 through 11


These requirements consist of five key bits of information: 

1. A list of ISBNs that will be picked for an administration. 

84 


Attachment 1 


2. The sequence in which the ISBNs will be picked. Items are usually 

sequenced by grade, for example, grade 5 test booklets are next to grade 

5 answer documents. 

3. Page counts of each document. This is multiplied by the number of items 

in a package and is used to determine product height. Twenty-four pages 

are twelve sheets of paper. 

4. Product length and width dimensions. 

5. Whether an item is serialized as secure material. 

Once the pick line has been setup, a quality check of the pick line is performed by a 

Harcourt quality assurance inspector. The QA checks the pick line ensuring that it 

matches the Big Five Requirements and ensures that a checklist is completed and 

clearly posted and understood by distribution personnel. The checklist identifies any 

special requirements for the STAR DPLT program like special handling, labeling, 

shipping due dates, palletizing, etc. 

After the pick line has been setup and the QC has been performed, a sample order is 

released by Custom Assessment Program (CAP) personnel. This order requires the 

picking of at least one each of every item on the pick line. Distribution personnel pick 

the sample order exactly as they would if they were shipping the order to the customer. 

Any special requirements are addressed. The QA Inspector will inspect the order after 

it is picked and completed in the shipping department. The exterior of the carton is 

inspected to ensure all labeling is in place as required and the carton condition is good 

and it is sealed correctly. It is then opened and the packing list is removed. The 

contents are inspected to ensure that they match the packing list. For serialized 

programs like the STAR DPLT, the security checklist will also be included. Only after 

the order is completely checked and everything is found to be correct will the orders for 

the STAR DPLT program be released. 

3.6. Component Task 6—Delivery and Collection of Materials 

The STAR DPLT component of the STAR program requires careful planning for the 

delivery and collection of test materials in order to support the efforts of the district 

coordinators in meeting all administration requirements. Harcourt’s plan accounts for 

potential issues that can arise when administering multiple components of a single 

testing program. 

The scheduled testing window for the STAR DPLT is March 13 through May 19, with 

make ups through the following week. Harcourt understands that some LEAs may 

request an earlier testing window, requiring expedited delivery and collection of 

materials. With all ordering and scheduling tracked through the Harcourt Spectrum 



Grades 2 through 11


85 


Attachment 1 


management tools, such requests can be handled and accommodated. With the 

recognition that the earliest that testing may begin is February 27, Harcourt will 

coordinate the requests from any LEAs and ensure that they conform to the schedule 

and that Harcourt then delivers to them on time. 

Our plan includes descriptions of inventory control and packaging methods (fully 

detailed in an earlier section), secure and trackable delivery procedures, and full 

accounting for all materials ordered, shipped, and returned. This includes secure 

storage of all materials until CDE approves the once-a-year order for destruction. 

A. Delivery of Test Materials 

Cartons are transported to the shipping department by way of the distribution conveyor 

system. STAR DPLT program cartons can be directed to any one of 11 pre-designated 

shipping spurs within Harcourt’s distribution center. Most of the effort in this area 

involves unloading the shipping conveyor spurs and consolidating the cartons from 

orders and forwarding them to the appropriate carrier. 

A copy of the quality checklist that is posted at the beginning of the pick line is also 

posted in the shipping area. A QA inspector checks the shipping area and ensures that 

a checklist is completed and clearly posted and understood by distribution personnel. 

The checklist identifies any special requirements for the STAR DPLT program like 

special handling, labeling, shipping due dates, palletizing, etc. 

For the STAR DPLT, no materials will be prepared for shipping until the distribution 

center receives formal notification from Mr. Cernohous that the district STAR DPLT 

coordinator has completed and returned a fully executed security agreement. Only then 

will the materials order drop to the distribution center for processing. 

In addition to the packing list that was included in box 1 during picking, a district copy of 

the packing list for each school will be included. For this reason, box 1 of an order does 

not get sealed after passing the weight-in-motion scale and the void fill and carton 

sealing station is bypassed. The open carton signals shipping personnel that something 

is still needed in the carton. Shipping personnel will use the information on the carton 

label to print the required district copy of the packing lists, add it to the box, and seal the 

carton. 

The STAR DPLT requires a security checklist. The security checklist itemizes every 

serial number of every serialized item in an order. Consequently, the security checklist 

cannot be printed until all items for an order have been scanned and picked in the 

picking process. Once all picks have been completed, the license plate barcode is 

scanned and the security checklist will print. This is then placed in box 1. A second 

person will check to ensure the checklist matches the carton, check to ensure the 

packing list is still in the carton, and then seal the carton. 



Grades 2 through 11


86 


Attachment 1 


A sample order will have been processed, verifying all requirements for the STAR DPLT 

are fully met. This order requires the picking of at least one each of every item on the 

pick line. Distribution personnel pick the sample order exactly as they would if they 

were shipping the order to the customer. Any special requirements are addressed. The 

quality assurance inspector will inspect the order after it is picked and completed in the 

shipping department. The exterior of the carton is inspected to ensure all labeling is in 

place as required and the carton condition is good and it is sealed correctly. It is then 

opened and the packing list is removed. The contents are inspected to ensure that it 

matches the packing list. For serialized programs like the STAR DPLT, the security 

checklist listing all serial numbers will be included. Only after the order is completely 

checked and everything is found to be in order will the orders for the STAR DPLT 

program be released. 

Delivery of Materials 

Harcourt assumes all responsibility and costs for the delivery of STAR DPLT test 

materials to LEAs on or before the designated delivery due date, which is no more than 

25 nor fewer than 10 working days before each LEA’s test date. Single school districts 

and charter schools will receive materials no more than 10 and no fewer than five 

working days before the first day of testing. We have the corporate leverage to require 

freight and parcel carriers to follow explicit instructions for the method and schedule of 

delivery. We will contract only with qualified carriers who can ship materials from our 

San Antonio distribution center and ensure that test materials will be delivered on 

schedule, under secure conditions, to all district locations. We instruct carriers to make 

inside delivery and specify this on the shipping documents they are provided. All test 

materials are shipped with carriers that can provide tracking of a shipment from origin to 

destination and we require carriers to obtain a signature confirming delivery. 

Those districts who have ordered Braille and large-print materials will receive those 

materials within their regular test materials shipment, but packaged separately for ease 

of distribution to the appropriate schools. 

All districts receive a copy of the packing lists for schools within the district and for the 

overages of test materials sent to the district office. Each materials shipment includes a 

toll-free telephone number, which district/school staff can use to notify Harcourt that 

materials were received and to make any other inquiries. 

B. Collection of Test Materials 

Test Material Returns Planning and Communication 

Harcourt has found that proper planning prior to the returning of test materials makes for 

a smoother and more successful experience for everyone involved in material returns. 

We will provide our freight carrier with a listing of all STAR DPLT program testing 

locations. They will use the list to create route plans and a pickup schedule, which will 

ensure LEAs are able to return all test materials within five days after the last day of the 

test administration period. This schedule will be communicated to CDE for review with 



Grades 2 through 11


87 


Attachment 1 


the districts/schools. Any changes or adjustment to the schedule will be communicated 

back to Harcourt and passed on to the freight carrier for modification of the schedule 

and route plans. Once this schedule is finalized, it will be communicated to all districts 

in the STAR DPLT program in advance. This will be provided by way of emails or with 

the permission of CDE, on the CDE website or, time allowing, even in Test Coordinator 

manuals to be provided with test materials. 

Coordination with Districts/Schools 

After the schedule has been established, the carrier will begin to contact districts one to 

two weeks prior to the end of the testing window. Harcourt has come to find that the 

best response rate is obtained by using email. Emails allow the correct person to be 

reached and can sit in one’s email box until he/she is ready to respond. Phone calls will 

also be made in the event that no response is received. The carrier will kindly remind 

the district of the scheduled pickup date and ask for an estimate of the number of 

scorable cartons and non-scorable cartons to be returned prior to pick-up. This will 

enable the carrier to prepare the proper shipping documents and labels for the shipment 

back to Harcourt. Harcourt will coordinate with the transportation company to allow for a 

sufficient overage of package labels to accommodate any increase in scorable and 

nonscoreable materials prior to pick-up. District test coordinators can contact the carrier 

using the toll-free number provided to request a pickup in the event that the district has 

not been contacted. 

Separation and Packing of Scorables and Nonscorables/Unused Materials 

It will be the responsibility of school and district test coordinators to separate scorable 

documents from non-scorable documents and pack them into cartons as specified in the 

test coordinator manual. 

♦ Scorable—documents such as used answer documents and response 

booklets must be placed into cartons and have orange, scorable labels 

placed on them. 

♦ Non-Scorable—documents such as used and unused test booklets must 

be placed into cartons and have green, non-scorable labels placed on 

them. 

Pickup of Materials 

The carrier driver will arrive at the pickup site with the necessary shipping documents 

and compare them with the material being picked up. It will be the responsibility of the 

on-site coordinator to make sure scorable and non-scorable boxes are ready for pick up 

when the carrier arrives. The driver will ask that the shipping documents be signed by 

the test coordinator to acknowledge the accuracy of the documents. The driver will 

provide a copy to the test coordinator for local records. 



Grades 2 through 11

Carrier Consolidation 


88 


Attachment 1 


The driver will return to a central location, where the carrier will confirm the number of 

boxes by school for scorable and non-scorable materials. The carrier will consolidate 

these boxes and return them to Harcourt intact on wrapped pallets ensuring the integrity 

of the shipment. The carrier will also provide Harcourt an electronic file listing the 

number of cartons picked up at all the districts picked up. 

Shipment to Harcourt 

The carrier will ship scorable materials to the Harcourt Scoring Center in San Antonio 

using an expedited means and follow with the non-scorable materials using standard 

ground transportation. Upon receipt at Harcourt, receiving personnel will confirm receipt 

of the materials and verify the counts provided on the shipping documents and the file 

sent previously. If any discrepancies exist, receiving personnel will identify the 

discrepancy and contact the carrier or the district immediately for resolution. The carrier 

will ensure that they have received material for each district on the list. In the event that 

they have not received material for a district, the carrier will contact Harcourt so that 

arrangements can be made to pick up these materials and have them returned. 

Log-In 

Log-in is the return side of the Value Add Secure Processing department. The two 

primary operations performed are first the checking-in of documents and scanning of 

the barcodes of serialized items and secondly that of reporting any discrepancies found 

for documents or test booklets not returned to Harcourt. 

Document Check-In and Scanning 

Serialized documents are checked in. Documents are then processed through highspeed 

equipment and the barcodes are scanned and entered into a database. The 

process is repeated for every school within a district and for every district until the STAR 

DPLT administration is completed. Response booklets are forwarded to scoring 

operations for scoring and test books are placed into storage for the retention period as 

required by the customer contract. 

Resolution Reporting 

The database is used to generate reports by school and district to report what 

percentage of items have been returned and what serialized items have not been 

returned. Resolution reports can identify the specific book serial numbers and the 

specific locations that are outstanding and have not been returned. 

Document Storage and Retention 

Scored student documents are banded and palletized in sequence. This sequencing 

allows for an individual student document to be quickly retrieved should it be requested. 

The warehouse management system tracks each pallet assigned and the location of the 



Grades 2 through 11


89 


Attachment 1 


pallet in the warehouse. Non-scorable secure test booklets are also banded and 

palletized by school and district and placed in secure storage for the period defined by 

CDE. Upon award of the contract, Harcourt will work with CDE to determine how long 

the documents will be stored, up to 12 months. At the end of the mutually agreed upon 

retention periods, documents are shredded in a secure environment and then recycled. 

Harcourt will not dispose of any documents without approval from CDE. 

3.7. Component Task 7—Processing, Scoring, and Analysis 

CDE must be assured that all student documents are processed efficiently and 

accurately. Errors that result in misclassification for student performance, school 

performance, or district performance are unacceptable—and CDE requires detailed 

information on processes and quality checks to be confident that all results genuinely 

reflect what students know and can do. 

A. Test Processing 

Harcourt takes great pride in our ability to provide accurate, high-quality test results to 

the students, parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, county offices, and the 

CDE. Our staff can deliver the accuracy required for the scanning, editing, scoring, 

reporting, and summary systems for your program. We realize the importance of 

verifying each phase of the process and are offering you a quality solution to fulfill your 

requirements. 

Harcourt will be prepared to receive and process shipments of answer documents 

during the March through May testing window. Resulting paper score reports will be 

delivered to the Districts, Counties and State no later than August 8 of each year. 

County reports will be produced and shipped after all districts within a county have been 

processed, and state reports will be produced and shipped after all districts have been 

processed, but no later than August 8 of each year, Final posting of internet reports and 

data files will be provided for school & district access by August 10. 

The following section details the operational processing methods at Harcourt that will be 

employed in our Scoring Center. These proven methods will help to ensure that all test 

results are correctly attributed to the students, schools, districts, counties, and 

subgroups for which aggregate test results are obtained. Harcourt currently uses 

student-level information to store and organize scanned documents. All documents are 

fully imaged and indexed by student. 

We recognize that each document represents an individual student’s work and take 

care to accurately process each document with this in mind. Every member of 

Harcourt’s scoring operations team is committed to ensuring this accurate processing. 

Our team consists of the following: 

♦ Software and process engineers 

♦ Management professionals 



Grades 2 through 11


♦ Systems and requirements analysts 

♦ Customer service specialists 

90 


Attachment 1 


This team continually employs technology to enhance our scoring and reporting 

processes to ensure accurate and timely delivery of useful information to states, 

districts, schools, teachers, students and parents. These team members will be in daily 

contact with Mr. Cernohous to ensure full understanding of the STAR DPLT 

requirements and to provide status information. 

Harcourt employs the SCORFLOW ® system, which is our unique step-by-step 

proprietary scoring system. SCORFLOW is organized by workstation for optimal 

efficiency and effectiveness. 

Harcourt’s scoring process is designed as a step-bystep 

process. At each workstation, documents 

and/or data are reviewed and addressed. Quality 

checks are performed at each step in the process. 

Our process ensures that we identify the documents 

Every workstation incorporates its 

own set of quality checks. These 

quality checks complement each 

other across workstations. 

from each district, and for each student. It further ensures that each document is 

scanned or key-entered and reviewed for error suspects and that each student’s scores 

are completely and accurately derived and the report delivered to the correct school. 

We have recently implemented our next generation order management system. The 

new system is a Web-native architecture based order processing system. We have 

implemented the system for our front-end scoring process. We have linked this system 

to SCORFLOW to ensure uninterrupted service to our customers. The present design 

of the system has the web-based system sending information to our mainframe-based 

SCORFLOW system at several steps during the process. This innovative system is 

used to receive, stage, scan and edit the documents while the SCORFLOW system is 

used for scoring, reporting and archive. The advantages of this system include allowing 

us to leverage our investment in image processing by reducing paper handling in our 

editing workstation and more immediate order process tracking capability via the web. 



Grades 2 through 11

All County-District-School (CDS) 

will have been captured via 

Harcourt Spectrum—with all 

changes captured throughout a 

data correction window 

determined in conjunction with 

CDE—and with all changes 

verified against the CDS Master 

File provided by CDE. 

Receiving 

The Receiving workstation 

accepts and counts cartons as 

they are delivered, sorting them 

by district into scorable and nonscorable 

queues. The first quality 

checkpoint is a comparison of 

what we have received against 

what we expected to receive. 

This check allows us to use the 

SCORFLOW system to flag any 

anomalies in the shipment and 

begin immediate investigation. 

We begin the content verification 

process at this point by verifying a 

Master File Sheet (MFS) is 

included with the scorable 

documents. 

Scorable documents move to 

Document Staging while customer 

information is captured in 

Structure Definition. 


SCORFLOW ® 

Workstation 

Receiving 

Structure 

Definition and 

Order Entry 

Document 

Staging 

Scanning 

Scoring Editing 

Archiving 

Job Submission 

Computer 

Operations 

Pre-Mail and 

Pre-Ship Quality 

Control 

Alerts and 

Research 

91 

Exhibit 10. SCORFLOW ® Workstations 

Function 


Attachment 1 


Accepts and counts cartons and sorts 

them by district as they are delivered. 

Information verified against pre-loaded 

data and discrepancies updated. 

Documents are removed from boxes and 

organized for scanning. Test materials are 

compared against control documents to 

verify that all classroom groups are 

present. 

Answer documents are image-scanned to 

collect student responses to the test 

questions. 

Quality and accuracy of data submitted for 

scoring is confirmed through an edit 

report. Corrections are incorporated into 

the document file containing student 

records. 

Student documents that are no longer 

needed in the scoring process are banded 

and palletized in sequence and placed in 

secure storage. 

The program is scored. A print file is 

generated and released to the print queue. 

Generates paper and electronic reports 

from scored student records; prints preidentification 

labels, pack lists, and reports, 

and provides electronic report services. 

Printed reports are assembled; print and 

form quality are checked prior to shipping. 

Any situation that needs resolution is 

handled by the program management 

staff, working directly with the client to 

resolve the issue. 

All non-scorable secure materials will be scanned and accounted for by comparison to 

the secure materials serialization data collected prior to distribution for test 

administration. All discrepancies will be noted, Harcourt will attempt to resolve 

discrepancies with the districts and will provide CDE with final reports on discrepancies, 

resolutions, and any non-resolutions. This report will be provided to CDE no later than 

September 20 of each year. 



Grades 2 through 11

Structure Definition 


In Structure Definition, Harcourt uses the MFS to capture and verify the following 

customer information captured originally via Harcourt Spectrum: 

♦ Student n-count 

♦ Building name 

♦ District name 

♦ SCORFLOW order number 

♦ Grade level 

♦ Number of groups 

♦ STAR DPLT or district optional grade 1 or 12 

This ensures we get the correct and complete results to the proper location. 

Order Entry 

92 


Attachment 1 


In Order Entry we define the exact reporting package for the DPLT or the district 

optional order. This reporting package is electronically applied to each order after 

review and approval by Quality Assurance and Scoring Operations, ensuring the 

reporting package is complete and comprehensive. 

Document Staging 

Employees in Document Staging remove the contents of the boxes and place the 

documents on carts. The order number from the MFS is 

matched to a preprinted scannable order header form 

placed with the documents so that when it is scanned 

the order number will be associated with those 

documents. This step is important because it links every 

In Document Staging, we 

make sure that all individual 

student documents are all 

present. 

individual document to the proper order number and program (START DPLT or offgrade) 

throughout the remaining scoring and reporting process. 

In addition, we compare the number of groups recorded on the MFS to the scannable 

group headers, completed at the time of testing, to ensure there are no discrepancies at 

the school or classroom level. 

Scanning 

In Scanning, we capture all the data from the student response forms, school or 

classroom headers, and order headers, using image 

scanning technology. 

Document Preparation 

In scanning, we attend to 

student and response level 

data (demographic and 

item level). 

All scannable documents are processed in a temperaturecontrolled 

environment. This allows the paper to normalize and eliminates paper 



Grades 2 through 11


93 


Attachment 1 


characteristic distortion caused by environment. Properly stabilized paper improves 

scan reliability and quality. 

Prior to scanning, we cut the spines off multiple-page documents to create single sheets 

to be run through the scanner. 

Document Scanning and Image Collection 

Harcourt uses image-scanning technology to capture information from all scannable 

documents. A scanner diagnostic test is executed prior to scanning the documents on 

each cart, and a calibration check is run to validate that the scanner is imaging with 

exacting precision. In general, the calibration check ensures that the scanner is 

deciphering the range of darkness that writing and/or marks may have and the scanner 

is accurately capturing that range via an accurate image. This deciphering is critical to 

the post processing that occurs in editing and scoring. 

The image scanner deciphers the grayscale-captured information that includes 

document identification (ID) and all information gridded by the test-taker and creates a 

bi-tonal image of the entire document. The scanning program checks the validity of the 

document ID via Optical Mark Reader (OMR), skunk codes, or Optical Character 

Recognition (OCR) module codes to ensure that the booklet is the correct booklet. The 

scanning program also compares the actual number of pages scanned to the number of 

pages expected for that unique document ID. These two checks ensure that the correct 

document is being imaged, and that the entire document is imaged. Finally, these 

skunk and module codes act as reference points for document orientation as it moves 

through the scanner and simultaneously images the gridded information filled in by the 

test-taker and captures all data from the pre-ID labels. 

Imaged information is subsequently sent to databases where images are distributed to 

editors based upon rules established for your testing program. The data collected from 

the image scanners are embedded into a scan file, which will be used to generate an 

edit report. At this point, the cart containing the scanned documents is logged out of the 

scanning workstation. 

Strict control measures are implemented in the scanning of student answer documents 

and the creation of data files from the results. In addition to the control steps outlined 

for live processing, the following procedures will be used to ensure the quality of DPLT 

data processing prior to live production. 

We will prepare and execute an extensive testing plan to verify that all scanning, editing, 

scoring, summary and reporting systems are 100 percent accurate. This plan consists 

of the creation of test deck data in paper and electronic format to verify every phase of 

the scoring process. 



Grades 2 through 11


94 


Attachment 1 


As the test deck completes each phase of the process, electronic and paper results are 

produced for verification by the California QA team. Once approval is complete for each 

phase, it is released for live production processing. 

When our Document Staging department prepares documents for scanning, they will 

search each stack for damaged answer documents. Any damaged documents that are 

found will be turned sideways in the stack to alert the scan operator. These documents 

will be processed as un-scannable and key entered during the editing phase of the 

process. A senior editor verifies all key-entered data. Each sheet that runs through the 

Scoring Center scanners undergoes the following quality control measures: 

♦ The sheet is checked for skew errors 

♦ The length of each sheet is checked for stretch 

♦ All scan tracks, the black marks that are printed along the side of an 

answer document that allows the scanner to locate the read areas on the 

page, are counted and there is positive confirmation that all tracks were 

read on the front and rear of the sheet 

♦ Each scan track is checked for left to right alignment 

♦ All pixels are checked for active status throughout the scanning of a page, 

and if any pixels are reported as inactive there is a scanning halt 

♦ Each sheet’s page code, the printed code that enables the scan program 

to know what page has been scanned, is validated for the document and 

confirmed that it is encountered in the proper sequence 

♦ The thickness of each sheet is checked to ensure that more than one 

sheet is not pulled through the scanner at the same time 

♦ Barcode check digits are verified. A check digit is part of all barcodes 

created at the Scoring Center. The system detects single digit errors, 

single transpositions, and double transpositions in the reading of barcodes 

during the scanning process; and, the check digit is validated to ensure 

the accuracy of the barcode read 

Before a scan operator begins a batch of documents, a group of diagnostic sheets is 

run through the scanner. If the scanner does not read these sheets perfectly, they are 

flagged as inactive and scanner technicians must intervene. Diagnostic sheets are 

inserted throughout each batch of documents in order to continue to check for scanner 

accuracy during the scanning of the batch. Our scanners also use technology that 

constantly monitors the calibration status of the read cells and alerts the operator in the 

unlikely event that service is required. 

In an image-scanning environment, a diagnostic sheet that contains barcodes with 

different symbol schemes is scanned. The scanner reads the image and finds the 

barcodes within the image. All barcodes must be recognized and decoded 

appropriately in order for that scanner to qualify for production scanning. This particular 



Grades 2 through 11


diagnostic check is verifying that the camera is focused accurately and that the 

magnification is correct. 

95 


Attachment 1 


Each week, all scanners undergo preventative maintenance by a scanner technician. 

They review diagnostics that check the light level and camera output of each scanner to 

ensure consistency across machines. If even slight differences are found, the scanner 

technician will make slight adjustments or perform cleaning in critical areas that the 

operators are not authorized to adjust, such as mirrors and lenses. 

As answer documents are scanned, the data are transcribed directly to data files. After 

scanning, the data files are examined by edit programs for omissions, inconsistencies, 

gridding errors, and other specified error-suspect criteria. The editing staff follows 

detailed specifications to inspect and correct the suspect data. 

At intervals throughout processing, records are selected for the scanner accuracy 

check. All data in the selected student record is printed on the edit list. The editor 

checks all information against the physical student document. If any problem is 

encountered, an alert is placed on the order and further investigation follows. For each 

subtest on each student record, a scan reliability check is performed. A predetermined 

percent of omits, light marks, double grids, and a combination of the three is checked. If 

a record contains more than the predetermined percent, an error is generated so that 

the answer document can be checked. 

In an image-scanning environment, a program runs immediately after scanning that 

verifies that all images that were expected from a document were collected. It also 

inspects each image to ensure that it is complete. The software checks to make sure 

that the image is the correct length and width. An image consistency check is also 

performed that confirms that a readable image has been captured. If any problem is 

encountered, the document/image is flagged for further investigation. All images are 

stored with appropriate indexes that allow for the linkage of the image to the particular 

student document. 

The test deck incorporates all correct responses for all content areas at every level of 

the test to ensure that the scoring keys are applied accurately. Checks for test attempts 

are also included in the test deck. Once live processing begins, all districts are held for 

reporting until a key check is performed on a sample of live data. Using approximately 

1,000 cases per content area per level, the keys are verified against the student 

performance on each item. Harcourt content specialists then review the key check to 

identify any possible key change. The scoring system is then released for live reporting. 

Through the use of the SCORFLOW system, all required student data elements 

captured from the student answer documents will be collected and aggregated (e.g. 

class, school, district and state levels) for completion of necessary analyses as well as 

for tracking the performance of test items, students, schools, and districts. 



Grades 2 through 11

Scoring Editing 


96 


Attachment 1 


Our process ensures that we identify the documents from each district, and for each 

student. Answer documents will be verified for completeness of student demographic 

data such as name, grade, date of birth and gender. Our system further ensures that 

each document is scanned or key-entered and reviewed for error suspects and that 

each student’s scores are completely and accurately derived and the report delivered to 

the correct school. 

Harcourt’s scoring specifications will be documented and provided to CDE for review 

and approval during annual meetings. Those rules will be written by Harcourt’s DPLT 

Requirements Analyst who’s, responsibility is to author requirements and design 

specifications, in order to ensure that your scoring and reporting needs are met. We will 

collaborate with CDE to develop edit rules specific to DPLT program to help ensure the 

accuracy of your data. This includes documenting any changes to the California School 

Information Services (CSIS) methodology that may result in changes to the pre-ID data 

requirements. 

The first step in the editing process is to electronically compare each student’s scanned 

data to the STAR DPLT program specifications. 

The comparison output is used to generate an edit report listing those documents 

requiring correction or validation. The edit report is a listing of records flagged as 

having suspect data. A flag simply means that the data field did not match program 

specifications. A scoring editor reviews every flag by referencing the source answer 

document and validating or correcting the field. If records cannot be resolved from the 

answer documents, the SCORFLOW tracking system and the Alerts-Research group 

first verifies against all submitted information and then contacts the district STAR DPLT 

coordinator within 24 hours. All corrected information is updated n the SCORFLOW 

database and is recorded in the Issues database. The Alerts-Research group will have 

complete specifications for what the district coordinators may or many not correct or 

update, and will, if necessary, notify Mr. Cernohous who will immediately contact CDE. 

Another step in the editing process is n-count verification. The number of documents 

scanned is compared to the number of documents recorded on the MFS (and collected 

in Structure Definition). 

When all edits have been resolved, any corrections are incorporated into the file 

containing student records. Once all corrections have 

been made, the edit routine is rerun to ensure data 

validity. When no fields are flagged as suspect, all the 

records for that order are considered clean and the 

SCORFLOW system moves the order to Job 

Harcourt will work with you to 

create your custom edit rules 

to insure you meet AYP 

requirements. 

Submission. The physical documents are no longer needed in the scoring process and 

move to the Archiving workstation. 



Grades 2 through 11

Archiving 


97 


Attachment 1 


At the Archiving workstation, student documents are banded and palletized in sequence 

according to a report produced by the SCORFLOW system. This sequencing allows for 

an individual student document to be quickly retrieved should it be requested. The 

SCORFLOW system tracks each order by the pallet assigned and the location of the 

pallet in the warehouse. Pallets are placed in secure storage for the period defined in 

your retention guidelines. 

At the end of the retention period, documents are shredded in a secure environment 

and then recycled. Harcourt will not dispose of any documents without approval from 

CDE. 

We understand the requirement to maintain archives of California DPLT documents 

including answer documents and header sheets produced for the various assessment 

administrations as well as electronically stored individual student test data, and will 

store in a secure location as defined in your retention guidelines. Because we 

electronically capture and store bi-tonal images of documents, the need for paper 

storage of scannable materials is eliminated. Bi-tonal images of your documents will be 

maintained for the life of the contract. 

Job Submission 

In the Job Submission workstation, orders are submitted in batches for scoring and 

reporting. Upon completion of these jobs, results are available for reporting. 

Pilot Reports 

As a quality check prior to production reporting, we produce and check pilot reports and 

files. A pilot is a representative group used to generate reporting data that test and 

verify all reporting requirements. These pilot reports are carefully reviewed by 

representatives from: 

♦ Scoring Operations 

♦ Quality Assurance 

♦ Requirements Analysis 

♦ Scoring Programming 

♦ Custom Assessment Programs 

Extensive data checks are performed to verify the validity of your reported scores. 

Once we have verified that the results are correct, we apply these reporting 

requirements to all orders. 

Pre-Mail and Pre-Ship Quality Control 

In Pre-mailing, printed reports are assembled and packed in color-keyed folders 

according to your program packaging requirements. Packers visually check print and 

form quality during assembly. 



Grades 2 through 11


The reports then move to Pre-Ship Quality Control, 

where the order receives a final quality check 

prior to shipping. This is the final n-count 

verification checkpoint where the number of 

students reported is compared to the information 

recorded on the MFS and in the SCORFLOW 

database. Results are compared against the 

reporting requirements to ensure correct 

application of the scoring tables and to make sure 

98 


Attachment 1 


Our final NCNT check is performed in 

the Pre-ship Quality Control 

workstation. The number of reports 

produced is compared to the number 

of students indicated as tested on the 

Master File Sheet. Anomalies are 

investigated and resolved. 

all deliverables are present. Each order is then released to the SCORFLOW Shipping 

workstation and the reports are shipped to the Districts, Counties and State. 

Alerts and Research 

In the alerts workstation, our employees gather information necessary to resolve any 

discrepancies identified during processing. Harcourt will work with you to develop the 

alert requirements. Typical alert conditions include: 

♦ n-count differences 

♦ Missing master file sheet 

♦ Missing materials 

All alert information is entered into the SCORFLOW record for the order, including the 

type of alert and the date it was initiated and resolved. SCORFLOW also prevents the 

scoring and reporting processes from being initiated while alert conditions remain 

unresolved. 

Erasure Analysis 

Harcourt will analyze all files for possible pattern marking. Any answer documents 

which are suspect for pattern marking will be pulled and examined. Harcourt will apply 

the following Standard Deviation Criteria analysis for the erasure analysis tasks and 

present the report of these analyses to the CDE The Standard Deviation Criteria 

Erasure analysis includes: 

• Includes students whose number of incorrect to correct erasures exceed 

the state average by at least three, but no more than four standard 

deviations 

• Includes students whose number of incorrect to correct erasures exceed 

70% of their total erasures 

• Produced for schools where more than six students within any given grade 

or subject had an excessive number of erasures 

• Standard deviation calculated based on the Spring administration 



Grades 2 through 11


99 


Attachment 1 


Once the erasure analysis report is complete and verified by CDE, Harcourt will send 

both the report and the suspect original answer documents to the CDE. The original 

answer documents will be shipped securely. 

Harcourt recommends the following erasure analysis summary report/file: 

• Total number of items with changes 

• Total items changed from incorrect to correct 

• Total % of items changed from incorrect to correct 

• Total number of students tested 

• Average number of students with changes 

• Average number of items per student with changes 

Harcourt also recommends creating a special reporting category for schools, districts, 

county, and state summary reports that does not invalidate individual student results. 

Security of Test Materials 

Harcourt’s distribution center has been designed to ensure the highest security for test 

materials. Serialization provides an extra layer of security. Our security procedures are 

described in detail below. 

SECURE PROCESSING 

Serialization & Pre-ID 

Serialization begins in our distribution center before materials are shipped to schools 

and districts. The serialization process begins with the application of a unique barcode 

to each test booklet and/or answer document. 

The barcodes, with a human-readable interpretation, facilitate assignment of specific 

booklets and answer documents to a specific school or district. With this unique 

barcode, the exact location of where each booklet was shipped can be identified. See 

Exhibit 11. 

Exhibit 11. Sample Test Booklet Barcode 

Test booklets are barcoded and shrink-wrapped into packages. The top book in each 

package has a “4x4” label listing all serial numbers enclosed. The label is visible so the 



Grades 2 through 11


100 


Attachment 1 


Test Coordinator without opening the package. See Exhibit 12 below. There are no 

missing sequence numbers on the books inside the package. A number of quality 

checks and safeguards are in place to ensure the quality and integrity of the barcodes 

and sequencing are maintained. 

Exhibit 12. Package Barcode Label 

Package identification numbers are assigned to 

each school or division location as the order is 

picked. 

Launching Material to/from Value Add Secure Processing 

Prior to serialization/pre-ID and packaging or assembly of components into a 

serialized/Pre-ID package or kit, the items must be collected in the value-add secure 

processing department. This movement of the components is performed by system 

directed transfers that are initiated by value-add secure processing personnel. Each 

item is located in the warehouse management system and the material status code is 

changed from AVL (Available) to SER (Serial). This change in status code triggers a 

task for a forklift operator to move this material to the value-add secure processing 

department. This task is communicated via a Radio-Frequency Wrist-Mounted Barcode 

Scanner, that is worn by the forklift operator. When retrieved from the storage location, 

the forklift operator scans the location barcode that the material is stored in to validate 

the location is correct. Next the operator scans the ISBN barcode to verify they have 

the correct item. A unique barcode label, called a license plate, is placed on the 

material. The license plate is used to track the movement of the item from the storage 

location to the value-add secure processing department. Once the serialization/pre-ID 

has been completed, the process is reversed to return the material to a storage location 

or to the pick line for order fulfillment to begin. 



Grades 2 through 11

Serialized Package Sequencing 


Serialized Product Loose-Stacked In Gaylord Container 

101 


Attachment 1 


Serialized product that is loose-stacked into a Gaylord is stacked in descending 

sequence from the lower left corner of a pallet to the upper right corner of the pallet. 

The final result is that a pallet is stacked in ascending sequence from top to bottom to 

facilitate order picking in ascending sequence (see Exhibit 13 through Exhibit 15). 

The sort 

sequence 

begins at the 

bottom here 

and is stacked 

in descending 

sequence. 

It is stacked to a 

reasonable height 

(depending on package 

thickness) and then the 

next stack is started here. 

Exhibit 13. Start the pallet in the lower left corner and 

continue stacks to the right as shown in the diagram 

above. Note that the Gaylord container is not shown for 

purposes of clarity. 

The first stack of 

packages in a layer 

goes in a row starting 

here and continues to 

the right. 

A second row 

of packages 

goes here and 

continues to the 

right, etc. 

The last stack of 

packages in the layer 

goes here and 

continues with the 

next layer (cardboard 

or a separator is used 

between layers). 

Exhibit 14. The stacking is continued with the second, third and fourth 

rows as shown below. A separator (such as a slip sheet of corrugated 

or chip board) is placed on the first layer before the next layer is started. 



Grades 2 through 11

Cardboard or a 

separator is placed 

between layers and 

the process shown 

above is repeated 

for subsequent 

layers. 


102 

The last stack of 

packages in the layer 

goes here. 

Exhibit 15. Continue with the next layer until the pallet is complete. Serialized 

loose product in a Gaylord should not be stacked to a height greater than 3 feet 

including the pallet. The Gaylord must be labeled with the range of serialized 

numbers they contain. Note that the Gaylord container is not shown for 

purposes of clarity. 


Attachment 1 


Log-In 

Log-In is the return side of the value add secure processing department. The two 

primary operations performed are first the checking-in of documents and scanning of 

the barcodes of serialized items and secondly that of reporting any discrepancies found 

for documents or test booklets not returned to Harcourt. 

Document Check-In and Scanning 

Serialized documents are checked in. Documents are then processed through high 

speed equipment and the barcodes are scanned and entered into a database. The 

process is repeated for every school within a district and for every district until a 

program administration is completed. Response booklets are forwarded to scoring 

operations for scoring and test books are placed into storage for the retention period as 

required by the customer contract. 



Grades 2 through 11

Picking 


103 


Attachment 1 


Our warehouse management system interfaces with radio-frequency barcode scanning 

equipment that is operated by distribution personnel. This barcode scanning technology 

enables distribution personnel to improve order fill 

rates and maintain quality. In effect, order cycle 

time is reduced, the highest levels of quality are 

maintained, and real time inventory adjustments 

are made even as orders are filled. Distribution 

personnel begin the picking process by taking 

carton that has been prepared with carton labels 

and a packing list for any box 1 of an order. The 

picker then scans the carton label and via the 

radio frequency interface with the warehouse 

management system is directed to the location 

to pick an item. The picker then scans the 

location barcode and is prompted to scan the 

ISBN of an item from that location. After both 

scans correctly match what is expected by the 

barcode scanner the picker is directed to pick a 

quantity required by the order for that carton. 

The picker then scans the carton license plate 

barcode again and places the product into the 

carton. The picker continues the process until 

all picks have been completed. The picker is 

then directed to drop the box which means the 

picker is to scan a barcode on the conveyor and 

place the carton on the powered conveyor. The 

picker repeats the process with the next carton and so on until all cartons are picked for 

the order. 

For serialized programs, an additional scan is required for each and every serialized 

package picked. Each package has a uniquely bar-coded package serial number. After 

the ISBN is scanned, the scanner prompts the picker to scan this package serial 

number barcode. 

Picking Serialized Material 

Exhibit 16. Radio Frequency Wrist 

Mounted Barcode Scanner 

Radio-frequency scanners are worn on the wrist 

and allow distribution personnel hands free 

operation for use in material receipt, order 

fulfillment, material transfers, location checks or 

product identification. 

For serialized programs, an additional scan is required for each and every package 

picked. Each package has a unique barcode serial number. After the ISBN is scanned, 

the scanner prompts the picker to scan this package serial number barcode. 

Additionally, packages are picked in ascending sequence. The packages have been 

stacked on the Gaylord container in descending sequence starting from the lower left 

corner and ending at the upper right corner. The picking proceeds in the exact reverse 

sequence as when the Gaylord container was created in the value-add secure 

processing department. Again, picking should proceed in ascending serial number 



Grades 2 through 11


104 


Attachment 1 


sequence. A quick an easy way to do this is by using the highly visible large package 

number, in the upper right-hand corner of the package label. See Exhibit 17 below. 

Exhibit 17. Barcode Label 

Package identification numbers are assigned to 

each school or district location as the order is 

picked. 

Palletizing and Shipping 

Cartons are transported to the shipping department by way of the distribution conveyor 

system. Custom Assessment Programs cartons can be directed to any one of 11 predesignated 

shipping spurs. Most of the effort in this area involves unloading the 

shipping conveyor spurs and consolidating the cartons from orders and forwarding them 

to the appropriate carrier. 

Quality Check of Shipping Requirements Checklist 

A copy of the quality checklist that is posted at the beginning of the pick line is also 

posted in the shipping area. A Quality Assurance Inspector checks the shipping area 

and ensures that a checklist is completed and clearly posted and understood by 

distribution personnel. The checklist identifies any special requirements for the program 

like special handling, labeling, shipping due dates, palletizing, etc. 

Security Checklists for Serialized Programs 

The security checklist itemizes every serial number of every serialized item in an order. 

Consequently, the security checklist cannot be printed until all items for an order have 

been scanned and picked in the picking process. For this reason, box 1 of a serialized 

order is not sealed after passing the weight-in-motion scale and the void-fill and cartonsealing 

station is bypassed. The open carton signals shipping personnel that something 

is still needed in the carton. Once all picks have been completed, the license plate 

barcode is scanned and the security checklist will print. This is then placed in box 1. A 



Grades 2 through 11


105 


Attachment 1 


different person will check to ensure the checklist matches the carton, checks to ensure 

the packing list is still in the carton, and then seal the carton. 

Quality Check of Sample Order 

A sample order is released by Custom Assessment Program personnel. This order 

requires the picking of at least one each of every item on the pick line. Distribution 

personnel pick the sample order exactly as they would if they were shipping the order to 

the customer. Any special requirements are addressed. The Quality Assurance 

Inspector will inspect the order after it is picked and completed in the shipping 

department. The exterior of the carton is inspected to ensure all labeling is in place as 

required and the carton condition is good and it is sealed correctly. It is then opened 

and the packing list is removed. The contents are inspected to ensure that it matches 

the packing list. The security checklist listing all serial numbers will be included. Only 

after the order is completely checked and everything is found to be in order will the 

orders for the program be released. 

Returning Test Materials to Harcourt 

Test Material Returns Planning and Communication 

Harcourt has found that proper planning prior to the returning of test materials makes for 

a smoother and more successful experience for everyone involved in material returns. 

We will provide our freight carrier with a listing of all California DPLT testing locations. 

They will use the list to create route plans and a pickup schedule well in advance. This 

schedule will be communicated to the CDE for review with the districts/schools. Any 

changes or adjustment to the schedule will be communicated back to Harcourt and 

passed on to the freight carrier for modification of the schedule and route plans. Once 

this schedule is finalized, it can be communicated to all districts in the CA DPLT 

program in advance. 

Coordination with Districts/Schools 

After the schedule has been established, the carrier will begin to contact districts one to 

two weeks prior to the end of the testing window. Harcourt has come to find that the 

best response rate is obtained by using email. Emails allow the correct person to be 

reached and can sit in one’s email box until he/she is ready to respond. Phone calls will 

also be made in the event that no response is received. The carrier will kindly remind 

the district of the scheduled pickup date and ask for an estimate of the number of 

scorable cartons and non-scorable cartons to be returned prior to pick-up. This will 

enable the carrier to prepare the proper shipping documents and labels for the shipment 

back to Harcourt. Harcourt will coordinate with the transportation company to allow for a 

sufficient overage of package labels to accommodate any increase in scorable and 

nonscoreable materials prior to pick-up. District test coordinators can contact the carrier 

using the toll-free number provided to request a pickup in the event that the district has 

not been contacted. 



Grades 2 through 11


106 


Attachment 1 


Separation and Packing of Scorables and Nonscorables/Unused Materials 

It is the responsibility of school and district test coordinators to separate scorable 

documents from non-scorable documents and pack them into cartons as specified in the 

test coordinator manual. 

Harcourt uses a durable box that doubles in use for the safe return of assessment 

materials. Our shipping cartons have reversible inner and outer flaps that meet at the 

center. This feature allows a carton to be used for both sending and receiving 

materials, depending on which set of flaps is on the outside. The cartons are strong 

and durable with a bursting strength of 275 pounds per square inch or an edge crush 

test rating of 44 pounds. These cartons have been successfully used for several of our 

large-scale testing programs because of their durability and the specially marked areas 

for preprinted return labels. 

Exhibit 18. Reversible Flap Carton 

The carton at left is shown with flaps folded as 

shipped to the schools. The carton at right shows 

how flaps should be folded and the color label 

applied for return to Harcourt. 

Colored return labels will be provided for the return shipment and when placed on the 

lower right corner will clearly identify the carton as containing either assessment 

booklets or answer sheets. 

♦ SCORABLE documents such as used answer documents and response 

booklets are placed into cartons and have orange scorable labels placed 

on them. 

♦ NON-SCORABLE documents such as used and unused test booklets are 

placed into cartons and have green non-scorable labels placed on them. 

Pickup of Materials 

The carrier driver will arrive at the pickup site with the necessary shipping documents 

and compare them with the material being picked up, if they do not match, the 

documents will be adjusted to reflect what is being picked up. It will be the responsibility 

of the on-site coordinator to make sure scorable and non-scorable boxes are ready for 

pick up when the carrier arrives. The driver will ask that the documents be signed by 



Grades 2 through 11


107 


Attachment 1 


the test coordinator to acknowledge the accuracy of the documents. The driver will 

provide a copy to the test coordinator for their records. 

Carrier Consolidation 

The driver will return to a central location, where the carrier will confirm the number of 

boxes by school for scorable and non-scorable materials. The carrier will consolidate 

these boxes and return them to Harcourt intact on wrapped pallets insuring the integrity 

of the shipment. The carrier will also provide Harcourt a file listing the number of 

cartons picked up at all the districts picked up. 

Shipment to Harcourt 

The carrier will ship scorable materials to the Harcourt Scoring Center in San Antonio 

using an expedited means and follow with the non-scorable materials using standard 

ground transportation. Upon receipt at Harcourt, receiving personnel will confirm receipt 

of the materials and verify the counts provided on the shipping documents and the file 

sent previously. If any discrepancies exist, receiving personnel will identify the 

discrepancy and contact the carrier or the district immediately for resolution. The carrier 

will ensure that they have received material for each district on the list. In the event that 

they have not received material for a district, the carrier will contact Harcourt so that 

arrangements can be made to pick up these materials and have them returned. 

Resolution Reporting 

A database is used to generate discrepancy reports by school and district to show 

secure materials that have not yet been returned. Harcourt will check the materials 

several times to verify which materials are missing and will then contact each district for 

resolution. Harcourt will provide a report showing the resolution for all discrepancies to 

CDE by September 20 of each year. An example of a resolution report is provided as 

an attachment. 

B. Scoring and Quality Assurance 

At Harcourt, we understand the necessity to process, score and report each and every 

administration of the STAR DPLT program with 100 percent accuracy, and commit to 

the highest quality procedures and systems to accomplish the task. Throughout each 

step of the process, stringent quality control steps will ensure our goal of zero defects. 

Harcourt’s process flow and processing database provide data checks and cross 

checks at virtually every step of the process. 

The following text details Harcourt’s procedures used for validation of scoring keys. 

We will prepare and execute an extensive testing plan to verify that all scanning, editing, 

scoring, summary, and reporting systems are 100 percent accurate. This plan consists 

of the creation of test deck data in paper and electronic format to verify all of the scoring 

process. 



Grades 2 through 11


108 


Attachment 1 


As the test deck completes each phase of the process, electronic and paper results are 

produced for verification by the STAR DPLT QA team. As approval is complete for 

each phase, it is released for live production processing. 

When our Document Staging department prepares documents for scanning, they will 

search each stack for damaged answer documents. Any damaged documents that are 

found will be turned sideways in the stack to alert the scan operator. These documents 

will be processed as unscorable and key entered during the editing phase of the 

process. A senior editor verifies all key-entered data. Each sheet that runs through the 

Scoring Center scanners undergoes the following quality control measures: 

♦ The sheet is checked for skew errors. 

♦ The length of each sheet is checked for stretch. 

♦ All scan tracks, the black marks that are printed along the side of an 

answer document that allows the scanner to locate the read areas on the 

page, are counted and there is positive confirmation that all tracks were 

read on the front and rear of the sheet. 

♦ Each scan track is checked for left to right alignment. 

♦ All pixels are checked for active status throughout the scanning of a page, 

and if any pixels are reported as inactive there is a scanning halt. 

♦ Each sheet’s page code, the printed code that enables the scan program 

to know what page has been scanned, is validated for the document and 

confirmed that it is encountered in the proper sequence. 

♦ The thickness of each sheet is checked to ensure that more than one 

sheet is not pulled through the scanner at the same time. 

♦ Barcode check digits are verified. A check digit is part of all barcodes 

created at the Scoring Center. The system detects single digit errors, 

single transpositions, and double transpositions in the reading of barcodes 

during the scanning process; and, the check digit is validated to ensure 

the accuracy of the barcode read. 

Before a scan operator begins a batch of documents, a group of diagnostic sheets is 

run through the scanner. If the scanner does not read these sheets perfectly, it is 

flagged as inactive and scanner technicians must intervene. Diagnostic sheets are 

inserted throughout each batch of documents in order to continue to check for scanner 

accuracy during the scanning of the batch. Our scanners also use technology that 

constantly monitors the calibration status of the read cells and alerts the operator in the 

unlikely event that service is required. 

In an image-scanning environment, a diagnostic sheet that contains barcodes with 

different symbol schemes is scanned. The scanner reads the image and finds the 

barcodes within the image. All barcodes must be recognized and decoded 

appropriately in order for that scanner to qualify for production scanning. This particular 



Grades 2 through 11


diagnostic check is verifying that the camera is focused accurately and that the 

magnification is correct. 

109 


Attachment 1 


Each week, all scanners undergo preventative maintenance by a scanner technician. 

They review diagnostics that check the light level and camera output of each scanner to 

ensure consistency across machines. If even slight differences are found, the scanner 

technician will make slight adjustments or perform cleaning in critical areas that the 

operators are not authorized to adjust, such as mirrors and lenses. 

As answer documents are scanned, the data are transcribed directly to data files. After 

scanning, the data files are examined by edit programs for omissions, inconsistencies, 

gridding errors, and other specified error-suspect criteria. The editing staff follows 

detailed specifications to inspect and correct the suspect data. 

At intervals throughout processing, records are selected for the scanner accuracy 

check. All data in the selected student record are printed on the edit list. The editor 

checks all information against the physical student document. If any problem is 

encountered, an alert is placed on the order and further investigation follows. For each 

subtest on each student record, a scan reliability check is performed. A predetermined 

percent of omits, light marks, double grids, and a combination of the three is checked. If 

a record contains more than the predetermined percent, an error is generated so that 

the answer document can be checked. 

In an image-scanning environment, a program runs immediately after scanning that 

verified that all images that were expected from a document were collected. It also 

inspects each image to ensure that it is complete. The software checks to make sure 

that the image is the correct length and width. An image consistency check is also 

performed that confirms that a readable image has been captured. If any problem is 

encountered, the document/image is flagged for further investigation. All images are 

stored with appropriate indices that allow for the linkage of the image to the particular 

student document. 

The test deck incorporates all correct responses for all content areas at every level of 

the test to ensure that the scoring keys are applied accurately. Checks for test attempts 

are also included in the test deck. Once live processing begins, all districts are held for 

reporting until a key check is performed on the live data. Using approximately 1,000 

cases per content area per level, the keys are verified against the student performance 

on each item. Harcourt content specialists then review the key check to identify any 

possible key change. 

As part of Harcourt’s culture of continuous improvement, we have performed exhaustive 

research and planning to prepare to meet our capacity requirements. We have carefully 

collected data to measure our performance in each of our Scoring Operations 

workstations. We have measured our performance, built accurate planning and 



Grades 2 through 11


110 


Attachment 1 


forecasting models, and applied the data to improve performance in our Scoring Center. 

The development of these metrics has allowed us to accurately forecast space, 

equipment, and personnel needed to accommodate the requirements of programs we 

plan to process through our Scoring Center. 

Scoring Operations Management Team—The following Scoring Operations 

management team members will contribute five percent of their time to the STAR DPLT 

program as it is processed through our Scoring Center: 

♦ Mr. Larry Wauters, Director, Scoring Operations 

♦ Mr. Brandon Burgess, General Manager, PMO Office 

♦ Mr. Rudy Regalado, General Manager, Education Scoring Services 

♦ Mr. Ken Stallman, Senior Manager, Scoring Services 

The text below provides an overview of Harcourt’s scoring operations process. It 

provides a description of each step of the scoring process applied to documents that are 

scanned and scored in our central scoring facility in San Antonio. 

Document Scanning and Image Collection 

Harcourt uses image-scanning technology to capture information from all scannable 

documents. A scanner diagnostic test is executed prior to scanning the documents on 

each cart, and a calibration check is run to validate that the scanner is imaging with 

exacting precision. In general, the calibration check ensures that the scanner is 

deciphering the range of darkness that writing and/or marks may have and the scanner 

is accurately capturing that range via an accurate image. This deciphering is critical to 

the post processing that occurs in editing and scoring. 

Pilot Reports 

As a quality check prior to production reporting, we produce and check pilot reports and 

files. A pilot is a representative group used to generate reporting data that test and 

verify all reporting requirements. These pilot reports are carefully reviewed by 

representatives from: 

♦ Scoring Operations 

♦ Quality Assurance 

♦ Requirements Analysis 

♦ Scoring Programming 

♦ Custom Assessment Programs 

Extensive data checks are performed to verify the validity of your reported scores. 

Once we have verified that the results are correct, we apply these reporting 

requirements to all orders. 



Grades 2 through 11

Computer Operations 


111 


Attachment 1 


Computer Operations prints reports and labels, and creates electronic report services, 

such as CD-ROMs, diskettes, and FTP files. 

♦ Reports 

• Paper reports are printed on high-speed printers 

• Images of reports written to Adobe Acrobat files 

♦ Data Files 

• Sent to secure FTP site 

• Written to CD-ROM or diskette 

♦ Other Deliverables 

♦ Images of student responses written to CD-ROM or hard disk drives 

Pre-Mail and Pre-Ship Quality Control 

In Pre-mailing, printed reports are assembled and packed 

in color-keyed folders according to the program packaging 

requirements. Packers visually check print and form quality 

during assembly. 

In Pre-Mail and Pre-Ship, 

Harcourt packers perform 

the final n-count check for 

reports. 

The reports then move to Pre-Ship Quality Control, where the order receives a final 

quality check prior to shipping. This is the final n-count verification checkpoint where 

the number of students reported is compared to the information recorded on the MFS 

and in the SCORFLOW database. Results are compared against the reporting 

requirements to ensure correct application of the scoring tables and to make sure all 

deliverables are present. Each order is then released to the SCORFLOW Shipping 

workstation and the reports are shipped to the client. 

As a quality assurance verification check of any data files or image files required for 

reporting, our requirements analyst will physically review 

the file online for comparison to the appropriate hard copy 

file layout. After signing-off on the file and layout, our 

requirements analyst will provide to Pre-Mail and Pre-Ship 

Quality Control, a hard copy of the exact same file layout 

Procedures in place to 

ensure full verification of 

file layout to actual files. 

he/she used for verification. Through this process, any possibility of files received at the 

district or the state not matching field descriptions or locations of data on hard copy 

layouts is virtually eliminated. 

Alerts and Research 

In the Alerts workstation, our employees gather information necessary to resolve any 

discrepancies identified during processing. Typical alert conditions include: 

♦ n-count differences 

♦ Missing MFS 



Grades 2 through 11

♦ Missing materials 


112 


Attachment 1 


All alert information is entered into the SCORFLOW record for the order, including the 

type of alert and the date it was initiated and resolved. SCORFLOW also prevents the 

scoring and reporting processes from being initiated while alert conditions remain 

unresolved. 

Our Alerts department routinely maintains a database of these alert situations for 

programs processed through our Scoring Center, and as such, will provide to 

Mr. Cernohous, a report at the end of each administration detailing failures to follow 

established procedures by the districts in preparing their answer documents for scoring. 

Harcourt will work with CDE to develop the alert requirements. The information in the 

error log will be provided by school and system. This information in conjunction with 

detailed information documented by our Scoring Hotline will serve as valuable inputs 

and documentation tools to assist our program manager in assembling and providing 

this information to CDE as part of the final report. 

The use of Harcourt Spectrum for collecting and correcting data and information 

minimizes the potential for alert situations during document processing. Districts will 

have provided up-to-date pre-ID information just prior to actual test administration, 

virtually eliminating issues with missing data. 

C. Analysis of Test Results 

The Quality Assurance team will conduct analysis of all test results prior to release of 

any results to LEAs or CDE. Initial analysis of results is done during the test deck 

verification process, using mock data. However, analysis is also conducted following 

the processing of the first live orders (pilot orders). During the pilot process the QA 

team verifies: 

♦ Scoring keys 

♦ Scoring rules 

♦ Summary programs for rounding, exclusion, inclusion 

♦ Text and data representations on printed reports 

♦ Layout and descriptions for all data files 

♦ All tables and algorithms for individual level reports 

♦ All tables and algorithms for school, district, county and state level reports 

♦ All tables and algorithms for special forms (Braille, large-print) 

The psychometrics team conducts additional analyses to ensure accurate, reliable 

reporting of individual, school, district, county and state results. Items will be analyzed 

using both traditional item-analysis methods and Rasch model techniques, yielding the 

following kinds of information: 

♦ p-Value, or percentage of students selecting the correct answer at each 

grade in which the item was administered 



Grades 2 through 11


113 


Attachment 1 


♦ p-Values for above-average, average, and below-average students, where 

the levels of ability were defined as the upper twenty-three percent, middle 

fifty-four percent, and lower twenty-three percent of the test score 

distribution 

♦ Percentage of students in all categories (above-average, average, and 

below-average) selecting each distractor option or omitting the item 

entirely 

♦ Biserial correlation coefficient, showing the correlation of the item with the 

total score on the test in which the item appeared 

♦ Point biserial correlation coefficient, which provides an index of item 

discrimination and evidence that each item is functioning consistently with 

the overall test 

♦ Rasch model scaled score, a three-digit scaled score showing the item’s 

difficulty in relation to the Aprenda scaled score system 

♦ Mean-square fit for the item, a statistical estimate of the match between 

the actual response and that predicted by the Rasch model 

♦ Mantel-Haenszel bias analysis procedures implemented to determine 

whether items performed differentially for reference (majority) and focal 

(minority) groups. 

Harcourt traditionally provides adjusted norms for Braille versions of Aprenda 3. Some 

items on the Aprenda 3 cannot be Brailled, so we have two options. The first option is 

to give students credit for the items that could not be Brailled. The issue with this 

approach is that the students obtain artificially inflated scores. The second option is to 

adjust the scores by not counting the items in the score for that sub-test. In this option, 

scores are reported as raw scores. The results are not aggregated with the other 

groups, but can be reported as alternate assessment results. 

Some states have opted for aggregating the scores for the first option and others have 

chosen to have the scores standalone. Harcourt recommends not aggregating the 

scores in the second option with overall scores. In both options, we can obtain 

proficiency ratings that can be used for Adequate Yearly Progress reporting at the 

state’s discretion. (See Federal Register, December 9, 2003, new regulations for 

alternate assessment.) 

3.8. Component Task 8—Reporting Test Results to LEAs 

Effectively reporting test results is essential for the success of any testing program. 

Harcourt is leading the way in the creation of reports that are innovative and powerful in 

providing the state, school districts, teachers, and parents the information they want and 

need to see. Our reports combine text, numbers, and compelling graphic displays that 

provide teachers and parents with a clear understanding of student performance, 

assistance in the interpretation of the results, and insight into student needs. The 

student report we are proposing will display test results in a comprehensive, yet easy- 



Grades 2 through 11


114 


Attachment 1 


to-follow format which thus facilitates communicating the student’s performance results 

to parents as well as students. We are confident that our reports will provide educators 

and administrators with a valuable tool for assessing Spanish-speaking students’ annual 

progress toward California’s high academic standards. Harcourt is committed to 

working with CDE to ensure our proposed reports meet the needs of California’s 

schools, parents, and students. 

Harcourt will provide paper reports at the student level no later than August 8 of each 

contract year. Additionally, Harcourt will provide summary reports in hard copy at the 

school, district, county, and state levels for each administration of the STAR DPLT. All 

summaries will include subgroup performance based on CDE-specified variables 

captured from the pre-ID file and the demographic pages on the scannable student 

answer documents. 

A. Overall Reports 

As part of Harcourt’s proposed reporting plan for each administration of the STAR DPLT 

assessment, our requirements analyst will provide CDE with copies of report mock-ups 

for the Student-Parent Report and Demographic Summary Report along with 

corresponding report specifications which govern how each of the reports is prepared, 

produced, printed, and delivered. Upon CDE approval, programming will begin for each 

of the reports. 

To implement the STAR DPLT reporting plan and to ensure that reports are generated 

for the correct students and groups of students, Harcourt will verify the student 

demographic data received from the electronic pre-ID file and answer document 

gridding through a series of quality checks at multiple stages of the scanning and 

scoring process, including test deck verification. The electronic student records will 

contain the following identification information captured from the enrollment files, the 

scannable header sheets returned with the answer documents, and the student answer 

documents: 

♦ Order Number 

♦ District Name 

♦ School Name 

♦ Charter School Name and Number (if applicable) 

♦ County-District-School (CDS) Code 

In the preliminary planning stages of the STAR DPLT program, Harcourt’s requirements 

analyst will work closely with CDE to ensure that the naming conventions and coding 

formats for the county, district, and school identifications adhere strictly to official CDE 

records, are fully documented, and are communicated clearly to each LEA. During 

annual meetings Harcourt will review and revise, per CDE instructions, all such 

conventions and coding systems. 



Grades 2 through 11


115 


Attachment 1 


B. Production and Distribution of Paper Score Reports 

In keeping with the established reporting plan, Harcourt assumes responsibility for 

producing and delivering STAR DPLT results at the individual student level as well as 

aggregating these results at the school, district, county, and state levels. A description 

of the proposed score reports, as well as samples of selected reports, is detailed below. 

Our sample, color-enhanced reports demonstrate how the use of graphs and the 

application of color communicate assessment results in a clear, concise, and appealing 

manner. Our forms designers and requirements analysts will work closely with CDE to 

create innovative report designs in user-friendly formats that meet the needs of 

California students, parents, teachers, and administrators. 

Table 25 describes the types and number of report copies as well as the packaging and 

distribution for each set of report deliverables. Harcourt will provide the full-color option 

for these reports at no additional cost to CDE. 



Grades 2 through 11

SCORE REPORTS 

Student-Parent 

Report 

Student Record 

Label 

Master List 

w/Summary 

School 

Administrator’s 

Data Summary 

School 

District 

County 

State 

Demographic 

Summary Report* 

School 

District 

County 

State 

# of 

Copies 


Table 25. Report Matrix 

116 


Attachment 1 


PACKAGING DISTRIBUTION 

School District County State District County State 

2 1 1 2 

1 1 1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 + E 

2 

2 

2 

1 + E 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 




1 

1 

1 

1 

E 

1 + 

E 

E 

1 + 

E 

* Demographic Summaries are also provided for Independent Charter Schools 

E = electronic file 

Student-Level Reports 

Harcourt will provide the following student-level reports for every STAR DPLT student 

by August 8 of each contract year. 

Student-Parent Report 

The Student-Parent Report is a four page report folder designed and produced so that 

one copy stays at the school where the student tested and the other is packaged for the 

district. Harcourt proposes incorporating a customized letter from the State 

Superintendent of Public Instruction that is directed specifically toward parents and 

teachers. The entire report, including the Superintendent’s letter, will be produced in 

Spanish. 

Proficiency levels, raw scores, and national percentile rankings for the Reading 

Vocabulary, Reading Comprehension, Mathematics, Language, and Spelling subtests 

are displayed in a multi-colored graphic format that makes it easy to identify the 

student’s proficiency in the strands of each content area based on the position and color 

of the stars. 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

E 

1 + E 

E 

1 + E


117 


Attachment 1 


The backer text on the sample Student-Parent Report provides the following 

information; however, upon award of the contract, Harcourt staff will collaborate with 

CDE to customize the exact text to be printed on the back of the report: 

♦ Purpose of the test 

♦ Purpose of the report 

♦ How the test helps students 

♦ Suggestions for parents to help their students 

Student Record Label 

The Student Record Label enables easy maintenance of permanent student records 

because it has an adhesive-back which conveniently transfers into a student’s 

cumulative record folder. 

In addition to demographic information, a maximum of five scores from the following list 

can be included on the label: Number Correct, Scaled Score, National Percentile Rank 

and Stanine, National NCE, or Grade Equivalent. 

Exhibit 19. Student Record Label 

The Student Record Label enables easy maintenance of permanent student records because it has an adhesiveback 

which conveniently transfers into a student’s cumulative record folder 

Summary Reports 

Harcourt will produce summary reports at the school, district, county, and state levels 

for each of the STAR DPLT assessment administrations 

Harcourt proposes to provide graphic, engaging summary reports using multiple colors 

to display pertinent data in an easy-to-read yet comprehensive manner as shown in our 

report samples. 

Master List of Test Results with Summary 

The Master List of Test Results with Summary is an 11″ by 8 ½″ single-page summary 

that lists the students in alphabetical order and provides norm-referenced scores by 

grade for each school, district, county, or the state. 



Grades 2 through 11


118 


Attachment 1 


♦ Each student entry on the roster includes the student’s name, age, student 

ID number if present, and any other information that may be gridded on 

the answer document 

♦ In addition to reporting the Number of Possible Items and the Number of 

Students tested, any of the following summary scores can be provided: 

Raw Score, Scaled Score, Grade Equivalent, National Percentile Rank 

and Stanine, and National Normal Curve Equivalent 

♦ The summary produced as the last page of the report provides a 

compilation of the students’ scores including the number and percent of 

students scoring at or above the 50th National Percentile Rank 

♦ Explanations of what the subtests measure and an interpretation of the 

scores appear on the back of the report 

Administrator’s Data Summary 

The Administrator’s Data Summary is a multi-page 11" by 8 ½" report produced by 

grade that provides summary data for every school, district, county, and the state. For 

each Aprenda 3 subtest and total, CDE may select any of the following scores for 

display on the report: 

♦ Means, standard deviations, and percentile points of Raw Scores and 

Scaled Scores 

♦ Grade Equivalents corresponding to scaled score percentile points 

♦ Means, standard deviations, and percentile points of National Normal 

Curve Equivalents (NCEs) 

♦ National Percentile Ranks and Stanines of Mean National NCEs 

• Number and percent of students in each National Percentile Rank 

quarter 

• Number and percent of students in the Above Average, Average, and 

Below Average ranges 

• Percent of students at or above the 50th Percentile Rank 

Demographic Summary Report 

The Demographic Summary Report is a two-page report produced by grade at the 

school, district, county, and statewide levels. Harcourt’s report development team will 

work with CDE to design a Demographic Summary Report which includes all of the data 

elements for educational and administrative personnel to assess their students’ 

performance. At a minimum, this report will include the following: 

♦ Demographic categories and data collected from pre-ID file and gridded 

student answer documents 

♦ Number of students disaggregated by each demographic category 

♦ Where the categorical population is insufficient to yield statistically reliable 

information or the results may identify individual students, Harcourt will 

suppress the results 



Grades 2 through 11


♦ For each subtest and component: 

• Mean Scaled Score 

• National Individual Percentile Rank and Stanine (PR-S) 

• Mean National NCE 

119 


Attachment 1 


Report Verification 

For any incomplete or inaccurate reports or files identified the LEA should contact 

Harcourt’s Scoring Hotline. The Scoring Hotline will initiate an inquiry to investigate the 

issue and generate corrected or replacement reports. If these inquiries are received on 

or before July 18, any changes will be reflected in the August 4 submission to CDE. Any 

inquiries received after July 18, will still be corrected, however those changes will not be 

reflected in the August 4 file submitted to CDE. Harcourt will also provide a report 

detailing the resolution of each inquiry submitted for inaccurate or incomplete reports at 

the end of each reporting period. 

C. Electronic Student Data Files 

An integral part of the CELDT reporting plan specifications, which will be developed by 

Harcourt’s requirements analyst, includes detailed procedures for producing and 

delivering student-level data files to the school district and CDE. Working in 

cooperation with CDE, the requirements analyst will incorporate the official CDE naming 

conventions and coding formats directly into the specifications to ensure that the final 

files fulfill all data reporting needs of CDE. 

To enable the district and CDE to download student data files at their convenience, 

Harcourt proposes the use of our innovative Harcourt Spectrum system which was 

developed expressly to provide electronic services that assist education personnel in 

performing the necessary analyses concurrent with assessment administration. 

Harcourt Spectrum, accessed through commercially available web browsers and an 

Internet connection, is a highly-secure, highly-available system. Authorized users can 

access the files directly through the Results Management Service of the Harcourt 

Spectrum system. Harcourt’s information technology systems are designed to be fully 

configurable and can modify pre-ID files and student data file records if necessary to 

conform to CDE requirements including but not limited to California School Information 

Services methodology. 

In addition, Harcourt Spectrum uses an open architecture which allows the system to be 

connected easily to systems and programs developed by other organizations through 

standardized interfaces and protocols. This design creates the ability for Harcourt 

Spectrum to send and receive data to/from CSIS. If CDE desires for the two systems to 

exchange data, we will work with CSIS to identify and implement required integration 

points and formats. 

Once a user logs into the portal, access to the various services and data is controlled 

and managed through roles-based permissions and entitlements. Working in 



Grades 2 through 11


120 


Attachment 1 


conjunction with CDE, Harcourt will develop user-specific levels of accessibility which 

will restrict users to the student-level data for their district or school alone. After login 

authentication, users can access the Results Management Service to select, view, and 

download student data files. By establishing the varying access privileges within 

Harcourt Spectrum’s Roles Management Service, student data files viewed by school 

personnel will have all student responses to test items suppressed. Additionally, 

although CDE users will be granted access to the student-level data in all school 

districts statewide, the student-level files viewed by CDE will not display student names. 

Student names will be suppressed on all student-level data provided to CDE. From this 

website, district and CDE users will be able to conveniently download student-level data 

files in either a fixed-length, or comma-delimited format. Harcourt will also provide the 

student-level data file on a CD-ROM for the district or CDE on request. 

All core data will be available for users, whether via the Internet or CD-ROM. All data 

will be formatted and consistent with CDS master files using the county, district, and 

school names/codes from the Master File. LEAs will have access to data files through 

Spectrum and can download the data or request a CD-ROM/DVD be shipped to them 

from Harcourt. If the LEA does not have access to Spectrum, they can contact Harcourt 

to request the CD-ROM/DVD be shipped to them. 

D. Interpretation Guidelines 

All English language interpretation guidelines produced for the STAR DPLT will be 

available in Microsoft Word, PDF, and HTML formats and posted on the DPLT website 

for easy accessibility, as will the Spanish language versions. The Spanish language 

versions will be labelled in English to clearly identify each of the guidelines. While the 

DPLT guidelines will be written to provide easily understood information to students, 

teachers, and parents, the DPLT Customer Support Center will be available to assist 

district coordinators as needed. 

E. Narrative Report Specifications 

Narrative reports for the STAR DPLT will be prepared as publicly available documents, 

written to meet the needs of the audiences as determined by CDE. Our requirements 

analyst will meet with CDE and develop specifications for these reports. The 

specifications will include overall style requirements for the executive summary and 

other narrative text, formats for data tables, overall document design to include 

appendices, etc. All narrative reports, as well as all electronic deliverables, will be 

provided in Microsoft Word, PDF, and HTML formats, including Excel spreadsheets of 

all tables and technical information. Harcourt will work with CDE to ensure all in formats 

for public dissemination and possible posting on the DPLT web-site. 

3.9 Component Task 9. Reporting Test Results to the CDE 

Test results for mandatory and optional test takers are reported to CDE. No test results 

are reported to CDE for non-state funded test takers. 



Grades 2 through 11


121 


Attachment 1 


Internet Site 

Harcourt Assessment’s Information Technology group has developed a robust reporting 

platform, Harcourt Results Online. Harcourt Results Online is configurable and able to 

meet the CDE’s Internet Site requirements outlined within the RFS. Harcourt’s web 

development team of architects and engineers has been assembled for the express 

purpose of developing web-based capabilities to support school districts and state 

departments of education with technology applications throughout the practice of 

assessment. Harcourt has the capacity and capability to meet the Internet reporting 

requirements of the DPLT program as outlined in the RFS. 

Site Requirements 

Harcourt understands that the CDE will approve all functional requirements for the site, 

and that these requirements may change as industry, CDE and/or State standards 

change. The technologies used by Harcourt allow for flexible configurability and 

modifications to user interfaces, vocabulary, features and functionalities of the delivered 

site. 

Technical characteristics of the site will include: 

a. Database: Harcourt currently runs Oracle as the database of choice for 

our web hosted solutions. This decision was key to support scalability and 

security requirements across all of our businesses. In order to support 

CDE’s requirements for transparent integration of external databases and 

systems into CDE’s environment, Harcourt will provide a MS SQL version 

of all internet accessible databases and Microsoft Active Server Pages 

(ASP) or ASP.Net files necessary to support the public web site. The 

structure and format of this data must be approved by CDE. In the event 

that CDE decides to eliminate the Internet Reporting site requirement in 

subsequent years of the contract, Harcourt will continue to deliver the 

internet data and associated code in the format approved by CDE. 

b. Dynamic Structure: Harcourt Results Online is a dynamic web-based 

solution that is capable of supporting appropriate levels of interaction 

between authorized users and information presented within the site. 

Access to data and system functionality is supported by navigational 

controls presented within the user interface, and/or by dynamic linking of 

content/data to other content/data. 

c. Reports and Downloadable Data: The features and functions of the 

Harcourt Results Online site will be fed by a California-specific data mart. 

This data mart will be designed to contain all of the data required for 

reporting purposes, and is the single source of data to support the 

capabilities described here. As such, report pages and research files are 

not separate static elements, but are generated from a single data source, 

ensuring that the data always match regardless of the output requested. 



Grades 2 through 11


122 


Attachment 1 


Harcourt Results Online supports static views of data, or report pages. 

This enables users to select from a list of predefined reports, establish 

report parameters (school, grade, subject, etc.), and then view reports 

(pages). The data is returned by the system into the report view from the 

data mart. By the end of 2005, Harcourt Results Online will also support 

multi-variant data filtering. For authorized users, simple drop down menu 

selections establish filter criteria, and then the system returns filtered data 

sets into the predefined report formats. Summarization of user filtered data 

can be scheduled by the user, and ad hoc summary reports will be 

generated by the system. 

Harcourt Results Online will also support file output and download 

capabilities. Standard research file formats and layouts can be 

downloaded by selecting from a list of predetermined research files, or 

users can request a file download of data filtered by using the capabilities 

described above. The report views, data filtering, ad hoc report creation 

and file download capabilities will be made accessible only to the 

authorized users, including the general public, according to CDE rules. 

d. Data Exchange Capabilities: CDE and or authorized district users will be 

able to logon to Harcourt’s Spectrum system and initiate data exchanges 

via FTP transmission. The data exchange service receives transmitted 

data and persists those data in the data stores being utilized by Harcourt 

Results Online. The system will provide appropriate user messaging to 

ensure successful transmissions of data files. 

e. Accessibility Standards: Harcourt has reviewed and understands the web 

accessibility standards as embodied in the publicly available document 

“Web Accessibility Standards, California Department of Education, 

Adopted by the Executive Committee, June 18, 2001.” Harcourt Results 

Online and Harcourt Spectrum do not yet meet all of the Priority 1 

standards as required in this documentation, but our web development 

teams have reviewed the standards and Harcourt will meet these 

standards by the time the DPLT Internet Site is deployed in summer 2006. 

During requirements planning, CDE will provide clarity on interpretation of 

several of the standards. 

f. Performance Standards and Testing: Performance standards for the 

Internet Site will be agreed upon between the CDE and Harcourt, and 

committed to in the form of a Service Level Agreement. Once established, 

Harcourt will utilize load and performance testing resources and 

capabilities resident both in the development teams in San Antonio and at 

the hosting facility at Lexis Nexis in Dayton, Ohio to ensure system 



Grades 2 through 11


123 


Attachment 1 


operability to the required performance standards. Additionally, once in 

use by CDE, actual system performance will be constantly monitored by 

Harcourt to ensure that the system stays in compliance with agreed upon 

performance standards. 

g. Client Software Support: Harcourt Results Online and the front end access 

through Harcourt Spectrum are both fully hosted web-based services that 

operate with both Windows and Macintosh operating systems and 

common web browsers on client machines. Harcourt will validate 

operability on client hardware and software by evaluating client 

capabilities through the use of automated analyses of operating systems 

and browsers. This analysis occurs within a few seconds by simply 

clicking on a link to our automated tool from within Harcourt Spectrum. 

2. Data Accuracy and Population Requirements 

a. Population of Summary Data Results: As test responses are processed 

through Harcourt’s scoring systems, student level results will be made 

available immediately to the California-specific data mart for reporting and 

analysis via Harcourt Results Online. As classes, schools, districts, 

counties and, ultimately, state level results are summarized, these data 

will be made available as well. These data elements include the number 

of test takers, average scale scores, as well as derived scores. Final 

specifications and data fields will be configured to meet CDE 

requirements. 

b. Tracking Progress: Progress will be reported via a “dashboard” that can 

be configured to indicate the number and percentage of completed, 

scored tests as well as average scores and derived scores. 

These metrics can also be displayed on the reports that are dynamically 

generated through Harcourt Results Online as described in the previous 

section. Interim reports may be run at any time or “on demand” to track 

and view individual and summary results as they are processed until all 

tests have been scored and posted to the website. 

c. Demographic Reports: Through the Student Management Service within 

Harcourt Spectrum, all demographic data required to support DPLT 

reporting is stored in student data repository and used by Harcourt Results 

Online for demographic level reporting. 

Student records may be updated via a file upload from a statewide or local 

student information system or may be entered or updated online via 

Harcourt Spectrum. 



Grades 2 through 11


124 


Attachment 1 


This service is highly configurable with unlimited fields available for CDEspecific 

demographic fields. The exact number of demographic fields, 

field length, field label, etc., will be determined jointly by CDE and 

Harcourt as part of the requirements definition phase of the program. If 

additional fields are subsequently needed, they will be added at any time 

prior to a test administration. 

Once the student data is in the repository, it is then available for usage 

across all systems – for preID purposes, scoring of test responses and, 

finally, reporting (printed or online). Updates may be made to the data at 

any point in time prior to final creation of printed reports. Cutoff dates for 

demographic updates will be provided by CDE. 

Once the demographics are entered into the Student Management 

Service, they may be used to create a multitude of summary reports via 

Harcourt Results Online. Through the robust reporting capabilities within 

this service, reports may be filtered and/or grouped on any available 

demographic field or combination of fields. 

All of the demographic reporting needs by subgroup as outlined in the 

RFS is consistent with the capabilities of the Harcourt Results Online 

application. 

A. Internet Reports 

As discussed under A.1.c. of this document, the Harcourt Results Online capability will 

be configured to deliver the required Internet Reports. These reports will contain 

predefined summary data for school, district, county, and state levels of aggregation. 

Data summarization rules and score types will be approved by CDE. Harcourt’s scoring 

systems will calculate summary scores for each predefined summary grouping at each 

of the four levels of aggregation. Harcourt Results Online will support disaggregation 

through the multi-variant data filtering capabilities described above, and will allow users 

to request summaries of those filtered data sets through the system. In this way, reports 

for each of the primary subgroups required in 3.9.A.2 of the RFS will be supported. 

These subgroups include: 

• All Students 

• Gender 

• English Learner 12-Month Status 

• Special Education Services 

• Economic Status 

• Special Program Participation 

• Ethnicity 

• Parent Education 



Grades 2 through 11


125 


Attachment 1 


Additionally, using Harcourt Results Online, authorized users can be given the capability 

to combine two or more of these variables and view results for a multi-variant grouping. 

Results will be suppressed where the reported group totals 10 or fewer students, or 

where any reported result may result in the identity of an individual student. 

Harcourt Results Online will provide research files for access and download through 

simple interfaces. Authorized access to the data files will be granted according to CDE. 

The research files will include data for all English learners in grades 2 – 11 tested with 

the DPLT. These rules will govern system behavior in generating the file outputs. The 

Internet reports, research files, and student data files provided to CDE will all be outputs 

from the same database, ensuring synchronicity. Quality assurance testing using 

sample data sets will ensure that all data, regardless of access or distribution method, is 

accurate and validated against the single source. Web pages and/or downloadable .pdf 

files containing content that describes the DPLT test, the scores and the reports will 

also be available through the system in a resource page and be accessible through 

hypertext links from within report views as well. User Interface specifications identifying 

what text and information will be presented on each screen will be defined with and 

approved by CDE. Harcourt’s program manager and requirements analyst will ensure 

that all report formats and web pages are submitted to CDE for approval prior both at 

key points in the design and development phase and prior to final implementation. 

B. Research Files 

Research files containing the same data presented in the web reports will be available 

for viewing and for partial and complete downloading from the Harcourt Results Online 

site. Multiple views of the data will be provided, enabling users to download files for all 

data statewide, all levels for all students, and all data for an individual county, district 

and school. Harcourt will work with the CDE to provide file structures and types that 

cover the needs of the broad range of California users. 

Research files will include results for specific demographic subgroups as well as for the 

“all students” subgroup at the county, district and school level and for all demographic 

subgroups at the state level. Results will be suppressed where the reported group totals 

10 or fewer students, or where any reported result may result in the identity of an 

individual student. 

Complete specifications for the file formats, functions and utilities will be approved by 

CDE, ensuring that all users are able to access the data with ease and make the most 

informed use of the available data. Specifications will include the suppression rules for 

compliance with FERPA and the California Education Code as relates to protection of 

individual student privacy. 

File output options will include fixed-length ASCII and comma-delimited formats, and 

support the compression of files through WinZip. 



Grades 2 through 11


126 


Attachment 1 


3. Support Access Databases 

To facilitate the smooth importation of these research files into a database, 

Harcourt will develop an Access database shell using Access 2000 or higher. 

Harcourt will deliver clear instructions for users of this database to support 

easy, step-by-step loading of the files. Harcourt will develop a load utility to 

facilitate data loading, and make that utility available from the Harcourt 

Spectrum site. 

4. Error Correction 

Harcourt will request that CDE approve all QA procedures and criteria for the 

data and the Internet site. Should errors be discovered on the posted web 

site, Harcourt will correct those errors, including summary data and research 

files. Turnaround time for error correction will be agreed upon by Harcourt 

and the CDE. 

C. Internet Administrative Functionality 

Harcourt Spectrum is designed to allow CDE to establish the desired user roles, 

privileges and access rights for users of the Internet Reporting site (Harcourt Results 

Online.) These rights and privileges can be established by role, or by specific counties, 

districts or schools. The granting of rights and privileges extends to both system 

functionality (user A can download files, but user B cannot) and to data according to a 

users relationship within the grade, school, district, county, state hierarchy. Further, 

Harcourt will present an administrative interface to an appropriate few CDE staff users 

to modify privileges and access rights on-demand and as necessary. The selective 

exclusion (embargo) of reports will be accomplished using this functionality, and will 

support suppression of display of report results and the availability of research files for 

selected situations, allowing for the following: 

• Display results of independent charter schools 

• Suppress all district-level results under a county 

• Suppress all school-level results under a district 

• Selectively embargo only the current year data 

The inclusion of notes on report pages will be accomplished by establishing messaging 

rules to govern the Harcourt Results Online system’s display of messages authored by 

CDE. For example, CDE may wish to notify users of testing irregularities by displaying 

customized messages based on specific CDS codes (or other criteria that may be 

specified on contract award). 



Grades 2 through 11

D. CDE Web Delivery Requirements 


127 


Attachment 1 


5. Delivery to CDE for Preview & Approval 

A preliminary version of Harcourt Spectrum and Harcourt Results Online required 

to support DPLT reporting requirements will be made available to CDE by July 

12, 2006 for review. This site will be accessible only to authorized CDE users for 

the sole purpose of reviewing the website and relevant reporting data and 

providing feedback and required changes back to Harcourt. Access to this 

website will be controlled via an authorized user ID and password. For changes 

received by July 18, 2006 the website will be updated and available for final CDE 

approval by August 4, 2006. No changes will be made to the results between 

August 4 and August 15 without CDE request and approval. 

6. Delivery to Schools & Districts 

Access to the website and relevant reporting services will be made available for 

general usage by authorized school and district users by August 10, 2006. 

Access to this website will be controlled via an authorized user ID and password. 

7. Public Access 

Public access will be made available by August 15, 2006. Depending on CDE 

security requirements, access to public content may or may not require 

registration and a password. This is configurable based on CDE preferences. 

In the event that CDE decides to eliminate the Internet Reporting site requirement in 

subsequent years of the contact, Harcourt will deliver to CDE all required summary data 

files containing all requisite data according to a schedule defined by Harcourt and CDE 

and in a format appropriate to meet CDE technical standards. 

E. Secure Web Site 

Protection from Unauthorized Access and Intrusion Detection 

In order to protect the integrity Harcourt’s online systems, including Harcourt Spectrum 

and Harcourt Results Online, a series of monitoring components have been deployed 

with coordinated responses to threats. If a potential intrusion is detected, Harcourt’s 

security technology intercepts security related events from across the platform which 

can then be correlated, filtered, summarized, and used to deploy automatic 

countermeasures while alerting the network operations center of potential problems. If 

such an intrusion is detected, CDE will be immediately informed. 

8. Ongoing Vulnerability Testing 

Harcourt will routinely deploy tools which run against our online systems to verify 

the system’s security integrity. The vulnerability tests that are executed attempt 

to penetrate the system by simulating hacker attacks, and then provide Harcourt 

with comprehensive compliance reporting against security, confidentiality and 

data protection legislation from around the world. Additionally, Harcourt employs 



Grades 2 through 11


128 


Attachment 1 


an external audit firm, Ernst & Young, LLP, to perform independent, third-party 

audits and vulnerability attacks to identify any potential security threats or gaps. 

Results of vulnerability testing will be provided to CDE on an annual basis. 

9. Authentication & Digital Certificates 

The Harcourt solution for the DPLT will include a secured network topology that 

is protected through firewalls and countermeasures. The architecture addresses 

Authentication, Authorization, Delegation and Auditing. For ease of use and 

compatibility with current technology, Harcourt supports User ID and Password 

authentication via Single-Sign-On technology, coupled with digital certificates and 

the encryption of all session data. Once users have authenticated themselves 

onto the assessment platform, access controls are checked before allowing the 

user to perform any work. If explicit access controls are not granted through 

entitlements, the system will block the operation. 

10. File & Database Encryption 

All file transfers to and from Harcourt’s secure FTP sites must comply with 128bit 

encryption. Additionally, databases containing sensitive data such as a 

student’s personal data or demographic data will be encrypted at the database 

layer. Access to these data internally will be heavily monitored and granted only 

to those Harcourt personnel who are authorized to view or use this data as part 

of their normal job responsibilities. 

11. Access & Entitlements 

Through the Roles Management Service within Harcourt Spectrum, access to 

services and data are tightly controlled using a roles-based approach. Roles and 

entitlements within a role are defined jointly with CDE during requirements 

definition. 

User passwords must conform to Harcourt’s security standards which include 

requirements such as a password length, must contain a combination of numbers and 

letters, must contain at least one special character, cannot be the same as the user ID, 

etc. User ID’s and passwords can be created by users as part of a self-service 

registration process or can be generated automatically from a list of authorized users 

provided by CDE. 

3.10 Component Task 10. Documentation and Electronic Data 

Management 

Harcourt will work jointly with CDE to develop a schedule for the completion of a 

documentation plan encompassing the following electronic data management 

components. 



Grades 2 through 11

A. Documentation 


129 


Attachment 1 


Harcourt will deliver to CDE in a data dictionary(s) that provides documentation of all 

data elements included in any data files delivered to CDE or LEA, or included in 

program management systems used by California LEAs in the administration of the 

DPLT program. The data dictionary(s) will be delivered as an Excel spreadsheet with a 

layout provided by CDE. The contents of the data dictionary(s) will include, but not be 

limited to, fields consistent with identifying the location in the record, format 

characteristics, value characteristics, and description of each element. 

. 

Because many of Harcourt’s customer-facing systems, such as Harcourt Spectrum and 

Harcourt Results Online are configurable, certain data can be labeled based on CDE’s 

preferred variations. Where configuration options are available, the preferred CDE data 

elements will be developed jointly between Harcourt and CDE during requirements 

definition. Based on the final requirements, the data dictionary will be documented for 

final review and approval by CDE and included in the documentation plan. 

B. Security 

Harcourt has developed an extensive security architecture to insure that sensitive data 

in secured appropriately and in accordance with CDE requirements. As described in 

Section 3.9f, security is managed on multiple levels: network security, database security 

and encryption, application security and access control through access, entitlement, 

authorization and authentication controls. Access to each of these security layers will 

be granted on an as needed basis. Within Harcourt, access will be limited to those 

employees directly assigned to the DPLT administration. External access will be 

granted in accordance with CDE policy and, in some cases, only with CDE 

authorization. 

Because the Harcourt security model for websites is configurable, the DPLT security 

management plan will be developed jointly between Harcourt and CDE during 

requirements definition. Based on the final configuration requirements, the security 

plan will be documented for final review and approval by CDE and included in the 

documentation plan. 

C. Secure Data Exchange 

Harcourt will work with CDE to identify and document standards for secure data 

exchange. Additionally, Harcourt will publish these standards as part of the final 

documentation plan and work with CDE-approved organizations and agencies to 

validate that data and file transfers are conducted in accordance with these standards. 

Standards and procedures for secure data exchange will be included in the 

documentation plan. 



Grades 2 through 11


130 


Attachment 1 


D. Confidentiality 

Harcourt will work with CDE to identify all required security, confidentiality and conflict of 

interest forms and develop a plan for the creation and management of these forms. If 

desired, Harcourt will gather and store signed originals of all hard-copy forms. For 

users given access to Harcourt Spectrum and Harcourt Results Online, online 

acceptance of the Harcourt Privacy Policy, along with any other electronic documents 

designated by CDE will be required in order to complete the registration process. Users 

who do not acknowledge the policy(s) via the acceptance button will not be granted 

access. Acceptance is tracked via a digital signature and time/date stamp. Policies and 

procedures related to confidentiality will be included in the documentation plan. 



Grades 2 through 11



cib-spald-sep05item03 ITEM #_19_ 

SUBJECT 



Report on Alternative Schools Accountability Model Pre-Post 

Test Review Process 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve WestEd’s recommendations for additional pre-post 

assessments to be used in the Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM). 


Following the process approved by the SBE, the CDE has developed and implemented 

the ASAM for alternative schools serving high-risk students. A brief background on the 

development of the ASAM is included as Attachment 1. 

Currently, schools participating in the ASAM select three indicators from a list approved 

by the SBE. The list is included as Attachment 2. Under Indicators 8, 9, and 10, schools 

in the ASAM are allowed to use a locally-adopted pre-post test selected from a list of 

the SBE-approved assessment instruments to measure student performance. 

The CDE contracted with WestEd (the educational laboratory for the region including 

California, and the U.S. Department of Education-designated Assessment and 

Accountability Specialist Laboratory) to develop and implement a plan to identify 

potential assessment instruments for use with the ASAM indicators of achievement. The 

assessments were required to: (1) be appropriate for the various student populations 

enrolled in ASAM schools; and (2) contain sufficient technical characteristics to support 

school-level accountability decisions. 

The SBE approved eight pre-post assessments in the 2002 and 2003 assessment 

review periods to be used as measures of growth on the indicators of achievement. All 

of the approved assessments used a pre-test to a post-test to determine growth. These 

assessments are included as Attachment 3. The SBE requested that the CDE and 

WestEd regularly revisit assessment instruments and expand the list of approved prepost 

assessments that ASAM schools could use. 

Revised: 1/19/12 1:17 PM 

Comment [A1]: There are some blank pages 

when the item is printed. Can you fix that?


cib-spald-sep05item03 


WestEd repeated the review and approval process with a new set of additional pre-post 

assessments for the ASAM in early 2005. The content and technical committees 

reviewed the assessments using the same process and criteria used in previous 

reviews. Publishers of potential assessments provided evidence of the instruments' 

merit in four areas: (1) alignment to California’s content standards, (2) appropriateness 

for ASAM student populations, (3) technical adequacy (reliability and validity of the 

instrument), and (4) evidence that the test is free from bias based on race, gender, or 

ethnicity. 

This review included eight instruments: Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) in 

Reading and Math; Measuring Up-Reading and Math; Stanford Diagnostic Reading and 

Math; and Basic Achievement Skills Inventory (BASI) Reading and Math. 

Of these eight, two assessments, the TABE in Reading and in Math, were 

recommended for approval by WestEd. Further details about the review process and its 

results are included as Attachment 4. 


The CDE has reviewed the pre-post assessment process for the ASAM and determined 

that there are no additional costs associated with it. The selection of pre-post indicators 

by ASAM schools is voluntary. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: Alternative Schools Accountability Model Background and Framework 

(1 page) 

Attachment 2: Summary of Proposed Alternative Schools Accountability Model 

Growth Indicators Approved by the State Board of Education in 

March 2001 (1 page) 

Attachment 3: Measures of Achievement Approved for Local Adoption as Alternative 

Schools Accountability Model Indicators (2 pages) 

Attachment 4: Report to the California State Board of Education on the Alternative 

Schools Accountability Model Pre-Post Test Indicator Review Process 

(5 pages) 

Revised: 1/19/12 1:17 PM


Attachment 1 


Alternative Schools Accountability Model Background and Framework 

The Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM) provides school-level 

accountability for more than 1,000 “alternative” schools. 

The key elements of the ASAM are: 

• ASAM schools must serve a majority of high-risk students who are: (1) classified 

as being at high-risk for behavioral or educational failure; (2) expelled or under 

disciplinary sanction; (3) wards of the court; (4) pregnant and/or parenting; and/or 

(5) recovered dropouts. 

• ASAM counts “long-term” students (those who have been continuously enrolled 

for 90 consecutive instructional days) in order to measure the “value added.” 

• ASAM eligible schools include community day, continuation, opportunity, county 

community, county court, California Youth Authority (CYA), and alternative 

schools—including some charter schools—that meet stringent requirements set 

by the State Board of Education (SBE). 

• ASAM schools select three indicators of performance or achievement from a list 

approved by the SBE. See Attachment 2 for a complete list of performance and 

achievement indicators approved by the SBE for use in the ASAM. 

• Approximately 990 schools have selected 3 indicators and 25 schools have 

selected 2 indicators. 1 

• ASAM schools report their indicator data through the ASAM Online Reporting 

System to the California Department of Education at the end of each school year. 

• ASAM School Reports based on indicator results are publicly reported with 

indicator performance standard levels each school year. The performance 

standard levels are Commendable/Sufficient, Growth Plan, and Immediate 

Action. 

• The combination of indicator performance standard levels determines overall 

ASAM Accountability Status each year. 

1 

Some county court and CYA schools selected only two indicators, based on ASAM 

indicator selection conditions and limitations. 

Revised: 1/19/12 1:17 PM


Attachment 2 


Summary of Proposed Alternative Schools Accountability Model Growth Indicators Approved by 

the State Board of Education in March 2001 1 

Purpose of Measurement Indicator Use 2 

STAR Tests Academic Achievement Base 

Group I: Readiness Indicators 

Indicators of Discipline Problems: 

1 Improved Student Behavior Behavior and Pre-learning Readiness Additional 

2 Suspension Behavior and Pre-learning Readiness Additional 

Indicators of Student Persistence 

3 Student Punctuality On-time Attendance and Engagement Additional 

4 Sustained Daily Attendance Holding Power and Student Persistence Additional 

5 Student Persistence Holding Power and Student Persistence Additional 

Group II: Contextual Indicators 

6 Attendance Attendance and Persistence Additional 

7 English Language Development 

(CELDT) 

Group III: Academic and Completion Indicators 

Indicators of Achievement 3 

Growth in Language Skills No longer 

available in 

ASAM 

8 Writing Achievement Writing and Language Skills Additional 

9 Reading Achievement Reading and Language Skills Additional 

10 Math Achievement Math Skill Improvement Additional 

Indicators of Meeting Goals and School Completion 

11 Promotion to Next Grade Grade Completion and Academic Progress Additional 

12 Course Completion Course Completion and Performance Additional 

13 Credit Completion Credit Completion and Academic Progress Additional 

14 High School Graduation Credit and Program Completion Additional 

15 GED Completion, CHSPE Certification, 

or GED Section Completion 

Program Completion Additional 

1 The Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) Subcommittee on Alternative Accountability recognized that 

the indicators proposed above have differing levels of reliability. In general, those in Groups II and III are more 

likely to meet the standard required as a basis for potential rewards and interventions. Readiness indicators 

(Group I) are essential for assessment of school performance in assisting students to overcome social, 

attitudinal, and behavioral problems that limit their ability to attend school and learn in a school setting. A critical 

task of the PSAA Subcommittee and the California Department of Education (CDE) is the ongoing evaluation of 

the Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM) during its first three years of operation, including an 

analysis of the stability, reliability, and validity of the indicators. Data on indicators submitted by schools have 

been analyzed and results submitted to the State Board of Education (SBE) as part of its consideration of 

ongoing ASAM development. 

2 The PSAA Subcommittee defined two general classes of indicators: base indicators and additional indicators. 

Base indicators provide information to be reported by all schools. Additional indicators are selected locally from 

the SBE-approved list. ASAM schools report base indicator information (STAR results) through the test 

publisher. Schools report information on their additional indicators directly to the CDE and report pre-post 

assessment scores for Indicators 8, 9, and 10 to the CDE contractor, WestEd. 

3 In winter 2003 following a rigorous review process to identify assessment instruments that align to state 

content standards and meet required technical criteria, the SBE approved eight pre-post assessments for use 

as locally adopted indicators of achievement. 

Revised: 1/19/12 1:17 PM 

Comment [A2]: What do you mean no longer 

available?


Attachment 3 


Measures of Achievement Approved for Local Adoption as Alternative Schools 

Accountability Model Indicators (Approved by the SBE in 2002 and 2003) 

Approved 

Instrument 

Renaissance 

Reading (STAR Phone: (800) 338-4204 

Reading) E-mail: 

answers@renlearn.com 

Web site: 

http://www.renlearn.com 

Renaissance 

Mathematics 

(STAR Math) 

Publisher/Contact Content Areas Grade 

Levels 

Sales Department 

Renaissance Learning 

2911 Peach Street 

Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494 

Sales Department 


2911 Peach Street 

Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494 

Phone: (800) 338-4204 

E-mail: 

answers@renlearn.com 

Web site: 

http://www.renlearn.com 

Jane Eguez 

Comprehensive Assessment System 

Adult Student 5151 Murphy Canyon Road, 

Assessment Suite 220 

System San Diego, CA 92123 

(CASAS) Phone: (800) 255-1036 

E-mail: jeguez@casas.org 

Gates 

MacGinitie 

Reading Test 

Northwest 

Evaluation 

Association, 

Measures of 

Academic 

Progress 

(MAP) 

Lightspan 

eduTest 

Assessment 

Comprehensive Adult Student 

Web site: http://www.casas.org 

Judy Cawley (So. CA) or 

Steve Kujubu (No. CA) 

Riverside Publishing 

425 Spring Lake Drive 

Itasca, IL 60143 

Phone: (800) 767-8420 

x7705 (Judy) or x6798 (Steve) 

E-mail: 

judy_cawley@hmco.com 

steve_kujubu@hmco.com 

Web site: 

http://www.hmco.com 

Holly Rasche 

Northwest Evaluation 

Association 

12909 SW 68th Parkway, 

Suite 400 

Portland, OR 97223 

Phone: (503) 624-1951 x1230 

E-mail: holly@nwea.org 

Web site: http://www.nwea.org 

Dr. Dee Fabry 

Lightspan (Plato Learning) 

10140 Campus Point Drive 

San Diego, CA 92121 

Phone: (858) 824-8345 

E-mail: dfabry@lightspan.com 

Web site: 

http://www.lightspan.com 

Reading 1-12 

Mathematics 3-12 

Life Skills 

Reading 

and Math Series, 

early 

the Employability 

literacy- 

Competency 

high 

System, and 

school 

Functional 

Writing 

Assessment 

Reading K-12 

Reading, 

Mathematics, 

Language 

Usage, 

and Science 

Reading and 

Mathematics 

2-12 

2-8,10 

Administration Time to Administer 

(approximate) 

Computer 

administered 

(adaptive) 

Computer 

administered 

(adaptive) 

Paper/pencil 

administered 

Paper/pencil 

administered 

Computer 

administered 

(adaptive) 

Computer 

administered 

Time to 

Determine 

Results 

15-20 minutes Instant 

15-20 minutes Instant 

Various test range 

from 20 minutes to 

1 hour 

30 minutes 

abbreviated and 

1-1½ hour extended 

version 

Self and 

computerized 

scoring options 

available 

Options 

include 

hand scoring 

or 

mail-in with 

10 - 15 

business day 

turn around 

30 minutes Instant 

45 minutes 

per content area 

Instant 

Revised: 1/19/12 1:17 PM


Attachment 3 


Measures of Achievement Approved for Local Adoption as Alternative Schools 

Accountability Model Indicators (Approved by the SBE in 2002 and 2003) 

Approved 

Instrument 

Publisher/Contact Content Areas Grade 

Levels 

Mary Escarcega 

PLATO Learning, Inc. 

7923 W. Watkins Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85043 

PLATO 

Phone: (623) 907-1094 or 

LearningSystem 

(800) 869-2000 

E-mail: mescarcega@plato.com 

Web site: 

http://www.plato.com/standards 

Language Arts 

and Mathematics 3-11 

Erin Lewis 

Scantron Corporation 

Scantron 

Performance 

Series 

Assessment 

34 Parker 

Irvine, CA 92618 

Phone: (800) 722-6876 x7495 

E-mail: 

Erin_Lewis@scantron.com 

Web site: 

http://www.edperformance.com 

Mathematics, 

Reading, 

Language 

Arts 

2-12 

Administration Time to Administer 

(approximate) 

Computer 

administered 

Computer 

administered 

(adaptive) 

Test lengths vary 

since tests are 

created locally 

45 minutes 

per content 

area 

Time to 

Determine 

Results 

Instant 

Instant 

Revised: 1/19/12 1:17 PM


Attachment 4 


Report to the California State Board of Education on the Alternative Schools 

Accountability Model Pre-Post Test Indicator Review Process 

I. Background for the Alternative Schools Accountability Model Pre-Post 

Instrument Review 

Following the timeline and procedures approved by the State Board of Education (SBE), 

the California Department of Education (CDE) has developed and implemented an 

Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM) for alternative schools serving highrisk 

students. Currently, schools participating in the ASAM select three indicators from a 

list approved by the SBE. Schools in the ASAM are allowed to use a locally-adopted 

pre-post test selected from a list of SBE-approved assessment instruments to measure 

performance on indicators 8: Writing Achievement, 9: Reading Achievement, and 10: 

Mathematics Achievement. 

The CDE contracted with WestEd (the educational research laboratory for the region 

including California and the U.S. Department of Education-designated Assessment and 

Accountability Specialist Laboratory) to develop and implement a plan to identify 

potential assessment instruments: (1) appropriate for the various student populations 

enrolled in ASAM schools; and (2) with sufficient technical characteristics to support 

school-level accountability decisions. 

The SBE approved eight pre-post assessments in the 2002 and 2003 assessment 

review periods to be used as measures of growth on the indicators of achievement. All 

of the approved assessments used a pre-test to a post-test to determine growth. These 

assessments are included as Attachment 3. The SBE requested that the CDE and 

WestEd regularly revisit assessment instruments and expand the list of approved prepost 

assessments that ASAM schools could use. 

In early 2005, WestEd repeated the review and approval process with a new set of 

potential pre-post assessments. The content and technical committees reviewed the 

assessments using the same process and criteria used in previous reviews. Details 

about the review process and results are specified below. 

Publishers of potential assessments provided evidence of the instruments' merit in four 

areas: (1) alignment to California’s content standards, (2) appropriateness for ASAM 

student populations, (3) technical adequacy (reliability and validity of the instrument), 

and (4) evidence that the test is free from bias based on race, gender, or ethnicity. 

Revised: 1/19/12 1:17 PM

Content Review 


Attachment 4 


Instruments were evaluated based on their alignment to the appropriate content 

standards, as well as the appropriateness of the instrument to the various ASAM 

student populations. WestEd gathered English/Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics 

Content Specialists to conduct the content review. Each instrument was reviewed by a 

minimum of two panel members. Participants evaluated and rated the instruments’ (1) 

alignment to the breadth and depth of the California ELA and Mathematics Content 

Standards, (2) appropriateness for the population, and (3) lack of bias. Instruments that 

were consistently rated low in their alignment to the California Content Standards were 

removed from consideration; all others proceeded to the subsequent technical review 

phase. 

Technical Review 

The technical review committee included assessment and psychometric experts, 

including local ASAM school representatives and former state testing directors with 

many years experience evaluating assessment instruments. Each instrument was 

reviewed by a minimum of two panel members. Participants evaluated and rated (1) the 

instruments’ norming processes, especially related to alternative populations, as well as 

(2) evidence submitted on the reliability, validity, and lack of bias for each assessment. 

Bias Review 

Several steps were taken in the review process to ensure any approved instruments 

were bias-free. Content review panel members reviewed the actual test items to 

determine appropriateness for the various high-risk student populations. Technical 

review panel members examined the validity of all 

bias-related evidence provided. 

Revised: 1/19/12 1:17 PM

II. ASAM Instrument Review Results 


Attachment 4 


By combining results from the content and technical reviews, several decision rules 

could be applied to develop an approved list of instruments. Formal discussions with 

both the content and technical panels led to the following categorization of decision 

rules: 

Level 1: Instruments receiving either a high or moderate rating on both content and 

technical criteria were placed in Level 1. (See Level 1 in Table 1.) 

Level 2: Promising instruments receiving a low technical or content rating with a 

counterbalancing high rating on technical or content may be considered for future 

approval and were placed in Level 2. (See Level 2 in Table 1.) 

Level 3: Instruments in moderate or below in either category with no counterbalancing 

high rating were placed in Level 3. (See Level 3 in Table 1.) 

Table 1 

Decision Rules for Determining Level 1, 2, and 3 Results 

T 

E 

C 

H 

N 

I 

C 

A 

L 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

High 

STANDARDS ALIGNMENT 

Moderate Low 

Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 



Each of the content and technical reviewers rated the specific criteria listed above and 

provided an overall content and technical rating. Those overall ratings, combined with 

the decision rules, were used to determine the ordering of instruments shown in Table 

2. 

Revised: 1/19/12 1:17 PM

Table 2 

Combined Ratings of the Content and Technical Review 

T 

E 

C 

H 

N 

I 

C 

A 

L 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

STANDARDS ALIGNMENT 

High Moderate Low 

Measuring Up – 

Reading 

Level 2 

Measuring Up – Math 

Test of Adult Basic 

Education (TABE) 

Reading 

Level 1 

Test of Adult Basic 

Education (TABE) Math 

Basic Achievement Skills 

Inventory (BASI) – 

Reading 

Level 3 

Basic Achievement 

Skills Inventory 

(BASI)–Math 


Attachment 4 


Stanford Diagnostic 

Reading Test 

Level 3 

Stanford Diagnostic 

Math Test 

Level 1: Two instruments fall into this category. (See Level 1 in Table 2.) 

Level 2: Two instruments fall into this category. (See Level 2 in Table 2.) 

Level 3: Four instruments fall into this category. (See Level 3 in Table 2.) 

III. Recommendations 

The review process identified a limited number of instruments that assess ELA and/or 

Mathematics achievement for possible use to measure growth on ASAM indicators of 

achievement beginning in school year 2005-06. Based on the review results, we 

recommend the following: 

• SBE approval of Level 1 instruments. Each of the instruments that received at 

least a moderate rating in both the content and technical reviews should be 

approved for use with ASAM indicators of achievement. Schools can examine 

the instruments for use with the populations they serve. 

Revised: 1/19/12 1:17 PM


Attachment 4 


• Continuing collection of additional data on Level 2 instruments. Level 2 

instruments are considered promising, but should not be approved because they 

did not score high enough to get a Level 1 rating. WestEd will collect additional 

content and technical information from the publisher, if available. These 

instruments may be brought to the SBE for approval in the future. 

• Rejection of Level 3 instruments. 

Revised: 1/19/12 1:17 PM



aab-sad-sep05item02 ITEM #20 

SUBJECT 



Physical Fitness Test (PFT): Approve Commencement of the 

Rulemaking Process for Amendments to Title 5 California Code 

of Regulations 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve the proposed amendments to the regulations, the Initial 

Statement of Reasons, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and direct staff to 

commence the rulemaking process. 


On May 15, 1989, SBE adopted amendments to the PFT regulations, and these 

regulations were approved by the Office of Administrative Law in May 1989. 


The PFT regulations serve to guide districts and schools in the administration of this 

assessment. The purposes of the proposed amendments to the current regulations are: 

1) to ensure that these regulations conform with the regulations for other California 

testing programs; 2) to add definitions; 3) clarify requirements of the physical 

performance test; 4) determine methods of test administration and training; 5) clarify 

responsibilities of the District Physical Fitness Test Coordinator if one is designated; 6) 

incorporate required data for analysis of pupil proficiency; 7) clarify the reporting and 

recording of test scores; 8) clarify testing variations, accommodations, and modifications 

that may be used on the tests and by which students. 

The State Board of Education adopted Policy #99-03 in June of 1999, establishing 

criteria for granting waivers of EC section 51222 to schools operating on a block 

schedule. The policy requires all secondary schools to meet each of six criteria in order 

to be granted a waiver. One of the six criteria in Policy #99-03 requires that “Students 

are prepared for and participate in the physical performance testing as specified in the 

Education Code.” 

In July 2005, a waiver was approved for a high school to implement a block schedule 

and permit the physical education instructors to test those student enrolled in the first 

term of each school year during the month of December.. 

Revised: 1/19/20121:17:43 PM



The PFT regulations reflect what is currently in statute and school districts must still 

request a waiver to change the testing dates. 


The Fiscal Impact Statement will be submitted as a last minute memorandum. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: Initial Statement of Reasons (2 pages) 

Attachment 2: TITLE 5. Education, Division 1. California Department of Education, 

Chapter 2. Pupils, Subchapter 4. Statewide Testing of Pupils and 

Evaluation Procedures, Article 2. Physical Performance Testing 

Programs (7 Pages) 

Attachment 3: Title 5, California Code of Regulations, California State Board of 

Education Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Physical Fitness Test 

(6 pages)

INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS 

Physical Fitness Test (PFT) Regulations 

SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS 


Attachment 1 


The Physical Fitness Test (PFT) regulations serve to guide school districts and 

schools in the administration of the physical performance test. The purposes of the 

proposed changes to the current regulations are: 1) to ensure that these 

regulations conform with the regulations for other California testing programs; 2) to 

add definitions; 3) clarify requirements of the physical performance test; 4) 

determine methods of test administration and training; 5) clarify responsibilities of 

the District Physical Fitness Test Coordinator; 6) incorporate required data for 

analysis of pupil proficiency; 7) clarify the reporting and recording of test scores; 8) 

clarify testing variations, accommodations, and modifications that may be used on 

the tests and by which students. 

NECESSITY/RATIONALE 

The Legislature amended the PFT statute 2003, effective January 1, 2004. These 

regulations conform to the current PFT statute and other statutes regarding 

statewide testing. The proposed regulations are designed to ensure that the 

physical performance test is administered in a consistent manner across school 

districts and that pupils entitled to testing variations regularly used in the 

classroom, accommodations or modifications receive those that are appropriate. 

The proposed regulations are also intended to ensure that necessary data required 

for analysis of pupil performance are collected and maintained. The regulations are 

designed to assure that the test is administered in a consistent, reliable, valid and 

fair manner statewide. 

TECHNICAL, THEORETICAL, AND/OR EMPIRICAL STUDY, REPORTS, OR 

DOCUMENTS 

The State Board did not rely upon any technical, theoretical, or empirical studies, 

reports or documents in proposing the adoption of these regulations. 

REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE REGULATION AND THE AGENCY’S 

REASONS FOR REJECTING THOSE ALTERNATIVES 

No other alternatives were presented to or considered by the State Board. 

REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED REGULATORY 

ACTION THAT WOULD LESSEN ANY ADVERSE IMPACT ON SMALL 

BUSINESS


Attachment 1 


The State Board has not identified any alternatives that would lessen any 

adverse impact on small business. 

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING FINDING NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ECONOMIC 

IMPACT ON ANY BUSINESS 

The proposed regulations are not anticipated to have a significant adverse 

economic impact on any business because the regulations only relate to local 

school districts and not to business practices.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

TITLE 5. Education 

Division 1. California Department of Education 

Chapter 2. Pupils 


Attachment 2 


Subchapter 4. Statewide Testing of Pupils and Evaluation Procedures 

§ 1040. Definitions of “Pupil.”. 

Article 2. Physical Performance Testing Programs 

For the purpose of the physical performance test required by Education Code 

section 60800, and also referred to as the Physical Fitness Test (PFT), the following 

definitions shall apply: 

(a) Accommodations” means any variation in the assessment environment or 

process that does not fundamentally alter what the test measures or affect the 

comparability of scores. Accommodations may include variations in scheduling, 

settling, aids, equipment, and presentation format as defined in the Matrix of Test 

Variations, Accommodations, and Modifications for Administration of California 

Statewide Assessments (Matrix). A copy of the Matrix can be found on the California 

Department of Education’s (CDE) Web site at 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/documents/matrix5.pdf. 

(b) “Annual assessment window” begins on February 1 and ends on May 31 of each 

school year. 

(c) “Block schedule” is a restructuring of the school day whereby pupils attend half 

as many classes, for twice as long. 

(d) “District Physical Fitness Test Coordinator” is an employee of the school district 

designated by the superintendent of the district to oversee the administration of the 

PFT within the district. 

(e) “FITNESSGRAM ® is the California Physical Fitness Test designated by the State 

Board of Education. 

(f) “Grade” for the purpose of the PFT means the grade assigned to the pupil by the 

school district at the time of testing.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 


Attachment 2 


(g) “Modification” means any variation in the assessment environment or process 

that fundamentally alters what the test measures or affects the comparability of scores, 

as defined in the Matrix. 

(h) “Pupil” is a person enrolled in a California public school in grade 5, 7 or 9, 

including those pupils placed in a non-public school through the individualized 

education program (IEP) process pursuant to Education Code section 56365. 

(i) “School district” includes elementary, high school, and unified school districts, 

county offices of education any charter school that for assessment purposes does not 

elect to be part of the school district or county office of education that granted the 

charter and any charter school chartered by the State Board of Education (SBE). 

(j) “Test administration manual is the Third Edition 

FITNESSGRAM/ACTIVITYGRAM or any subsequent edition. 

(k) “Test examiner” is an employee of the school district who administers the PFT. 

(l) “Variation” is a change in the manner in which a test is presented or 

administered, or in how a test taker is allowed to respond, and includes, but is not 

limited to accommodations and modification as defined in the Matrix. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 33031 60601 and 60603, Education Code. Reference: 

Sections 60603 and 60608, Education Code. 

§ 1041. Required Program. 

(a) During the period annual assessment window of March-May, inclusive, the 

governing board of each school district maintaining grades 5, 7, and 9 10, or any one or 

more of such grades, shall administer to each pupil in those grades the physical 

performance test, FITNESSGRAM ® , designated by the SBE. This includes pupils who 

attend schools that are on a block schedule and whose pupils may not be enrolled in 

physical education classes during the annual assessment window. 

(b) Each physically handicapped pupil and each pupil who is physically unable to 

take all of the physical performance test shall be given as much of the test as his 

condition will permit. 

(b) All pupils in grades 5, 7 and 9 shall only take the test once during the annual 

assessment window.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 


Attachment 2 


(c) School districts shall test all pupils in alternative education programs conducted 

off the regular school campus, including, but not limited to continuation schools, 

independent study, community day schools, and county community schools. 

(f) No test may be administered in a home or hospital except by a test examiner. No 

test shall be administered to a pupil by the parent or guardian of that pupil. 

(g) Pupils shall be tested in each fitness component included in the physical fitness 

test unless exempt by the pupil’s IEP or Section 504 plan. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Ssections 33031 and 60603, Education Code. Reference: 

Sections 60602(c), 60603 and 60608 and 60800, Education Code. 

§ 1042. Recommended Program. 

When adequate facilities are available, tests pursuant to this article may be given 

more often than once yearly. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 33031, Education Code. Reference: Section 60605, 

Education Code. 

§ 1043.6 Methods of Administration. 

(a) The tests shall be scored by employees of the district or the employees of the 

county superintendent of schools. The scoring thereof shall be in compliance with the 

instructions of the publisher or developer for scoring, and the scores shall be submitted 

to the governing board of the school district on the dates required by, and on forms 

prescribed or approved by, such governing board. 

(b) Districts may provide an alternative date for make-ups based on absence or 

temporary physical restriction or limitations (e.g., recovering from illness or injury). 



§ 1043.2. Test Administration Training. 

(a) For valid results districts should use the test administration manual provided for 

the test designated by the SBE.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 


Attachment 2 




§ 1043.4. District Physical Fitness Test Coordinator. 

(a) On or before November 1 of each school year, the superintendent of each 

school district, county office of education, and independent charter school may 

designate from among its employees a District Physical Fitness Test Coordinator. If a 

District Physical Fitness Test Coordinator is designated, the superintendent should 

notify the contractor for the PFT of the identity and contact information of the District 

Physical Fitness Test Coordinator. The District Physical Fitness Test Coordinator 

should be available throughout the year and shall serve as the liaison between the 

school district and the California Department of Education (CDE) for all matters related 

to the PFT. 

(b) The District Physical Fitness Test Coordinator responsibilities include, but are 

not limited to, the following: 

(1) Responding to correspondence and inquiries from the contractor in a timely 

manner and as provided in the contractor’s instructions. 

(2) Determining school district and individual school test and test material needs. 

(3) Overseeing the administration of the PFT to pupils. 

(4) Overseeing the collection and return of all test data to the contractor. 

(5) Ensuring that all test data are received from school test sites within the school 

district in sufficient time to satisfy the reporting requirements. 

year. 

(6) Ensuring that all test data are sent to the test contractor by June 30 of each 



§ 1043.6. Data for Analysis of Pupil Proficiency 

(a) Each school district shall provide the contractor of the PFT the California School 

Information Services (CSIS) student identification number for each pupil tested for 

purposes of the analyses and reporting.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 


Attachment 2 


(b) The demographic information required by subdivision (a) is for the purpose of 

aggregate analyses and reporting only. 

(c) School districts shall provide the same information for each pupil enrolled in an 

alternative or off-campus program, or for pupils placed in nonpublic schools, as 

provided for all other pupils. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 33031, Education Code. Reference: Sections 49061, 

60605 and 60800, Education Code; 20 USC section 1232g. 

§ 1043.8. Reporting Test Scores. 

No aggregate or group scores or reports that are compiled to pursuant to Education 

Code section 60800 shall be reported electronically, in hard copy, or in other media, to 

any audience other than the school or school district where the pupils were tested, if 

the aggregate or group scores or reports are composed of ten (10) or fewer individual 

pupil scores. In each instance in which no score is reported for this reason, the notation 

shall appear: “The number of pupils in this category is too small for statistical accuracy 

or privacy protection.” In no case shall any group score be reported that would 

deliberately or inadvertently make public the score or performance of any individual 

pupil. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 33031 and 60605, Education Code. Reference: 

Sections 49061, 60605 and 60800, Education Code; 20 USC section 1232g; 34 CFR 

part 99. 

§ 1043.10. Reports of Results 

Results shall be provided to each pupil after completing the test. The results may be 

provided orally or in writing. 



§ 1044. Recording Test Scores. 

The district superintendent or the county superintendent of schools, as the case 

may be, shall require that the pupil's scores on each of the tests given him or her in the

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 


Attachment 2 


physical performance testing program be included in the pupil's cumulative record. This 

requirement may be met by maintaining the regular physical performance testing 

program card with the cumulative record form. 



§ 1045. Responsibility of County Superintendent of Schools. 

As soon as possible after the State Board of Education, pursuant to subdivision (d) 

of Education Code Section 60603, has designated the physical performance test to be 

used during the ensuing school year in any grade, the county superintendent of schools 

shall secure, and until the close of the school year for which the test was designated, 

shall keep on file for reference purposes, a specimen set of that test. 

The county superintendent of schools shall provide assistance to school districts in 

administering, recording, and reporting results of, the test. 



§ 1046. Use of Reports. 

The governing board of each school district shall use the reports of test scores 

submitted as required in this article for identifying physically underdeveloped pupils 

adapting instruction to individual needs, appraising pupil progress, adapting the 

physical education program to meet pupil needs and for such other purposes as may 

be permitted or required by law. 



Article 2.5. Testing Variations/Accommodations 

§ 1047. Testing Variations Available to Pupils. 

(a) Each pupil with an IEP or Section 504 plan shall be given as much of the test as 

his or her condition will permit. 

(b) School districts may provide test variations or as applicable in the 

accommodations and modifications as the defined in the Matrix.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 


Attachment 2 


NOTE: Authority cited: Section 30331, Education Code. Reference: 20 USC section 

1400, et seq.; 29 USC section 794; and 42 USC section 12132 and 12133. 

§ 1048. English Learners. 

School districts may provide English learner pupils additional testing variations as 

defined in the Matrix. 



08-23-05


Attachment 3 


STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor 



Sacramento, CA 95814 

TITLE 5. EDUCATION 


NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

Physical Fitness Test (PFT) 

[Notice published September 16, 2005] 

The State Board of Education (State Board) proposes to adopt the regulations described 

below after considering all comments, objections, or recommendations regarding the 

proposed action. 

PUBLIC HEARING 

California Department of Education staff, on behalf of the State Board, will hold a public 

hearing beginning at 9:00 a.m. on November 2, 2005, at 1430 N Street, Room 1801, 

Sacramento. The room is wheelchair accessible. At the hearing, any person may 

present statements or arguments, orally or in writing, relevant to the proposed action 

described in the Informative Digest. The State Board requests that any person desiring 

to present statements or arguments orally notify the Regulations Coordinator of such 

intent. The State Board requests, but does not require, that persons who make oral 

comments at the hearing also submit a written summary of their statements. No oral 

statements will be accepted subsequent to this public hearing. 

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD 

Any interested person, or his or her authorized representative, may submit written 

comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Regulations Coordinator. 

The written comment period ends at 5:00 p.m. on November 2, 2005. The State Board 

will consider only written comments received by the Regulations Coordinator or at the 

State Board Office by that time (in addition to those comments received at the public 

hearing). Written comments for the State Board's consideration should be directed to: 

Debra Strain, Regulations Coordinator 

LEGAL DIVISION 

California Department of Education

AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE 


Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 319-0860 

Email: dstrain@cde.ca.gov 

FAX: (916) 319-0155 

Authority: Sections 33031 and 60605, Education Code. 

Reference: Sections 49061, 60603, 60608, 60615, 60800, Education Code; 20 USC 

section 1232g. 

INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW 

The State Board proposes to adopt amendments to sections 1040 to 1046 in title 5 of 

the California Code of Regulations (CCR). These sections concern the administration of 

the physical performance test that is required of each pupil in grades 5, 7 and 9 by 

Education Code section 60800. Education Code sections 33031 and 60605 authorize 

the State Board to adopt regulations to implement, interpret and make specific these 

requirements. 

Assembly Bill (AB) 265, was enacted in October 1995 to establish the Physical Fitness 

Test. Senate Bill (SB) 896, approved in 1998 further required the California Department 

of Education to report results to the Governor and the Legislature. Section 60800 of the 

Education Code was amended in January 2003 to allow the month of February to be 

added to the existing months of March, April and May for the administration of the 

Physical Fitness Test. In addition, the previously adopted regulations for the Physical 

Fitness Test have not been revised, thus existing regulations were reviewed in total to 

ensure that all sections are consistent with each other, as well as consistent with the 

other state tests’ regulations and to address new issues and the new amendments to 

section 60800. 

The purpose of the proposed regulations is to guide school districts and schools in the 

administration of the Physical Fitness Test, including but not limited to definitions, test 

administration, data requirements and testing variations, accommodations and 

modifications for students with exceptional needs. 


Attachment 3 


The Physical Education Model Content Standards for California Public Schools, adopted by the 

State Board of Education (SBE) in January 2005, represent the content of the discipline of 

physical education and include the essential skills and knowledge students will need to be 

physically active throughout their lifetimes. 

The standards define specific physical education content for each grade level, kindergarten 

through grade twelve, in these categories:

• Motor skill development. 

• Knowledge of movement concepts, principles, and strategies. 

• Development and assessment of physical fitness. 

• Knowledge of physical fitness concepts, principles, and strategies. 


Attachment 3 


• Demonstration and implementation of psychological and sociological concepts, principals, 

and strategies. 

Two content areas, development and assessment of physical fitness and knowledge of 

fitness concepts, principles, and strategies, are aligned with the philosophies and 

protocols of the FITNESSGRAM® at grades five, seven, and nine. 

Section 1040 provides definitions. Section 1041 addresses requirements of the physical 

fitness test. Section 1042 is being repealed because there is no statutory authority for 

allowing this. Section 1043 specifies methods of administration. Section 1043.2 

describes appropriate training for test examiners. Section 1043.4 addresses the 

responsibilities of the districts physical fitness test coordinator. Section 1043.6 provides 

the required data for analysis. Sections 1043.8, 1043.10 and 1044 describe reporting 

and recording of test scores and results. Sections 1045 and 1046 are being repealed 

because there is no statutory authority for allowing this. Section 1047 provides for 

testing variations and accommodations for pupils. Section 1048 addresses testing 

variations available to English learner pupils. 

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE 

This regulation incorporates by reference the FITNESSGRAM ® and the Matrix of Test 

Variations, Accommodations, and Modifications for Administration of California Statewide 

Assessments (Matrix). A copy of the FITNESSGRAM ® reference guide is available at 

CDE’s Web site at http://www.fitnessgram.net. The Matrix can be found on the CDE web 

site at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/documents/matrix5.pdf . 

DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The State Board has made the following initial determinations: 

Mandate on local agencies and school districts: TBD 

Cost or savings to any state agency: TBD 

Costs to any local agency or school district which must be reimbursed in accordance 

with Government Code section 17561: TBD

Other non-discretionary cost or savings imposed on local educational agencies: TBD 

Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: TBD 

Significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business including the 

ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states: TBD 

Cost impacts on a representative private person or businesses: The State Board is not 

aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would 

necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. 

Adoption of these regulations will not: 

(1) create or eliminate jobs within California; 

(2) create new businesses or eliminate existing businesses within California; or 

(3) affect the expansion of businesses currently doing business within California. 

Significant effect on housing costs: TBD 

Effect on small businesses: The proposed regulations would not have a significant 

adverse economic impact on any business because they relate only to local school 

districts and not to small business practices. 

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

In accordance with Government Code section 11346.5(a)(13), the State Board must 

determine that no reasonable alternative it considered or that has otherwise been 

identified and brought to the attention of the State Board, would be more effective in 

carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and 

less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action. 

The State Board invites interested persons to present statements or arguments with 

respect to alternatives to the proposed regulations at the scheduled hearing or during 

the written comment period. 

CONTACT PERSONS 

Inquiries concerning the substance of the proposed regulations should be directed to: 

Debbie Vigil, Education Programs Consultant 

Standards and Assessment Division 



Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 319-0341 


Attachment 3 


E-mail: dvigil@cde.ca.gov 

Requests for a copy of the proposed text of the regulations, the Initial Statement of 

Reasons, the modified text of the regulations, if any, or other technical information upon 

which the rulemaking is based or questions on the proposed administrative action may 

be directed to the Regulations Coordinator, or to the backup contact person, Connie 

Diaz, at (916) 319-0860. 

AVAILABILITY OF INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AND TEXT OF PROPOSED 

REGULATIONS 


Attachment 3 


The Regulations Coordinator will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection 

and copying throughout the rulemaking process at her office at the above address. As of 

the date this notice is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this 

notice, the proposed text of the regulations, and the initial statement of reasons. A copy 

may be obtained by contacting the Regulations Coordinator at the above address. 

AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT 

Following the public hearing and considering all timely and relevant comments received, 

the State Board may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in this 

notice. If the State Board makes modifications that are sufficiently related to the 

originally proposed text, the modified text (with changes clearly indicated) will be 

available to the public for at least 15 days before the State Board adopts the regulations 

as revised. Requests for copies of any modified regulations should be sent to the 

attention of the Regulations Coordinator at the address indicated above. 

The State Board will accept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days 

after the date on which they are made available. 

AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS 

Upon its completion, a copy of the Final Statement of Reasons may be obtained by 

contacting the Regulations Coordinator at the above address. 

AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET 

Copies of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Initial Statement of Reasons, the text 

of the regulations in underline and strikeout, and the Final Statement of Reasons, can be 

accessed through the California Department of Education’s website at 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/rr/

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY 


Attachment 3 


Pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 

and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, any individual with a disability who requires reasonable 

accommodation to attend or participate in a public hearing on proposed regulations, may 

request assistance by contacting Debbie Vigil, Standards and Assessment Division, 

1430 N Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814; telephone, (916) 319-0341; fax, (916) 319- 

0967. It is recommended that assistance be requested at least two weeks prior to the 

hearing.











SUBJECT: Proposed amendments to the PFT regulations, the initial Statement of 

Reasons, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

The California Department of Education (CDE) recommends that the State Board of Education 

approved the proposed amendments to the regulations, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and 

the Notice to Proposed Rulemaking, and direct staff to commence the rulemaking process. 

The copy of the regulations being received has the following changes from the original copy the 

board members received: 

• Page 2 line 23-period of March-May, inclusive, was changed to annual assessment 

window 

• Page 2 line 24-[grade]10 has been changed to [grade] 9 

• Page 3 line 11-60602(c), 60603 and 60608 have been deleted 

• Page 3 lines 14 and 15 Section 1042 Recommended Program has been deleted 

• Page 4 line 8-should notify has been replaced with shall notify 

• Page 6 Section 1045 Responsibility of County Superintendent of Schools and Section 

1046 Use of Reports have been deleted 

The last minute memorandum also includes an Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement as well 

as a Summary of the Fiscal Impact Analysis. The Economic Impact Statement concludes that 

the proposed amendments make nonsubstantive changes to the current regulations. While 

there are some costs related to the amendments, these costs will be absorbed or offset through 

savings. 

Attachment 1: TITLE 5. Education, Division 1. California Department of Education, 

Chapter 2. Pupils, Subchapter 4. Statewide Testing of Pupils and 

Evaluation Procedures, Article 2. Physical Performance Testing 

Programs (7 Pages) 

Attachment 2: Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement. (4 Pages) 

(This attachment is not available for web viewing. A printed copy is available for 

viewing in the State Board Office of Education) 

Attachment 3: Summary of the Fiscal Impact Analysis for Title 5, CCR, Regulations 

Relating to the Physical Performance Testing Programs (1 Page) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:13 PM

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 





Attachment 1 








(a) “Accommodations” means any variation in the assessment environment or 


comparability of scores. Accommodations may include variations in scheduling, setting, 

aids, equipment, and presentation format as defined in the Matrix of Test Variations, 

Accommodations, and Modifications for Administration of California Statewide 

Assessments (Matrix), a document incorporated by reference. A copy of the Matrix can 

be found on the California Department of Education’s (CDE) Web site at 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/documents/matrix5.pdf. 


school year. 




designated by the superintendent of the district to oversee the administration of the PFT 

within the district. 

(e) “FITNESSGRAM ® ” is the California Physical Fitness Test designated by the 

State Board of Education (SBE), a document incorporated by reference. A copy of the 

FITNESSGRAM ® is available on CDE’s Web site at 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/pf/documents/healthfitzones.pdf. 


school district at the time of testing. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:13 PM

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 


Attachment 1 



that fundamentally alters what the test measures or affects the comparability of scores, 



including those pupils placed in a non-public school through the individualized education 

program (IEP) process pursuant to Education Code section 56365. 


county offices of education any charter school that for assessment purposes does not 


charter and any charter school chartered by the SBE. 

(j) “Test administration manual” is the Third Edition 

FITNESSGRAM/ACTIVITYGRAM or any subsequent edition, a document incorporated 

by reference. A copy may be obtained from CDE staff in the Standards and Assessment 

Division. 


(l) “Variation” is a change in the manner in which a test is presented or administered, 

or in how a test taker is allowed to respond, and includes, but is not limited to 

accommodations and modification as defined in the Matrix. 










(b) Each physically handicapped pupil and each pupil who is physically unable to 

take all of the physical performance test shall be given as much of the test as his 

condition will permit. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:13 PM

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 


Attachment 1 



assessment window. 




(d) No test shall be administered in a home or hospital except by a test examiner. No 

test shall be administered to a pupil by the parent or guardian of that pupil. 

(e) Pupils shall be tested in each fitness component included in the PFT unless 

exempt by the pupil’s IEP or Section 504 plan. 


Sections 60602(c), 60603 and 60608 and 60800, Education Code. 






§ 1043. Methods of Administration. 











(a) For valid results, districts shall use the test administration manual provided for 

the test designated by the SBE. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:13 PM

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 


Attachment 1 





(a) On or before November 1 of each school year, the superintendent of each school 

district, county office of education, and independent charter school may designate from 

among its employees a District Physical Fitness Test Coordinator. If a District Physical 

Fitness Test Coordinator is designated, the superintendent shall notify the contractor for 

the PFT of the identity and contact information of the District Physical Fitness Test 

Coordinator. The District Physical Fitness Test Coordinator shall be available 

throughout the year and shall serve as the liaison between the school district and the 

CDE for all matters related to the PFT. 

(b) The District Physical Fitness Test Coordinator responsibilities include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 








(6) Ensuring that all test data are sent to the test contractor by June 30 of each year. 






purposes of the analyses and reporting. 



Revised: 1/19/2012 1:13 PM

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 


Attachment 1 








No aggregate or group scores or reports that are compiled to pursuant to Education 


any audience other than the school or school district where the pupils were tested, if the 

aggregate or group scores or reports are composed of ten (10) or fewer individual pupil 

scores. In each instance in which no score is reported for this reason, the notation shall 

appear: “The number of pupils in this category is too small for statistical accuracy or 

privacy protection.” In no case shall any group score be reported that would 


pupil. 



part 99. 







The district superintendent or the county superintendent of schools, as the case may 

be, shall require that the pupil's scores on each of the tests given him or her in the 




Revised: 1/19/2012 1:13 PM

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 


Attachment 1 

















adapting instruction to individual needs, appraising pupil progress, adapting the physical 

education program to meet pupil needs and for such other purposes as may be 

permitted or required by law. 



Revised: 1/19/2012 1:13 PM

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 


§ 1047. Testing Variations Available to Pupils. 


Attachment 1 





accommodations and modifications as defined in the Matrix. 



§ 1048. English Learners. 





08-24-05 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:13 PM

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

(REGULATIONS AND ORDERS) 

STD. 399 (Rev. 2-98) See SAM Sections 6600 - 6680 for Instructions and Code Citations 

DEPARTMENT NAME CONTACT PERSON TELEPHONE NUMBER 

DESCRIPTIVE TITLE FROM NOTICE REGISTER OR FORM 400 NOTICE FILE NUMBER 

Z 

ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT 

A. ESTIMATED PRIVATE SECTOR COST IMPACTS (Include calculations and assumptions in the rulemaking record.) 

1. Check the appropriate box(es) below to indicate whether this regulation: 

�a. Impacts businesses and/or employees �e. Imposes reporting requirements 

�b. Impacts small businesses �f. Imposes prescriptive instead of performance standards 

�c. Impacts jobs or occupations �g. Impacts individuals 

�d. Impacts California competitiveness �h. None of the above (Explain below. Complete the 

Fiscal Impact Statement as appropriate.) 

h. (cont.) 

(If any box in Items 1 a through g is checked, complete this Economic Impact Statement.) 

2. Enter the total number of businesses impacted:_____________ Describe the types of businesses (Include nonprofits): 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Enter the number or percentage of total businesses impacted that are small businesses: 

3. Enter the number of businesses that will be created: ________________________ eliminated: ____________________________________________ 

Explain: 

4. Indicate the geographic extent of impacts: �Statewide �Local or regional (list areas): _____________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

5. Enter the number of jobs created: or eliminated: Describe the types of jobs or occupations impacted: 

6. Will the regulation affect the ability of California businesses to compete with other states by making it more costly to produce goods or services here? 

� Yes � No If yes, explain briefly: 

B. ESTIMATED COSTS (Include calculations and assumptions in the rulemaking record.) 

1. What are the total statewide dollar costs that businesses and individuals may incur to comply with this regulation over its lifetime? $___________ 

a. Initial costs for a small business: $____________ Annual ongoing costs: $ Years: _____ 

b. Initial costs for a typical business: $___________ Annual ongoing costs: $ Years: _____ 

c. Initial costs for an individual: $ Annual ongoing costs: $ Years: _____ 

d. Describe other economic costs that may occur:

ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT cont. (STD. 399, Rev. 2-98) 

2. If multiple industries are impacted, enter the share of total costs for each industry: 

3. If the regulation imposes reporting requirements, enter the annual costs a typical business may incur to comply with these requirements. (Include the dollar 

costs to do programming, record keeping, reporting, and other paperwork, whether or not the paperwork must be submitted.): $___________________ 

4. Will this regulation directly impact housing costs? � Yes � No If yes, enter the annual dollar cost per housing unit: $__________ and the 

number of units: 

5. Are there comparable Federal regulations? �Yes � No Explain the need for State regulation given the existence or absence of Federal 

regulations: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Enter any additional costs to businesses and/or individuals that may be due to State - Federal differences: $____________ 

C. ESTIMATED BENEFITS (Estimation of the dollar value of benefits is not specifically required by rulemaking law, but encouraged.) 

1. Briefly summarize the benefits that may result from this regulation and who will benefit: 

2. Are the benefits the result of: � specific statutory requirements, or � goals developed by the agency based on broad statutory authority? 

Explain: 

3. What are the total statewide benefits from this regulation over its lifetime? $____________ 

D. ALTERNATIVES TO THE REGULATION (Include calculations and assumptions in the rulemaking record. Estimation of the dollar value of benefits is not 

specifically required by rulemaking law, but encouraged.) 

1. List alternatives considered and describe them below. If no alternatives were considered, explain why not: 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

2. Summarize the total statewide costs and benefits from this regulation and each alternative considered: 

Regulation: Benefit: $ Cost: $ 

Alternative 1: Benefit: $ Cost: $ 

Alternative 2: Benefit: $ Cost: $ 

3. Briefly discuss any quantification issues that are relevant to a comparison of estimated costs and benefits for this regulation or alternatives: 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

4. Rulemaking law requires agencies to consider performance standards as an alternative, if a regulation mandates the use of specific technologies or 

equipment, or prescribes specific actions or procedures. Were performance standards considered to lower compliance costs? �Yes �No 

Explain: 

E. MAJOR REGULATIONS (Include calculations and assumptions in the rulemaking record.) 

Cal/EPA boards, offices and departments are subject to the following additional requirements per Health and Safety Code section 57005. 

Page 2


1. Will the estimated costs of this regulation to California business enterprises exceed $10 million ? � Yes No (If No, skip the rest of this section) 

2. Briefly describe each equally as effective alternative, or combination of alternatives, for which a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed: 

Alternative 1: 

Alternative 2: 

3. For the regulation, and each alternative just described, enter the estimated total cost and overall cost-effectiveness ratio: 

Regulation: $ Cost-effectiveness ratio: 

Alternative 1: $ Cost-effectiveness ratio: 

Alternative 2: $ Cost-effectiveness ratio: 

FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A. FISCAL EFFECT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Indicate appropriate boxes 1 through 6 and attach calculations and assumptions of fiscal impact for 

the current year and two subsequent Fiscal Years) 

�1. Additional expenditures of approximately $ in the current State Fiscal Year which are reimbursable by the State pursuant to 

Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution and Sections 17500 et seq. of the Government Code. Funding for this reimbursement: 

� a. is provided in (Item ,Budget Act of ) or (Chapter ,Statutes of_________________ 

� b. will be requested in the Governor’s Budget for appropriation in Budget Act of _________________________. 

(FISCAL YEAR) 

�2. Additional expenditures of approximately $ in the current State Fiscal Year which are not reimbursable by the State pursuant to 

Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution and Sections 17500 et seq. of the Government Code because this regulation: 

� a. implements the Federal mandate contained in 

� b. implements the court mandate set forth by the 

court in the case of vs. 

� c. implements a mandate of the people of this State expressed in their approval of Proposition No. at the 

election; 

� d. is issued only in response to a specific request from the 

(DATE) 

, which is/are the only local entity(s) affected; 

� e. will be fully financed from the authorized by Section 

(FEES, REVENUE, ETC.) 

of the Code; 

� f. provides for savings to each affected unit of local government which will, at a minimum, offset any additional costs to each such unit. 

� 3. Savings of approximately $ annually. 

�4. No additional costs or savings because this regulation makes only technical, non-substantive or clarifying changes to current law and regulations. 

Page 3

� 


�5. No fiscal impact exists because this regulation does not affect any local entity or program. 

� 6. Other. 

B. FISCAL EFFECT ON STATE GOVERNMENT (Indicate appropriate boxes 1 through 4 and attach calculations and assumptions of fiscal impact for 

the current year and two subsequent Fiscal Years.) 

�1. Additional expenditures of approximately $ in the current State Fiscal Year. It is anticipated that State agencies will: 

� a. be able to absorb these additional costs within their existing budgets and resources. 

� b. request an increase in the currently authorized budget level for the fiscal year. 

�2. Savings of approximately $ in the current State Fiscal Year. 

�3. No fiscal impact exists because this regulation does not affect any State agency or program. 

�4. Other. 

C. FISCAL EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDING OF STATE PROGRAMS (Indicate appropriate boxes 1 through 4 and attach calculations and assumptions 

of fiscal impact for the current year and two subsequent Fiscal Years.) 

�1. Additional expenditures of approximately $ in the current State Fiscal Year. 

�2. Savings of approximately $ in the current State Fiscal Year. 

�3. No fiscal impact exists because this regulation does not affect any federally funded State agency or program. 

�4. Other. 

SIGNATURE TITLE 

AGENCY SECRETARY 1 

APPROVAL/CONCURRENCE 

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 2 

APPROVAL/CONCURRENCE 

� 

� 

PROGRAM BUDGET MANAGER 

1. The signature attests that the agency has completed the STD. 399 according to the instructions in SAM sections 6600-6680, and understands the 

impacts of the proposed rulemaking. State boards, offices, or departments not under an Agency Secretary must have the form signed by the highest 

ranking official in the organization. 

2. Finance approval and signature is required when SAM sections 6600-6670 require completion of the Fiscal Impact Statement in the STD. 399. 

Page 4 

DATE 

DATE

Summary of the Fiscal Impact Analysis for 

Title 5, CCR, Regulations Relating to the 

Physical Performance Testing Programs 

(version 08/26/05) 

The proposed amendments to the regulations should have no impact on local business. The 

proposed amended regulations make nonsubstantive changes to the current regulations, and 

amend activities mandated under state and federal statute and are thus not reimbursable in 

accordance with Sections 17500 et seq. of the Government Code. Additionally, some amended 

sections may generate a cost savings for the locals. The proposed amendments to the regulations 

may impose additional costs upon the state which will be absorbed or offset through savings. 

FISCAL EFFECT ON 

SECTION LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATE GOVERNMENT 

1040 No Fiscal Impact No Fiscal Impact 




1043.2 No Fiscal Impact No Fiscal Impact 

1043.4 Potential Savings No Fiscal Impact 

1043.6 Non Reimbursable Cost Costs Offset By Savings 

1043.8 Non Reimbursable Cost No Fiscal Impact 

1043.10 No Fiscal Impact No Fiscal Impact 


1045 Potential Savings No Fiscal Impact 

1046 Potential Savings No Fiscal Impact 



PFT_080405Summary(nocost)v1 

1

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 










(a) “Accommodations” means any variation in the assessment environment or 


comparability of scores. Accommodations may include variations in scheduling, setting, 

aids, equipment, and presentation format as defined in the Matrix of Test Variations, 

Accommodations, and Modifications for Administration of California Statewide 

Assessments (Matrix), a document incorporated by reference. A copy of the Matrix can 

be found on the California Department of Education’s (CDE) Web site at 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tq/sa/documents/matrix5.pdf. 


school year. 




designated by the superintendent of the district to oversee the administration of the 

PFT within the district. 

(e) “FITNESSGRAM ® ” is the California Physical Fitness Test designated by the 

State Board of Education (SBE), a document incorporated by reference. A copy of the 

FITNESSGRAM ® is available on CDE’s Web site at 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/pf/documents/healthfitzones.pdf. 


school district at the time of testing. 

1

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 


that fundamentally alters what the test measures or affects the comparability of scores 



including those pupils placed in a non-public school through the individualized 

education program (IEP) process pursuant to Education Code section 56365. 


county offices of education, any charter school that for assessment purposes does not 


charter, and any charter school chartered by the SBE. 

(j) “Test administration manual” is the Third Edition 

FITNESSGRAM/ACTIVITYGRAM or any subsequent edition, a document incorporated 

by reference. A copy may be obtained from CDE staff in the Standards and 

Assessment Division. 


(l) “Variation” is a change in the manner in which a test is presented or 

administered, or in how a test taker is allowed to respond, and includes, but is not 

limited to accommodations and modification as defined in the Matrix. 










Each physically handicapped pupil and each pupil who is physically unable to take 

all of the physical performance test shall be given as much of the test as his condition 

will permit. 


assessment window. 

2

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 




(d) No test shall be administered in a home or hospital except by a test examiner. 

No test shall be administered to a pupil by the parent or guardian of that pupil. 

(e) Pupils shall be tested in each fitness component included in the physical fitness 

test unless exempt by the pupil’s IEP or Section 504 plan. 


Sections 60602(c), 60603 and 60608 60615 and 60800, Education Code. 






§ 1043. Methods of Administration. 











(a) For valid results, districts shall use the test administration manual provided for 

the test designated by the SBE. 



3

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 


(a) On or before November 1 of each school year, the superintendent of each 

school district, county office of education, and independent charter school may 

designate from among its employees a District Physical Fitness Test Coordinator. If a 

District Physical Fitness Test Coordinator is designated, the superintendent shall notify 

the contractor for the PFT of the identity and contact information of the District Physical 

Fitness Test Coordinator. The District Physical Fitness Test Coordinator shall be 

available throughout the year and shall serve as the liaison between the school district 

and the CDE for all matters related to the PFT. 

(b) The District Physical Fitness Test Coordinator responsibilities include, but are 

not limited to, the following: 








year. 

(6) Ensuring that all test data are sent to the test contractor by June 30 of each 






purposes of the analyses and reporting. 






4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 




No aggregate or group scores or reports that are compiled pursuant to Education 


any audience other than the school or school district where the pupils were tested, if 

the aggregate or group scores or reports are composed of ten (10) or fewer individual 

pupil scores. In each instance in which no score is reported for this reason, the notation 

shall appear: “The number of pupils in this category is too small for statistical accuracy 

or privacy protection.” In no case shall any group score be reported that would 


pupil. 



part 99. 







The district superintendent or the county superintendent of schools, as the case 

may be, shall require that the pupil's scores on each of the tests given him or her in the 






5

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 














adapting instruction to individual needs, appraising pupil progress, adapting the 

physical education program to meet pupil needs and for such other purposes as may 

be permitted or required by law. 




§ 1047. Testing Variations Available to Eligible Pupils. 




accommodations and modifications as defined in the Matrix. 



§ 1048. Testing Variations Available to English Learners. 



6

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 



08-26-05 

7




SUBJECT 

ITEM #21 



Revised Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) Regulations: 

Proposed Title 5 Regulations – Approve proposed amendments 

and circulate for the Third 15-Day Public Comment Period 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) release the revised regulations for the Third 15-Day Public Comment 

Period. If no negative comments are received regarding the latest revisions, direct staff 

to complete the rulemaking file and submit the adopted regulations to the Office of 

Administrative Law. 


• November 2004: the SBE released for public comment revised regulations for the 

uniform complaint procedures. 

• March 2005: the SBE released for public comment revised regulations for a 

15-Day Public Comment Period (March 21 – April 4, 2005). 

• May 2005: the SBE released for public comment revised regulations for a Second 

15-Day Public Comment Period (May 24 – June 7, 2005). 


During the Second 15-day Public Comment Period (May 24 – June 7, 2005) seven 

constituencies submitted comment about the uniform complaint procedures regulations. 

These comments were similar to those submitted during previous public comment 

periods and not related to the regulation revisions circulated during this period. We are 

making a change in regard to one comment by deleting 4600(h).

On July 26, 2005, AB 831 was signed into law, making changes to California Education 

Code section 35186, requiring changes in: 

• 4600(w), 4681(a)(2) and 4684(a)(1), remove the phrase “in order to complete 

homework assignments” 

• 4600(y), change “vacant teacher position” to “teacher vacancy” 

• 4621(c), 4630(a), 4631(a), 4680(a), 4680(b), 4683(a), 4683(a)(3), and 4683(b), 

change the phrase “Health and Safety” to “Health or Safety” 

• 4682(a)(1) now begins with “A semester begins and a teacher vacancy exists” 

• 4686(a) and 4687(a), change “may” to “has the right to” 

In addition to changes required by AB 831, the following changes were made: 

• 4600(a) now adds the word “elementary”, to the phrase, activities in primary, 

elementary or secondary educational institutions 

• 4600(h) remove “Compliance agreement” definition 

• 4632(a) add the phrase at the beginning: “Except for complaints under sections 

4680 and 4681 regarding instructional materials or teacher vacancies or 

misassignments,” 

• 4650 add the phrase at the beginning: “Except for complaints under sections 

4680, 4681 and 4682 regarding instructional materials, teacher vacancies or 

misassignments, or condition of a facility” 

• 4670(a), 4670(a)(1), and 4670(b) change “local educational agency” to “local 

agency” 

• 4682(a)(1), add “A semester begins and a teacher vacancy exists” 

• 4684(a)(3), add “There should be no teacher vacancies or misassignments. 

There should be a teacher assigned to each class and not a series of substitutes 

or other temporary teachers. The teacher should have the proper credential to 

teach the class, including the certification required to teach English learners if 

present.” 

• 4684(b) change ‘local educational agency” to “school district” to be consistent with 

statute


The Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement concludes that the proposed regulations 

make non-substantive changes to the current regulations and require new activities that 

potentially create reimbursable costs. Amended activities mandated under state and 

federal statute do not constitute a state mandated local cost. Four new sections of the 

regulations, 4680, 4684, 4685 and 4686, were enacted due to the Williams Case 

Settlement requiring new activities as mandated under state statute (Education Code 

sections 33031 and 35186) and, therefore, do not create any mandated costs. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: Revised Title 5. Education, Division 1. California Department of 

Education, Chapter 5.1, Uniform Complaint Procedures (33 pages). 

Attachment 2: Final Statement of Reasons (135 pages).

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

Amend § 4600 to read: 

§ 4600. General Definitions. 

As used in this Cchapter, the term: 

Title 5. EDUCATION 


Chapter 5.1. Uniform Complaint Procedures 

Subchapter 1. Complaint Procedures 

Article 1. Definitions 

1 

Title 5. Education… 

Attachment 1 


(a) “Age” means a person’s chronological age from birth. However, age shall 

not apply to admission into or access to programs and activities in primary, 

elementary, or secondary educational institutions where such educational 

institution may use age or grade level as a bona fide criteria. 

(b)(a) “Appeal” means a request made in writing to a level higher than the original 

reviewing level by an aggrieved party requesting reconsideration or a reinvestigation of 

the lower adjudicating body's decision. 

(c) “Beginning of the year or semester” means the first day of classes 

necessary to serve all the students enrolled are established with a single 

designated certificated employee assigned for the duration of the class, but not later 

than 20 working days after the first day students attend classes for that semester. 

(d)(b) “Complainant” means any individual, including a person's duly authorized 

representative or an interested third party, public agency, or organization who files a 

written complaint alleging violation of federal or state laws or regulations, including 

allegations of unlawful discrimination in programs and activities funded directly by the 

state or receiving any financial assistance from the state. 

(e)(c) “Complaint” means a written and signed statement alleging a violation of a 

federal or state laws or regulations, which may include an allegation of unlawful 

discrimination. If the complainant is unable to put the complaint in writing, due to 

conditions such as a disability or illiteracy or other handicaps, the public agency shall 

assist the complainant in the filing of the complaint. 

(f)(d) “Complaint Iinvestigation” means an administrative process used by the 

Department or local educational agency for the purpose of gathering data regarding the

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

complaint. 

2 


Attachment 1 


(g)(e) “Complaint Pprocedure” means an internal process used by the Department 

or local educational agency to process and resolve complaints. 

(h)(f) “Compliance Aagreement” means an agreement between the Department and 

a local educational agency, following a finding of noncompliance by the Department, 

developed by the local educational agency and approved by the Department to resolve 

the noncompliance. 

(h)(i)(g) “Days” means calendar days unless designated otherwise. 

(i)(j)(h) “Department” means the California Department of Education. 

(j)(k)(i) “Direct Sstate Iintervention” means the steps taken by the Department to 

initially investigate complaints or effect compliance. 

(k)(l)(j) “Educational institution” means a public or private preschool, elementary, or 

secondary school or institution; the governing board of a school district; or any 

combination of school districts or counties recognized as the administrative agency for 

public elementary or secondary schools. 

(l)(m)(k) “Facilities that pose an emergency or urgent threat to the healthy or safety 

of pupils or staff” means a condition as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of 

Ssection 17592.72 and any other emergency conditions the school district determines 

appropriate. 

(m)(n)(l) “Good repair” means the facility is maintained in a manner that assures 

that it is clean, safe, and functional as determined pursuant to an interim evaluation 

instrument developed by the Office of Public School Construction pursuant to 

Education Code section 17002(d)(2). The instrument shall not require capital 

enhancements beyond the standards to which the facility was designed and 

constructed. 

(n)(o) “Instructional materials” means all materials that are designed for use 

by pupils and their teachers as a learning resource and help pupils to acquire 

facts, skills, or opinions or to develop cognitive processes. Instructional 

materials may be printed or nonprinted, and may include textbooks, technology- 

based materials, other educational materials, and tests. 

(o)(p)(m)(j) “Local Aagency” means a school district governing board or a local

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

3 


Attachment 1 


public or private agency which receives direct or indirect funding or any other financial 

assistance from the state to provide any school programs or activities or special 

education or related services. 

(p)(q)(n) “Local educational agency” (LEA) includes any public school district and 

county office of education or direct-funded charter school. 

(q)(r)(k) “Mediation” means a problem-solving activity whereby a third party assists 

the parties to a dispute in resolving the problem. “Mediation” means a problem 

solving activity whereby a third party assists the parties to the dispute in 

resolving the complaint. 

(r)(s)(o) “Misassignment” means the placement of a certificated employee in a 

teaching or services position for which the employee does not hold a legally recognized 

certificate or credential or the placement of a certificated employee in a teaching or 

services position that the employee is not otherwise authorized by statute to hold. 

(s)(t)(p) “Public agency” means any local agency or state agency. 

(t)(u)(q)(m) “State Aagency” means the State Departments of Mental Health or 

Health Services or any other state administrative unit that is or may be required to 

provide special education or related services to handicapped pupils children with 

disabilities pursuant to Government Code section 7570 et seq. 

(u)(v)(l) “State Mediation Agreement” means a written, voluntary agreement, 

approved by the Department, which is developed by the local agency and complainant 

with assistance from the Department to resolve an allegation of noncompliance. “State 

mediation agreement” means a written, voluntary agreement approved by the 

Department, which is developed by the parties to the dispute, which resolves the 

allegations of the complaint. 

(v)(w)(r) “Subject matter competency” means the teacher meets the applicable 

requirements of Aarticle 1, subchapter 7 of these regulations, commencing with 

Ssection 6100, for the course being taught. 

(w)(x)(s) “Sufficient textbooks or instructional materials” means that each pupil, 

including English learners, has a textbook or instructional materials, or both, to use in 

class and to take home to complete required homework assignments; but does not 

require two sets of textbooks or instructional materials for each pupil. Sufficient

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

4 


Attachment 1 


textbooks or instructional materials does not include photocopied sheets from only a 

portion of a textbook or instructional materials copied to address a shortage. 

(x)(y)(n) “Superintendent” means the Superintendent of Public Instruction or his or 

her designee. 

(y)(z)(u) “Vacant teacher position Teacher vacancy” means a position to which a 

single designated certificated employee has not been assigned at the beginning of the 

year for an entire year or, if the position is for a one-semester course, a position of 

which a single designated certificated employee has not been assigned at the 

beginning of a semester for an entire semester. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 221.1 232 and 33031, Education Code; Section 11138, 

Government Code. Reference: Sections 200, 201, 210.1 and 210, 220, and 260 

17002(d), 17592.72, 33126 (b)(5)(A) and (B), and 17592.72, 35160, and 60010, 

Education Code; Sections 11135 and 11138, Government Code. 


§4610. Purpose and Scope. 

Article 2. Purpose and Scope 

(a) This Chapter applies to the filing, investigation and resolution of a complaint 

regarding an alleged violation by a local agency of federal or state law or regulations 

governing educational programs, including allegations of unlawful discrimination, in 

accordance with the provisions of Title 34, CFR, Sections 76.780-783 and 106.8; Title 

22, CCR, Sections 98300-98382; and California Education Code Sections 49556 and 

8257. The purpose of this Cchapter is to establish a uniform system of complaint 

processing for specified programs or activities which that receive state or federal 

funding. 

(b) This Cchapter applies to the following programs administered by the 

Department: 

(1)(i) Adult Basic Education programs established pursuant to Education Code 

sections 8500 through 8538 and 52500 through 52616.54; 

(2)(ii) Consolidated Categorical Aid Programs as listed in Education Code section 

64000(a);

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

5 


Attachment 1 


(3)(iii) Migrant Education established pursuant to Education Code sections 54440 

through 54445; 

(4)(iv) Career Technical and Technical Vocational Education and Career Technical 

and Technical Training Programs established pursuant to Education Code sections 

52300 through 52480; 

(5)(v) Child Care and Development pPrograms established pursuant to Education 

Code sections 8200 through 8493; 

(6)(vi) Child Nutrition pPrograms established pursuant to Education Code sections 

49490 through 49560 49570; and 

(7)(vii) Special Education pPrograms established pursuant to Education Code 

sections 56000 through 56885 and 59000 through 59300. 

(c) This Cchapter also applies to the filing of complaints which allege unlawful 

discrimination against on the basis of ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, 

color, or physical or mental disability, any protected group as identified under Education 

Code section 200 and 220 and Section 11135 of the Government Code section 

11135, including actual or perceived sex, sexual orientation, gender, ethnic 

group identification, race, ancestry, national origin, religion, color, or mental or 

physical disability, or age, or on the basis of a person’s association with a 

person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics, in 

any program or activity conducted by a local agency, which is funded directly by, or that 

receives or benefits from any state financial assistance. 

(d) This chapter shall not apply to: 

(1) Employer-employee relations such as hiring and evaluations of staff, 

assignments of classrooms or duties or other issues within the purview of the 

Public Employees Relations Board or a Memorandum of Understanding or other 

collective bargaining agreement; 

(2) the provision of core curricula subjects; 

(3) pupil classroom assignments; 

(4) pupil discipline; 

(5) pupil advancement, retention or grades; 

(6) graduation requirements;

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

(7) homework policies and practices; 

(8) selection of instructional materials; or 

(9) use of general education funds. 

6 


Attachment 1 


(d) Nothing in these regulations shall prevent a local educational agency from 

using its local uniform complaint procedure to address complaints not listed in 

this section. 

(e) The Department will develop a pamphlet for parents that will explain the 

Uniform Complaint Procedures in a user friendly manner and post this pamphlet 

on the Department’s Web site. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 221.1 232, 8261, 33031, 35186, 49531, 49551, 54445, 

52355, 52451, and 56100(a) and (j), Education Code; Section 11138, Government 

Code. Reference: Sections 200, 210, 220, 260, and 49556, Education Code; Sections 

11135 and 11138, Government Code; 34 CFR 106.1 – 106.8, 299.10 – 299.11. 


§4611. Referring Complaint Issues to Other Appropriate State or Federal 

Agencies. 

The following complaints shall be referred to the specified agencies for appropriate 

resolution and are not subject to the local and Department complaint procedures set 

forth in this Cchapter unless these procedures are made applicable by separate 

interagency agreements: 

(a) Allegations of child abuse shall be referred to the applicable County Department 

of Social Services (DSS), Protective Services Division or appropriate law enforcement 

agency. However, nothing in this section relieves the Department from investigating 

complaints pursuant to section 4650 (a)(viii)(8)(C) herein. 

(b) Health and safety complaints regarding a Child Development Program shall be 

referred to Department of Social Services for licensed facilities, and to the appropriate 

Child Development regional administrator for licensing-exempt facilities. 

(c) Discrimination issues involving Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 

shall be referred to the U.S. Office of Civil Rights (OCR). Title IX complainants will only 

be referred to the OCR if there is no state discrimination law or regulation at issue.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

7 


Attachment 1 


Unless otherwise negotiated through a memorandum of understanding/agreement, a 

preliminary inquiry and/or investigation concerning these complaints will be conducted 

by OCR. The complainant shall be notified by certified mail if his or her complaint is 

transferred to OCR by the Superintendent. 

(d) Complaints of discrimination involving Child Nutrition Programs administered by 

the Department from program participants or applicants shall be referred to either 

Administrator, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park 

Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302 or Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 

20250. Discrimination complaints received by a local agency or the Department shall 

be immediately directed to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 

Western Regional Office. 

(c)(e) Employment discrimination complaints shall be sent to the State Department 

of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to Ttitle 22, CCR, Ssection 98410. 

The complainant shall be notified by certified first class mail of any DFEH transferral. 

(d)(f) Allegations of fraud shall be referred to the responsible Department Division 

Director and who may consult with the Department's Legal Office and Audits Branch. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 221.1 and 33031, 71020 and 71025, Education Code; 

Section 11138, Government Code. Reference: Sections 200, 220, 221 and 48987, 

Education Code; Sections 11135, 11136, and 11138 and 12960, Government Code; 

Section 11166, Penal Code; 34 CFR 76.780-76.783 106.1 – 106.8. 

Amend Article 3 and § 4620 to read: 

Article 3. Local Educational Agency Compliance 

§4620. Local Educational Agency Responsibilities. 

Each local educational agency shall have the primary responsibility to insure 

compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations. Each local 

educational agency shall investigate complaints alleging failure to comply with 

applicable state and federal laws and regulations and/or alleging discrimination, and 

seek to resolve those complaints in accordance with the procedures set out in this 

Cchapter and in accordance with the policies and procedures of the governing board. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 221.1 232 and 33031, Education Code; Section 11138,

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

8 


Attachment 1 


Government Code. Reference: Section 200, 220 and 260, Education Code; Section 

11135, Government Code; and 34 CFR 76.780 - 76.783 and 106.8. 


§4621. District Policies and Procedures. 

(a) Each local educational agency shall adopt policies and procedures not 

inconsistent with sections 4600 – 4695 of this Cchapter for the investigation and 

resolution of complaints. Local policies shall ensure that complainants are protected 

from retaliation and that the identity of the a complainant alleging discrimination remain 

confidential as appropriate. School Districts and County Offices of Education shall 

submit their policies and procedures to the local governing board for adoption within 

one year from the effective date of this chapter. Upon adoption, the district may 

forward a copy to the Superintendent. 

(b) Each local educational agency shall include in its policies and procedures the 

person(s), employee(s) or agency position(s) or unit(s) responsible for receiving 

complaints, investigating complaints and ensuring local educational agency 

compliance. The local educational agency's policies shall ensure that the person(s), 

employee(s), position(s) or unit(s) responsible for compliance and/or investigations 

shall be knowledgeable about the laws/programs that he/she is assigned to investigate. 

(c) Except for complaints under sections 4680 - 4687 regarding any deficiency 

related to instructional materials, emergency or urgent facilities conditions that 

pose a threat to the health and or safety of pupils or staff, and teacher vacancies 

or misassignments, tThe local educational agency may provide a complaint form for 

persons wishing to file a complaint to fill out and file. A complaint form shall be 

provided for complaints regarding any deficiency related to instructional materials, 

emergency or urgent facilities conditions that pose a threat to the health and or 

safety of pupils or staff, and teacher vacancies or misassignments. However, a 

person may is not be required to use the complaint form furnished by the local 

educational agency in order to file a complaint. 

NOTE: Sections 221.1 232 and 33031, Education Code; Section 11138, Government 

Code. Reference: Section 200, 220 and 260, Education Code; Section 11135,

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

9 


Attachment 1 


Government Code; and 34 CFR 76.780-76.783 and 106.8 and 299.10 – 299.11. 


§4622. Notice; Notice Recipients; Notice Requirements. 

Each local educational agency shall annually notify in writing, as applicable, its 

students, employees, parents or guardians of its students, the district advisory 

committee, school advisory committees, appropriate private school officials or 

representatives, and other interested parties of their local educational agency complaint 

procedures, including the opportunity to appeal to the Department and the provisions of 

this Cchapter. The notice shall include the identity (identities) of the person(s) 

responsible for processing complaints. The notice shall also advise the recipient of the 

notice of any civil law remedies that may be available, and of the appeal and review 

procedures contained in sections 4650, 4652, and 4671 of this Chapter. The notice 

shall also advise the recipient of any civil law remedies that may be available 

under state or federal discrimination laws, if applicable, and of the appeal 

pursuant to Education Code section 262.3. This notice shall be in English, and when 

necessary, in the primary language, pursuant to section 48985 of the Education Code, 

or mode of communication of the recipient of the notice. Copies of local educational 

agency complaint procedures shall be available free of charge. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 200, 220, and 221.1, 232 262.3 and 33031, Education 

Code; Section 11138, Government Code. Reference: Section 200 and 220, Education 

Code; Sections 11135 and 11138, Government Code; 34 CFR 76.780-76.783 and 

106.8 and 299.11. 


Article 4. Local Complaint Procedures 

§4630. Filing a Local Complaint; Procedures, Time Lines. 

(a) Except for complaints under sections 4680 - 4687 regarding any deficiency 

related to instructional materials, emergency or urgent facilities conditions that 

pose a threat to the health and or safety of pupils or staff, and teacher vacancies

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

10 


Attachment 1 


or misassignments, and complaints that other than discrimination complaints that 

does not allege discrimination, any individual, public agency or organization may file a 

written complaint with the district superintendent or his or her designee person 

designated by the governing board administrator/superintendent of the local 

educational agency, alleging a matter which, if true, would constitute a violation by that 

local educational agency of federal or state law or regulation governing the a programs 

listed in section 4610 (b) of this Cchapter. 

(b) An investigation of alleged unlawful discrimination shall be initiated by filing a 

complaint not later than six months from the date the alleged discrimination occurred, 

or the date the complainant first obtained knowledge of the facts of the alleged 

discrimination unless the time for filing is extended by the district superintendent or his 

or her designee Superintendent, upon written request by the complainant setting forth 

the reasons for the extension. Such extension by the district superintendent or his or 

her designee Superintendent shall be made in writing. The period for filing may be 

extended by the district superintendent or his or her designee Superintendent for good 

cause for a period not to exceed 90 days following the expiration of the six month time 

period time allowed. The district superintendent Superintendent shall respond 

immediately upon receipt of a requests for extensions. 

(1) The complaint shall be filed by one who alleges that he or she has personally 

suffered unlawful discrimination, or by one who believes an individual or any specific 

class of individuals has been subjected to discrimination prohibited by this part. 

(2) The complaint shall be filed with the local educational agency in accordance with 

the complaint procedures of the local educational agency director/district 

superintendent or his or her designee, unless the complainant requests direct 

intervention by the Department pursuant to Article 6 of this Chapter. 

(3) An investigation of a discrimination complaint shall be conducted in a manner 

that protects confidentiality of the parties and maintains the integrity of the process the 

facts. 


Government Code. Reference: Sections 200 and 220, Education Code; Sections 

11135, 11136, and 11138, Government Code; 34 CFR 76.780-76.783 and 106.8.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 


§4631. Responsibilities of the Local Educational Agency. 

11 


Attachment 1 


(a) Except for complaints regarding any deficiency related to instructional 

materials, emergency or urgent facilities conditions that pose a threat to the 

health and or safety of pupils or staff, and teacher vacancies or misassignments, 

which must be processed in accordance with sections 4680 – 4687, Wwithin 60 

days from the date of the receipt of the complaint, the local educational agency person 

responsible for the investigation of the complaints superintendent or his or her 

designee shall conduct and complete the an investigation of the complaint in 

accordance with the local procedures developed adopted pursuant to section 4621 and 

prepare a written Local Educational Agency Decision. This time period may be 

extended by written agreement of the complainant. 

(b) The investigation shall provide include an opportunity for the complainant, or the 

complainant's representative, or both, to present the complaint(s) and evidence or 

information leading to evidence to support the allegations of non-compliance with state 

and federal laws and/or regulations and local educational agency representatives to 

present information relevant to the complaint. The investigation may include an 

opportunity for the parties to the dispute to meet to discuss the complaint or to question 

each other or each other's witnesses. 

(c) Refusal by the complainant to provide the investigator with documents or other 

evidence related to the allegations in the complaint, or to otherwise fail or refuse to 

cooperate in the investigation or engage in any other obstruction of the investigation, 

may result in the dismissal of the complaint because of a lack of evidence to support 

the allegations. 

(d) Refusal by the local agency to provide the investigator with access to records 

and/or other information related to the allegation in the complaint, or to otherwise fail or 

refuse to cooperate in the investigation or engage in any other obstruction of the 

investigation, may result in a finding based on evidence collected that a violation has 

occurred and may result in the imposition of a remedy in favor of the complainant. 

(e)(c) The Llocal Eeducational Aagency should issue a Decision (the Decision) 

based on the evidence. The Decision, shall be in writing and sent to the complainant

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

12 


Attachment 1 


within sixty (60) days from receipt of the complaint by the local educational agency. The 

Decision shall should contain: 

(1) the findings of fact based on the evidence gathered, 

(2) conclusion of law, 

(3) and disposition of the complaint, including 

(4) corrective actions if any the rationale for such disposition, 

(5) corrective actions, if any are warranted, 

(6) notice of the complainant's right to appeal the local educational agency 

dDecision to the Department, and 

(7) the procedures to be followed for initiating an appeal to the Department. 

(d) Local Educational Agencies may establish procedures for attempting to resolve 

complaints through mediation prior to the initiation of a formal compliance investigation. 

Conducting local mediation shall not extend the local time lines for investigating and 

resolving complaints at the local level unless the complainant agrees, in writing, to the 

extension of the time line. In no event shall mediation be mandatory in resolving 

complaints. 

(f) Nothing in this Cchapter shall prohibit the parties from utilizing alternative 

methods to resolve the allegations in the complaint, including, but not limited to, 

mediation to resolve the allegations in the complaint. 

(g) Nothing in this Cchapter shall prohibit a local educational agency from resolving 

complaints prior to the formal filing of a written complaint. 



11135, 11136, and 11138, Government Code; 34 CFR 76.780-76.783 and 106.8. 

Article 4.5. Appeal of Local Educational Agency Decision. 

Renumber § 4652 to § 4632 to read: 

§4652. § 4632. Appealing of Local Educational Agency Decisions - Grounds. 

(a) Any complainant(s) may appeal a Local Educational Agency Decision to the 

Superintendent by filing a written appeal with the Superintendent within (15) days of 

receiving the Local Educational Agency Decision. Extensions for filing appeals may be

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

granted, in writing, for good cause. 

13 


Attachment 1 


(b) The complainant shall specify the reason(s) for appealing the local educational 

agency decision. 

(c) The appeal shall include: 

(1) a copy of the locally filed complaint; and 

(2) a copy of the Local Educational Agency Decision. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 232 and 33031, Education Code; Section 11138, 

Government Code. Reference: Sections 11135, 11136, and 11138, Government Code; 

34 CFR 76.780-76.783 and 106.8. 

(a) Except for complaints under sections 4680 and 4681 regarding instructional 

materials and teacher vacancies or misassignments, aA complainant may appeal a 

Decision to the Department by filing a written appeal within 15 days of receiving the 

Decision. 

(b) The complainant shall specify the basis for the appeal of the Decision and 

whether the how as a matter of facts are incorrect and/or the law the is misapplied 

local educational agency. 

(c) The appeal shall be accompanied by: 

(1) a copy of the locally filed complaint; and 

(2) a copy of the Decision. 

(d) If the Department determines the appeal raises issues not contained in the 

local complaint, the Department will refer those new issues back to the local 

educational agency for resolution as a new complaint under section 4630 or 

4631. 

(e) If the Department determines that the Decision failed to address an issue raised 

by the complaint, the Department shall refer the matter to the local educational agency 

to make the necessary findings and conclusions on the any issue not addressed. The 

local educational agency will address the issue within 20 days from the date of 

the referral. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 200, 221.2, and 33031, Education Code; Section 

11138, Government Code. Reference: Sections 11135, 11136, and 11138, 

Government Code; 34 CFR 106.8, 34 CFR 299.10(a)(2).

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

Renumber § 4632 to § 4633 to read. 

14 


Attachment 1 


§4632. Forward to Superintendent. § 4633. Appeal of Local Educational Agency 

Decision. 

(a) If the Decision is appealed, the Department shall notify the local educational 

agency of the appeal. Upon notification by the Department Superintendent that the 

Local Educational Agency Decision has been appealed to the state level pursuant to 

section 4652, the local educational agency shall forward the following to the 

Department Superintendent: 

(1)(a) A copy of Tthe original complaint; 

(2)(b) A copy of the Local Educational Agency Decision; 

(3)(c) A summary of the nature and extent of the investigation conducted by the 

local educational agency, if not covered in the Local Educational Agency Decision; 

(4) 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; 

(5)(d) A report of any action taken to resolve the complaint; 

(6)(e) A copy of the local educational agency complaint procedures; and 

(7)(f) Such other relevant information as the Department Superintendent may 

request require. 

(b) The Department shall not receive evidence from the parties that could have 

been presented to the local educational agency investigator during the investigation, 

unless requested by the Department. Any confidential information or pupil 

information in the investigative file shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed 

by the Department. 

(c) The Department may contact the parties for further information, if necessary. 

(d) The Department shall review the investigation file, the summary of the nature 

and extent of the investigation conducted by the local educational agency, the 

complaint procedures, documents and any other evidence received from the local 

educational agency and determine whether substantial evidence exists: 

(1) That the local educational agency followed its complaint procedures; and 

(2) That the relevant findings of fact in the Decision which are the subject of the 

appeal are supported by the evidence.; and

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

15 


Attachment 1 


(e)(3) The Department shall review That the conclusions of law which are the 

subject of the appeal and determine whether they are correct. 

(f)(e) If the Department determines that the Decision is deficient because it lacks 

findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the subject of the appeal, the 

Department may return the Decision to the local educational agency in order to correct 

the deficiencies within 20 days of the return. 

(g)(f) If the Department finds that the Decision is supported by substantial evidence, 

and that the legal conclusions are not contrary to law, the appeal shall be denied. 

(h)(g) If the Department finds the grounds for the appeal have merit: 

(1) The Department may, if there is a lack of substantial evidence or a procedural 

defect in the investigation, remand the investigation to the local educational agency for 

further investigation of the allegations which are the subject of the appeal; or 

(2) The Department may issue a decision based on the evidence in the investigation 

file received from the local educational agency; or 

(3) If the Department determines that it is in the best interest of the parties, conduct 

a further investigation of the allegations which are the basis for the appeal and issue a 

decision following further investigation. 

(i)(f) If the Department finds merit in the appeal, the Department’s decision on 

appeal shall contain the following: 

(1) A finding that the local educational agency complied or did not comply with its 

complaint procedures; 

(2) The Department’s findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the issue on 

appeal; and 

(3) Where a determination is made that the local educational agency failed to 

comply with the applicable state or federal law or regulation, remedial orders and/or 

required actions to address the violation(s). 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 221.1 232 and 33031; Section 11138, Government 

Code. Reference: Sections 200 and 220, Education Code; Sections 11135, 11136, and 

11138, Government Code; 34 CFR 76.780-76.783 and 106.8, 34 CFR 299.10(a)(2). 

Article 5. State Complaint Procedures

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

§4640. Filing a State Complaint That Has Not First Been Filed at the Local 

Educational Agency; Time Lines, Notice, Appeal Rights. 

(a) Referral to the Local Educational Agency for Local Resolution. 

(a)(1) If a complaint is erroneously filed with the Department first sent to the 

16 


Attachment 1 


Superintendent without first being filed with and investigated by the local educational 

agency investigation, the Department Superintendent shall immediately forward the 

complaint to the local educational agency for processing in accordance with Aarticle 4 

of this Cchapter, unless extraordinary circumstances exist necessitating direct state 

Department intervention as described at Ssection 4650 exist. 

(b)(2) A letter The complainant(s) shall be sent by first class mail to the 

complainant(s) a letter to notify notifying him, her, or them that: of 1) the transferred 

complaint, 2) the State request for local educational agency resolution, and 3) to advise 

of Department appeal procedures. 

(1) The Department does not have jurisdiction, at this time, over the complaint and 

that the complaint should have been filed with the local educational agency in the first 

instance; 

(2) That the complaint has been transferred to the local educational agency 

requesting the local educational agency to process and investigate the allegation in the 

complaint; or and 

(3) That the complainant may file an appeal to the Department following the 

issuance of the Decision, if he or she believes as a matter of fact or law the Decision is 

incorrect. 



11135, 11136, and 11138, Government Code; 34 CFR 76.780-76.783 and 106.8, 34 

CFR 299.10(a)(2). 

§4650. Basis of Direct State Intervention. 

Article 6. Direct State Intervention 

(a) Except for complaints under sections 4680, 4681 and 4682 regarding 

instructional materials, teacher vacancies or misassignments, and condition of a facility,

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

17 


Attachment 1 


tThe Department Superintendent shall directly intervene without waiting for local 

educational agency investigation action if one or more of the following situations 

conditions exists: 

(1)(i) The complaint includes an allegation, and the Department verifies, that a local 

educational agency failed to comply with the complaint procedures required by this 

Chapter and its local rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, the failure or 

refusal of the local educational agency to cooperate with the investigation or to 

otherwise prevent the complainant from presenting evidence to support the 

allegations in the complaint; 

(ii) Discrimination is alleged by the complainant and the facts alleged indicate that 

the complainant will suffer an immediate loss of some benefit such as employment or 

education if the Department does not intervene. However, nothing in this section gives 

the Department jurisdiction over employment discrimination claims. 

(2)(iii) The complaint relates to an agency that is not a local educational agency 

agencies other than local educational agencies funded through the Child Development 

or and Child Nutrition Programs; 

(3)(iv) The complainant requests anonymity because and presents clear and 

convincing evidence and the Department verifies that he or she would be in danger of 

retaliation and would suffer immediate and irreparable harm if he or she filed a 

complaint with the local educational agency if a complaint were filed locally, or has 

been retaliated against because of past or present complaints; 

(4)(v) The complainant alleges that the local educational agency failed or refused to 

implement the final decision resulting from its local investigation or local Mediation 

Agreement; 

The complainant alleges that the local educational agency failed or refused to 

implement the final decision resulting from its local investigation or local 

Mmediation Aagreement; 

(vi) The local agency refuses to respond to the Superintendent's request for 

information regarding a complaint; 

(5)(4)(vii) The complainant alleges and the Department verifies that through no fault 

of the complainant, or the Department has information that no action has been taken by

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

18 


Attachment 1 


the local educational agency within 60 calendar days of the date the complaint was 

filed locally. Prior to direct intervention, the Department shall attempt to work with the 

local educational agency to allow it to complete the investigation and issue a Decision. 

(6)(7) The complainant alleges and the Department verifies that he or she 

would suffer immediate and irreparable harm as a result of an application of a 

district-wide policy that is in conflict with state or federal law covered by this 

Chapter, and that filing a complaint with the local educational agency would be 

futile. 

(7)(6)(5)(viii) For complaints relating to special education the following shall also be 

conditions for direct state intervention: 

(A) The complainant alleges that a public agency, other than a local educational 

agency, as specified in Government Code section 7570 et seq., fails or refuses to 

comply with an applicable law or regulation relating to the provision of free appropriate 

public education to children individuals with disabilities handicapped individuals; 

(B) The complainant alleges that the local educational agency or public agency fails 

or refuses to comply with the due process procedures established pursuant to federal 

and state law and regulation; or has failed or refused to implement a due process 

hearing order; 

(C) The complainant alleges facts that indicate that the child or group of children 

may be in immediate physical danger or that the health, safety or welfare of a child or 

group of children is threatened. 

(D) The Ccomplainant alleges that an individual child with a disability handicapped 

pupil is not receiving the special education or related services specified in his or her 

Iindividualized Eeducational Pprogram (IEP). 

(E) The complaint involves a violation of federal law governing special education, 20 

U.S.C. section 1400 et seq., or its implementing regulations. 

(b) The complaint shall identify the upon which basis, as described in subsection 

subdivision paragraph (a) above, for of this section, that direct filing the complaint 

directly to the Department to the State is being made. The complainant must present 

the Department with clear, convincing, and verifiable evidence that supports the basis 

for the direct filing, except as in subdivision (a)(5).

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

19 


Attachment 1 





CFR 299.10(a)(2). 

§4651. Notification Direct State Intervention Time Line. 

When the Department Superintendent receives a complaint requesting direct State 

intervention, the Department Superintendent shall determine whether the complaint 

meets one or more of the criterion specified in Ssection 4650 for direct State 

intervention and shall immediately notify the complainant by first class mail of the his or 

her determination to accept the complaint without a local educational agency 

investigation and/or Decision. If the complaint is not accepted, it shall be referred to the 

local educational agency for local investigation pursuant to section 4631, or referred to 

another agency pursuant to Ssection 4611. 


Government Code. Reference: Section 200 and 220, Education Code; Sections 11135, 

11136, and 11138, Government Code; 34 CFR 76.780-76.783 and 106.8 and 34 CFR 

299.10(a)(2). 

Amend Article 7 and § 4660 to read: 

Article 7. State Investigation Resolution Procedures 

§ 4660. Department Resolution Procedures. 

(a) When the Department determines that direct State intervention is warranted 

pursuant to any provision of section 4650, or when an appeal has been filed of a local 

agency decision pursuant to Section 4652, the following procedures shall be used 

to resolve the issues of the complaint: 

(1) The Department shall consider alternative methods to resolve the 

allegations in the complaint. 

(2) If both parties request mediation, the Department shall offer to mediate the 

dispute which may lead to a state mediation agreement. 

(3) The Department shall conduct an investigation, including an on-site

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

investigation if necessary, into the allegations in the complaint unless a 

20 


Attachment 1 


settlement agreement has been reached between the parties that disposes of all 

the issues in the complaint. 

(1) The Department shall offer to mediate the dispute which may lead to a state 

mediation agreement; and 

(2) The Department shall conduct an on-site investigation if either the district or the 

complainant waives the mediation process or the mediation fails to resolve the issues. 

(b) If the complaint involves several issues, nothing shall prohibit the parties from 

agreeing to mediate some of the issues while submitting the remainder for Department 

investigation. Mediation shall be conducted within the 60 day time line specified in 

Section 4662(d), and 

(c) Mediation shall not exceed thirty (30) days unless the local or public agency and 

the complainant agree to an extension. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 200, 221.1 232 and 33031, Education Code; Section 

11138, Government Code. Reference: Sections 11135, 11136, and 11138, 

Government Code; 34 CFR 76.780-76.783 and 106.8, 34 CFR 299.10(a)(2). 

Repeal §4661: 

§4661. Mediation Procedures, State Mediation Agreements; Notice. 

(a) Initial process. 

(1) Agency and Complainant(s) Notification. Each party in the dispute shall be 

contacted by the Department and offered the mediation process as a possible means 

of resolving the complaint. Should the parties agree to enter into mediation, written 

confirmation shall be sent indicating the time and place of the mediation conference, 

and the allegations to be addressed. 

(2) Upon local agency and complainant acceptance of the Department's offer to 

mediate, the allegations to be addressed shall be sent by certified mail to each party. 

(3) The Superintendent shall appoint a trained mediator or mediation team to assist 

the parties in reaching a voluntary agreement. 

(b) Mediation Results - State Mediation Agreement. 

(1) The mediation results will be documented in a state mediation agreement and

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

21 


Attachment 1 


signed by the involved parties to the dispute using the following forms as appropriate. 

(Stipulation to Initiate Mediation, Form CS-19; Signed Mediation Agreement Letter to 

District, Form CS-24; and Mediation Process Agreement, Form CS-25). 

(2) The mediator or mediation team shall confirm that the agreement is consistent 

with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. 

(3) A copy of the written state mediation agreement shall be sent to each party. 

(4) The compliance status of a local agency will revert to noncompliance if the local 

agency does not perform the provisions of the mediation agreement within the time 

specified in the mediation agreement. 


Government Code. Reference: Sections 11135, 11136, and 11138, Government Code; 

34 CFR 76.780-76.783 and 106.8. 

Amend §4662 to read: 

§4662. On-Site Investigation Timeline Process; Appointment, Notification, Time 

Line; Extending Investigation Time Lines. 

(a) If either party waives mediation or the mediation fails, in part or in whole, 

those remaining unresolved issues shall be addressed through the investigation 

process. 

(b) Appointment. 

If an on-site investigation is necessary, an investigator(s) shall be appointed by the 

Superintendent. 

(c) Agency and Complainant(s) Notification. 

(a) At least two weeks prior to the date of an investigation, eEach party in the 

dispute shall be sent written notification by the Department of the name(s) of the 

investigator(s) and the investigation date(s), if known. The notice shall explain the 

investigation process. 

(d) Time line. 

(b) An investigation will shall be completed within sixty (60) days after receiving a 

request for direct intervention or an appeal request, unless the parties have agreed to 

mediate and agree to extend the time lines. The Department Superintendent or his or

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

her designee may grant extensions for the investigation only if exceptional 

22 


Attachment 1 


circumstances exist that constitute good cause exist with respect to the particular 

complaint, and provided that the complainant is informed of the extension and the 

reasons therefore and provided that the facts supporting the extension are documented 

and maintained in the complaint file. 




CFR 299.10(a)(2). 


§4663. Department Investigation Procedures. 

(a) The investigator(s) shall request all documentation and other evidence regarding 

the allegations in the complaint. The investigator(s) shall interview the complainant(s), 

agency administrators, staff, related committees/groups, and any other involved 

persons, as appropriate, to determine the facts in the case. An opportunity shall be 

provided for the complainant(s), or the complainant's(s') representative, or both, and 

the agency involved to present information. 

(b) Refusal by the local agency or complainant to provide the investigator with 

access to records and other information relating to the complaint which the investigator 

is privileged to review, or any other obstruction of the investigative process shall result 

in either a dismissal of the complaint or imposition of official applicable sanctions 

against the local agency. 

(b) The investigation shall include an opportunity for the complainant, or the 

complainant’s representative, or both, to present the complaint(s) and evidence or 

information leading to evidence to support the allegations of non-compliance with state 

and federal laws and/or regulations. 

(c) Refusal by the complainant to provide the investigator with documents or other 

evidence related to the allegations in the complaint, or to otherwise fail or refuse to 

cooperate in the investigation or engage in any other obstruction of the investigation 

may result in the dismissal of the complaint because of a lack of evidence to support

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

the allegations. 

23 


Attachment 1 


(d) Refusal by the local educational agency to provide the investigator with access 

to records and/or other information related to the allegation in the complaint, or to 

otherwise fail or refuse to cooperate in the investigation or engage in any other 

obstruction of the investigation may result in a finding based on evidence collected that 

a violation has occurred and may result in the imposition of a remedy in favor of the 

complainant. 



11135, 11136, and 11138, Government Code; 34 CFR 76.1 and 76.780-76.783 and 

106.8, 34 CFR 299.10(a)(2). 


§4664. Department Investigation Report. 

(a) An investigation report shall be issued submitted to the Superintendent for 

review and approval. The investigation report shall include the following information: 

(1) A summary of the allegations in the complaint transmittal Letter that includes 

information about how the agency or the complainants may appeal the decision to the 

Office of the State Superintendent; 

(2) A description of the gGeneral procedures of the investigation; 

(3) Citations of applicable law and regulations; 

(4) Department findings of facts; 

(5) Department conclusions; 

(6) LEA Department required actions, if applicable; 

(7) LEA Department recommended specific actions, if applicable; and 

(8) Time line for corrective actions, if applicable.; and 

(9) Except in Special Education complaints, nNotice that any party may request 

reconsideration of the Department’s report from the Superintendent of Public 

Instruction within 35 15 days of the receipt of the report. 

(10) For those programs governed by Part 76 of Title 34 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, the parties shall be notified of the right to appeal to the United

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

States Secretary of Education. 

24 


Attachment 1 


(b) An investigation report shall be mailed to the parties within 60 days from the 

conclusion of the investigation. 

(c) Report Time line. 

An investigation report shall be mailed to the parties within sixty (60) days from the 

date of receipt of the request for direct state intervention or an appeal, unless the 

parties have participated in mediation and agreed to an extension of the mediation time 

lines or the Superintendent has granted an extension pursuant to Section 4662(d). 




CFR 299.10(a)(2). 


§4665. Discretionary Reconsideration or Appeal of Department SDE Investigation 

Report. 

(a) Except as to Decisions regarding Special Education wWithin 15 35 days of 

receipt of the Department investigation report, either party may request reconsideration 

by the Superintendent. The request for reconsideration shall designate the finding(s), 

conclusion(s), or corrective action(s) in the Department’s report to be reconsidered and 

state the specific basis for reconsidering the designated finding(s), conclusion(s) or 

corrective action(s). The Superintendent may, within The request for reconsideration 

shall also state whether the findings of fact are incorrect and/or the law is 

misapplied. 

(b) Within fifteen (15) 35 days of the receipt of the request for reconsideration, the 

Superintendent or his or her designee may, respond in writing to the parties either 

modifying the specific finding(s), conclusion(s), or required corrective action(s) for 

which reconsideration is requested, of the Department report or denying the request for 

reconsideration outright. During the pPending of the Superintendent's reconsideration, 

the Department report remains in effect and enforceable. If the Superintendent or his 

or her designee does not respond within the 15 days, the request for

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

reconsideration shall be deemed denied. 

25 


Attachment 1 


(c) There shall be no reconsideration of Special Education Decisions of 

complaints. 

(c)(d)(b) Appeals by private agencies regarding Child Care Food Programs shall be 

made to the State Office of Administrative Hearings in accordance with applicable laws 

and regulations rather than the Superintendent. 

(d)(e) Appeals from investigations of complaints involving Child Development 

contractors, whether public or private, shall be made to the Superintendent of Public 

Instruction as provided in subsection (a) except as otherwise provided in Ddivision 19 

of Ttitle 5 of the Code of California Regulations. 

(e)(f)(c) For those programs governed by Ppart 76 of Ttitle 34 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, the parties shall be notified of the right to appeal to the United 

States Secretary of Education. 


11138, Government Code. Reference: Sections 220 and 220, Education Code; 

Sections 11135, 11136, and 11138, Government Code; 34 CFR 76.1 and 76.780- 

76.783 and 106.8. 

Article 8. Enforcement--State Procedures to Effect Compliance. 


§4670. Enforcement. 

(a) Upon determination that a local educational agency violated the provisions of 

this chapter, the Department Superintendent shall notify the local educational agency 

pursuant to section 4664(a) that it must take corrective of the action to come into he 

or she will take to effect compliance. If corrective action is not taken, the Department 

The Superintendent may use any means authorized by law to effect compliance, 

including, but not limited to:; 

(1) The withholding of all or part of the local educational agency's relevant state or 

federal fiscal support in accordance with state or federal statute or regulation; 

(2) Probationary eligibility for future state or federal support, conditional on 

compliance with specified conditions;

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

(3) Proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction for an appropriate order 

compelling compliance. 

26 


Attachment 1 


(b) No decision to curtail state or federal funding to a local educational agency 

under this chapter shall be made until the Department Superintendent has determined 

that compliance cannot be secured by other voluntary means. 

(c) If the Department Superintendent determines that a Child Development 

Contractor's Agreement shall be terminated, the procedures set forth in sections 

8257(d) or 8400 et seq. of the Education Code and the regulations promulgated 

pursuant thereto (Cchapter 19 of Ttitle 5, CCR, commencing with section 17906), shall 

be followed. 

(d) If the Department Superintendent determines that a local educational agency 

school district or county office has failed to comply with any provision of sections 49550 

through 49554 of the Education Code, the Department Superintendent shall certify 

such noncompliance to the Attorney General for investigation pursuant to section 

49556 of the Education Code. 


11138, Government Code. Reference: Section 49556, Education Code; Sections 

11135, 11136, and 11138, Government Code; 34 CFR 76.780-76.783 and 76.783 and 

106.8. 

Repeal § 4671: 

§4671. Federal Review Rights. 

If the Superintendent elects to withhold funds from a local agency that refuses or 

fails to comply in a program governed by 34 CFR Part 76, the Superintendent shall 

notify the local agency of the decision to withhold funding and of the local agency's 

rights of appeal pursuant to 34 CFR section 76.401. 


Government Code. Reference: 34 CFR 76.780-76.783. 

Add § 4680 to read: 

§4680. Complaints Regarding Instructional Materials, Teacher Vacancy or

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

Misassignment, and School Facilities. 

(a) Complaints regarding any deficiencies related to instructional materials, 

27 


Attachment 1 


emergency or urgent facilities conditions that pose a threat to the health and or safety 

of pupils or staff, and teacher vacancy or misassignment shall be filed with the principal 

of the school, or his or her designee, in which the complaint arises deficiencies exist. A 

complaint about problems beyond the authority of the school principal shall be 

forwarded in a timely manner, but not to exceed 10 working days, to the appropriate 

school district official for resolution. 

(b) Complaints regarding any deficiencies related to instructional materials, 

emergency or urgent facilities conditions that pose a threat to the health and or safety 

of pupils or staff, and teacher vacancy or misassignment may be filed anonymously. A 

complainant who identifies himself or herself is entitled to a response if he or she 

indicates that a response is requested. If a response is requested, the response shall 

be made to the mailing address of the complainant indicated on the complaint. 

(c) The school may shall have a complaint form available for such complaints. If a 

complaint form is used, t The complaint form shall identify the place for filing the 

complaint. It shall and include a space to mark to indicate whether a response is 

requested. However, the complainant need not use a complaint form. 

(d) All complaints and responses are public records. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 33031, Education Code. Reference: Section 35186, 



§ 4681. Contents of Complaints Regarding Instructional Materials. 

(a) A complaint related to instructional materials may allege as follows: 

(1) A pupil, including an English learner, does not have standards-aligned textbooks 

or instructional materials or state adopted or district adopted textbooks or other 

required instructional materials to use in class. 

(2) A pupil, including an English learner, has insufficient textbooks or instructional 

materials, or both, in each of the following subjects, as appropriate, that are consistent 

with the content and cycles of the curriculum framework adopted by the State Board:

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

(A) Mathematics. 

(B) Science. 

(C) History-social science. 

28 


Attachment 1 


(D) English/language arts, including the English language development component 

of an adopted program. 

(2)(3) A pupil does not have access to textbooks or instructional materials to use at 

home or after school in order to complete required homework assignments. This does 

not require two sets of textbooks or instructional materials for each pupil. 

(3)(4) Textbooks or instructional materials are in poor or unusable condition, having 

missing pages, or are unreadable due to damage. 

(4)(5) A pupil was provided photocopied sheets from only a portion of a textbook or 

instructional materials to address a shortage of textbooks or instructional materials. 

(b) A complaint regarding a deficiency or deficiencies in related to instructional 

materials shall identify: 

exist; 

(a). 

(1) the school; 

(2) the course or grade level in which the deficiency(ies) in instructional materials 

(3) the teacher of the course or grade level; and 

(4) the specific nature of the deficiency or deficiencies as specified in subsection 

(c) A complaint may include add as much text to explain the deficiency or 

deficiencies in instructional materials as complainant wishes feels necessary. One A 

complaint may contain more than one allegation of deficiency or deficiencies in the 

instructional material. 




§ 4682. Contents of Complaints Regarding Teacher Vacancy or Misassignment. 

(a)(a) A complaint related to teacher vacancy or misassignment may allege as 

follows:

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

29 


Attachment 1 


(1) A semester begins and a teacher vacancy exists (A position to which a single 

designated certificated employee has not been assigned at the beginning of the 

year for an entire year or, if the position is for a one-semester course, a position 

of which a single designated certificated employee has not been assigned at the 

beginning of a semester for an entire semester). A semester begins and a 

certificated teacher is not assigned to teach the class. 

(2) A teacher who lacks credentials or training to teach English learners is assigned 

to teach a class with more than 20 percent English learner pupils in the class. This 

subparagraph does not relieve a school district from complying with state or federal law 

regarding teachers of English learners. 

(3) A teacher is assigned to teach a class for which the teacher lacks subject matter 

competency. 

(b) A complaint regarding a teacher vacancy or misassignment shall identify: 

(1) the course or grade level in which the teacher vacancy or misassignment exist; 

(2) the specific nature of the vacancy or misassignment as specified in subdivision 

(a); and 

(3) if it is a misassignment, the name of the teacher who is misassigned. 

(c) A complaint may include as much text to explain the teacher vacancy or 

misassignment as complainant feels necessary. A complaint may contain more than 

one allegation of teacher vacancy or misassignment. 




§ 4683. Contents of Complaints Regarding the Condition of a Facility. 

(a) A complaint regarding emergency or urgent related to the conditions of facilities 

conditions that pose an emergency or urgent threat to the health and or safety of pupils 

or staff shall identify the specific school in which the condition exists. The complaint 

shall specify: 

(1) the location of the facility; and 

(2) describe emergency or urgent facilities conditions that pose a threat to the

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

health and or safety of pupils or staff; and 

30 


Attachment 1 


(3) how the condition poses a threat to the health and or safety of pupils or staff. 

(b) A complainant may add include as much text to explain the emergency or urgent 

facilities conditions that pose a threat to the health and or safety of pupils or staff, as 

complainant wishes feels necessary. (b) One A complaint may contain more than one 

allegation of emergency or urgent facilities conditions that pose a threat to the health 

and or safety of pupils or staff. 




§ 4684. Notice. 

(a) In order to identify appropriate subjects of complaint, a notice shall be posted in 

each classroom in each school in the school district notifying parents and guardians of 

the following: 

(1) There should be sufficient textbooks and instructional materials. For there to be 

sufficient textbooks and instructional materials each pupil, including English learners, 

must have a textbook or instructional materials, or both, to use in class and to take 

home to complete required homework assignments. 

(2) School facilities must be clean, safe, and maintained in good repair. 

(3) There should be a certificated teacher assigned to teach each course or grade 

level or combination of grade levels for which the teacher has the credential and the 

appropriate subject matter competency to teach the class. 

(3) There should be no teacher vacancies or misassignments. There should be a 

teacher assigned to each class and not a series of substitutes or other temporary 

teachers. The teacher should have the proper credential to teach the class, including 

the certification required to teach English learners if present. 

(4)(4)(3) The location at which to obtain a form to file a complaint in case of a 

shortage. Posting a notice downloadable from the Web site of the Department shall 

satisfy this requirement. 

(b) A local educational agency school district shall establish local policies and

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

31 


Attachment 1 


procedures, post notices, and implement this section on or before January 1, 2005. 




§ 4685. Investigation by Principal. 

The principal or the designee of the district superintendent, as applicable, shall 

make all reasonable efforts to investigate any problem within his or her authority. The 

principal, or, where applicable, district superintendent or his or her designee shall 

remedy a valid complaint within a reasonable time period but not to exceed 30 working 

days from the date the complaint was received. The principal, or where applicable, 

district superintendent or his or her designee, shall report to the complainant the 

resolution of the complaint within 45 working days of the initial filing, if complainant 

identifies himself or herself and requested a response. If the principal makes this 

report, the principal shall also report the same information in the same timeframe to the 

district superintendent or his or her designee. 




§ 4686. Responsibilities of Governing Board. 

(a) A complainant who is not satisfied with the resolution of the principal or the 

district superintendent or his or her designee, may has the right to describe the 

complaint to the governing board of the school district at a regularly scheduled hearing 

meeting of the governing board. 

(b) A school district shall report summarized data on the nature and resolution of all 

complaints on a quarterly basis to the county superintendent of schools and the 

governing board of the school district. The summaries shall be publicly reported on a 

quarterly basis at a regularly scheduled meeting of the governing board of the school 

district. The report shall include the number of complaints by general subject area with 

the number of resolved and unresolved complaints.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 


Attachment 1 


(c) The complaints and written responses shall be available as public records. 




§ 4687. Appeal of Facilities Complaint to Superintendent. 

(a) A complainant who is not satisfied with the resolution proffered by the principal, 

or the district superintendent or his or her designee, involving a condition of a facility 

that poses an emergency or urgent threat, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) 

of Ssection 17592.72, may has the right to file an appeal to the Superintendent of 

Public Instruction within 15 days of receiving the report. 

(b) Complainant shall comply with the appeal requirements of Ssection 4632. 

(c) The Superintendent of Public Instruction or his or her designee shall comply with 

the requirements of Ssection 4633. 

(d) The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall provide a written report to the 

State Board of Education describing the basis for the complaint, the school district’s 

response to the complaint and its remedy or proposed remedy and, as appropriate, a 

proposed remedy for the issue described in the complaint, if different from the school 

district’s remedy. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 33031, Education Code. Reference: Sections 

17592.72 and 35186, Education Code. 

Chapter 5.3. Nondiscrimination and Educational Equity 

Subchapter 1. Nondiscrimination Elementary and Secondary Educational 

Programs Receiving State or Federal Financial Assistance 

Amend Section 4910(k) to read: 

§ 4910. General Definitions. 

Article 2. Definitions 

(k) “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related 

appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s 

assigned sex at birth. a person’s actual sex or perceived sex and includes a person’s

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

33 


Attachment 1 


perceived identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance, or 

behavior is different from that traditionally associated with a person’s sex at birth. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 221.1 and 33031, Education Code; and Section 11138, 

Government Code. Reference: Section 51.7(b), Civil Code; Sections 200, 201(g), 210, 

210.1, 212.5, 220, 233(e) and 260, Education Code; Sections 11135 and 11138, 

Government Code; Section 422.55 and 422.56, Penal Code; Section 1681, Title 20, 

U.S. Code; Section 2000d, Title 42, U.S. Code; Section 106, Title 34 Code of Federal 

Regulations; and Sections 98210, 98220, 98230, 98250 and 98343, Title 22, California 

Code of Regulations. 

08-23-05

FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS 

Uniform Complaint Procedures 

UPDATE OF INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS 

1 

Final Statement of Reasons 

Attachment 2 


The purpose of the regulations is to satisfy the administrative requirement of providing a 

system of processing complaints of unlawful discrimination and alleged violation of 

federal or state laws or regulations for those activities or programs that receive state or 

federal funding. 

The proposed amendments to the regulations initially adopted in 1991 are to update the 

entire set of regulations to reflect current federal and state law citations supporting and 

requiring the regulations. The proposed amendments to the regulations also incorporate 

new law related to the Williams Case Settlement and amend the regulations to 

incorporate the definition of “gender” specified in SB 1234. 

The 45-day public comment period for the proposed regulations ended on January 4, 

2005. Due to the comments received, CDE recommends further revisions to the 

following sections: 4600(a), (c), (n), (o), (r) and (v), 4610(c), (d), and (e), 4621(a) and 

(c), 4622, 4630(a), 4631(a), (f), 4632(b), (d), and (e), 4633(a)(1), (b), (d)(1)(2), (e) and 

(f), 4640(b)(2), 4650(a)(1), (3), (4), (7) and (b), 4660(a)(1), (2), and (3), 4664(a)(6), (7), 

(9), and (10), 4665(a), (b) and (c), 4670 (a) and (a)(1), 4680(c), 4681(b)(2) and (3), 

4682 (title), (a) and (a)(1), 4683 and 4684(a)(3). 

The first 15-day comment period for the proposed regulations ended on April 4, 2005. 

During the 15-day Public Comment Period, comments were received from multiple 

constituencies. In response to public comments, CDE made substantive changes to the 

following sections: 4600(q), 4622, 4633(g), 4682(b) and 4682 (c). 

The following subdivisions had non-substantive changes: 4621(c), 4630(a), 4650 (a)(6), 

(a)(7), (a)(7)(A), and (D); 4662 (title), 4680, 4681(c), 4682(c), 4683(b). 

The second 15-Day comment Period ended on June 7, 2005. During the second 15-day 

Public Comment Period, comments were received from seven constituencies. CDE 

made changes in response to public comments. The enactment of AB 831 also required 

changes to the regulations. 

The following subdivisions had changes: 4600(a), 4600(h), 4600(p), 4600(w), 4600(x), 

4630(a), 4632, 4650, 4670(a), 4670(a)(1), and 4670(b), 4680(a) and (b), 4681(a)(2), 

4682(a)(1), 4683(a), 4683(a)(3), 4684(a)(1), 4684(a)(3), 4686(a) and 4687(a). 

SUMMARY AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE INITIAL 

NOTICE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 19, 2004, THROUGH JANUARY 4, 2005 

The text was made available to the public from November 19, 2004, through 

January 4, 2005. The State Board received the following comments that are addressed 

in the attached chart (pages 3-88).

2 


Attachment 2 


COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PERIOD THE 15-DAY NOTICE AND 

PROPOSED REGULATION TEXT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC 

The modified text was made available to the public from March 21, 2005 through 

April 4, 2005. The State Board received the following comments on the modified text 

that are addressed in the attached chart (pages 88-123). 

COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PERIOD THE SECOND 15-DAY NOTICE 

AND PROPOSED REGULATION TEXT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC 

The modified text was made available to the public from May 24, 2005 through 

June 7, 2005. The State Board received the following comments on the modified text 

that are addressed in the attached chart (pages 123-135). 

A change in a primary law guiding the regulations (EC 35186) made on July 26, 2005, 

necessitated further revisions. 

ALTERNATIVES DETERMINATION 

The State Board has determined that no alternative would be more effective in carrying 

out the purpose for which the regulations are proposed or would be as effective and 

less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed regulation revision. 

LOCAL MANDATE DETERMINATION 

The proposed regulations do not impose any mandate on local agencies or school 

districts.

SUBMITTED BY COMMENT CDE RESPONSE 

Section 4600. General Definitions. 

4600(c) “Beginning of year or semester ” 

Sherry Skelly Griffith, ACSA, at public 

hearing; Vivian Castro, LAUSD, at 

public hearing 

4600(e) “Complaint” 

Martha Zaragoza-Diaz, Advocate, 

California Association for Bilingual 

Education (CABE), at public hearing; 

Magaly Lavadenz, President, CABE; 

Shelley Spiegel Coleman, President, 

Californians Together, submitted in 

writing 

4600(h) “Compliance agreement” 

Lilia Stapleton, Parent and Teacher, 

in writing 

Commenter states,” It is unclear 

under provision (a)(1) as to what 

point of the beginning of the 

semester filing a complaint is 

appropriate. It is often at the 

beginning of the school year and 

semester, when student enrollment 

fluctuates and teacher 

assignments must be adjusted. 

Commenter proposes in keeping 

with the four weeks for inspections 

of Deciles 1-3 schools, at least that 

amount of time be provided to 

districts to ensure that factors 

impacting enrollment and 

adjustment to classrooms may be 

made.” Commenter states four 

weeks is “copasetic with Williams 

Settlement rule.” 

Commenter recommends adding 

the phrase “or ability to speak 

English” to this definition. 

Commenter states in reference to 

Section 4600(f)(sic), “ the definition 

for compliance agreement appears 

to have been drafted without 


Attachment 2 


In response to comments, CDE recommends 

adding the following definition: 

“Beginning of year or semester” means the first 

day the classes necessary to serve all the 

student enrolled are established with a single 

designated certificated employee assigned for 

the duration of the class, but not later than 20 

working days after the first day students attend 

classes for that semester.” 

It is not necessary to add this phrase as it is 

implied in the current phrasing. Also, adding 

specificity could create potential confusion 

regarding any circumstances omitted. California 

Department of Education (CDE) recommends no 

change. 

The proposed definition is related to the 

resolution of a noncompliance finding. Even 

though other agencies may be involved in the 

delivery of services for an individual student


Dale Mentink, Senior Attorney, on 

behalf of Protection and Advocacy, 

Inc., in writing 

recognition of federal and state 

interagency statues concerning 

students in Special Education – 

regulations state a compliance 

agreement means agreement 

between CDE and local 

educational agencies (LEAs), 

despite federal regulations 

requiring the state to resolve 

complaints against community 

mental health agencies that 

provide services to disabled 

children.” 

Commenter states that CDE 

cannot limit the definition of a 

compliance agreement to only 

agreements between CDE and 

LEAs because CDE will be 

investigating and enforcing 

findings of noncompliance against 

more than just LEAs. The 

commenter believes the 

Department will be investigating 

and also potentially sanctioning or 

taking legal actions against local 

community mental health agencies 

and California Children’s Services 

(CCS). 

Commenter states the California 

Code of Regulations, Title 2, 

Section 60560 requires allegations 

of failure by the LEA, Community 

Mental Health Service, or CCS to 

comply with these regulations and 

4 


Attachment 2 


(receiving a Special Education program or 

service), the LEA is the agency CDE would hold 

accountable for ensuring compliance even if it 

was of any interagency nature, as specified in 

any compliance agreement. CDE recommends 

no change. 

CCR Title 2, Article 9 Section 60600 Application 

of Procedures for Interagency Dispute 

Resolution (b) requires when there is a dispute 

between or among CDE or an LEA or both and 

any agency over the provision of related services 

over which agency is to deliver services in the 

IEP, it shall be negotiated through a hearing 

officer or mediator after a request for state 

interagency dispute resolution. CDE 

recommends no change. 

Note: Please see page 134, where upon further 

discussion, CDE recommends amendments to 

the regulations.


shall be resolved pursuant to 

Chapter 5.1, commencing with 

Section 4600, of Division 1 of Title 

5 of the California Code of 

Regulations. 

Commenter believes that the 

Department of Education is 

charged with and authorized to be 

investigating and, potentially, 

sanctioning or bringing legal 

actions against, local noneducational 

agencies was recently 

affirmed by the Fifth District Court 

of Appeals in Tri-County Special 

Education Local Plan Area v. 

County of Tuolumne (2004) 23 

Cal. App4th 563; 19 

Cal.Rptr.3d884, 891. 

Commenter states by narrowing 

the scope of the jurisdiction of the 

Department, the proposed 

amendment would undermine the 

Department’s jurisdiction and 

authority over local mental health 

agencies and CCS and would 

bring Title 5 in conflict with Title 2 

and with GC 7585. 

5 


Attachment 2 


4600 (n) “Good repair” 

The Williams v. California Plaintiff 

Class John T. Affeldt, Jenny 

Pearlman, Liz Guillen, Public 

Advocates, Inc.; Mark D. Rosenbaum, 

Catherine E. Lhamon, Peter J. 

Eliasberg, Brooks Allen, ACLU 

Foundation of Southern California; 

Jack W. Londen, Ellen Eagen, 

Morrison & Foerster LLP; Michael 

Feuer, Morrison & Foerster LLP; Alan 

Schlosser, ACLU Foundation of 

Northern California; Thomas Saenz, 

Hector O. Villagra, Mexican American 

Legal Defense and Educational Fund 

(MALDEF); Sherry Skelly Griffith, 

ACSA, at public hearing and in writing 

4600(o) “Instructional materials” 

Andrea Ball, Director, Government 

Relations, Long Beach USD, at the 

public hearing and in writing 

Commenter states the definition for 

“good repair” should not be limited 

to the interim definition but should 

incorporate the ultimate definition 

to be developed by the State as 

called for by SB 550. Commenter 

recommends adding this 

statement: “The definition of ‘good 

repair’ determined pursuant to the 

interim evaluation instrument shall 

be superseded by the definition 

adopted by statute by September 

1, 2006 in accord with California 

Education Code Section 

14501(d)(2).” 

Commenter requests term, 

“instructional materials” be 

clarified. (Please see full comment 

under Section 4681.) 

6 


Attachment 2 


CDE recommends adding a clarifying phrase to 

explain the definition of good repair is pursuant 

to Education Code 17002. 

CDE recommends adding the following definition 

to Section 4600 based on comments received: 

“Instructional materials means all materials that 

are designed for use by pupils and their teachers 

as a learning resource and help pupils to acquire 

facts, skills, or opinions or to develop cognitive 

processes. Instructional materials may be printed 

or non-printed, and may include textbooks, 

technology-based materials, other educational 

materials, and tests.”

4600(r) “Mediation” – Add Back 

John T. Affeldt, Public Advocates, 

Inc., at public hearing and in writing; 

Maisie Chin, Lead Organizer/Director, 

Community Asset Development Re - 

defining Education (CADRE), in 

writing and at public hearing 

4600(s) “Misassignment” 

Sherry Skelly Griffith, ACSA at public 

hearing and in writing; Vivian Castro, 

Los Angeles USD (LAUSD), at public 

hearing 

Commenter recommends adding 

back sections (k) and (l)(sic) as 

“the option of mediation should not 

be eliminated.” 

Commenter states a “teacher that 

has been certified as highly 

qualified under the federal 

provisions of the No Child Left 

Behind (NCLB) Act through the 

High Objective State Standard of 

Evaluation (HOUSSE) process is 

excluded from the definition of 

‘misassignment’ and should be 

included.” 

7 


Attachment 2 


Because of the many comments regarding the 

deletion of mediation, CDE will offer mediation 

requested by both parties in the complaint and if 

the state directly intervenes. The definition of 

mediation will be added back. CDE also 

recommends adding back under 4600(v), a 

definition for “state mediation agreement”. 

The definition of “misassignment” is “the 

placement of a certificated employee in a 

position for which the employee does not hold a 

legally recognized certificate or credential.” A 

teacher who is highly qualified also has subject 

matter competency to teach the class which is 

not required in the definition of misassignment 

but is reportable under the UCP process as a 

result of Education Code Section 35186(e)(2)(C). 

See proposed Title V Sections 4600(w) and 

4682(a)(3). 

The definition is consistent with Education Code 

Section 35186. 

CDE recommends no change.

4600(w) “Subject matter competency” 

Sherry Skelly Griffith, ACSA at public 


LAUSD, at public hearing 

4600(x) “Sufficient textbooks or instructional materials” 




4600(z) “Vacant teacher position” 




Commenter states the definition of 

“subject matter competency” should 

include reference to the certification 

of subject matter competency under 

NCLB pursuant to the HOUSSE 

process for veteran teachers. ACSA 

suggests the following language be 

added to this definition: “Subject 

matter competency is also defined as 

those teachers certified as ‘Highly 

Qualified’ using the NCLB HOUSSE 

process.” 

Commenter believes that the term 

“sufficiency” found throughout the 

regulations must be related to the 

requirements in Education Code 

60119. Commenter suggests 

including a statement of sufficiency 

from the Williams statute and add to 

the definition of “sufficiency” as 

related and pursuant to the local 

board resolution regarding textbook 

sufficiency as defined by the local 

board resolution and described in 

Education Code 60119; therefore, the 

responsibility is with the local 

governing board. 

Commenter states the assignment of 

a substitute teacher shall be excluded 

from the definition of a “vacant 

teacher position” if that substitute 

8 


Attachment 2 


The definition of “subject matter competence” 

used in Section 4600(w) is the same definition 

used in NCLB Teacher Requirements. CDE 


For the purpose of the UCP, a complaint may 

be filed at any time in which a situation exists 

where there are insufficient textbooks or 

instructional materials for a particular class or 

course. The process described in Education 

Code Section 60119 is the eligibility process 

for receipt of funds for textbooks and 

instructional materials. It is not related to the 

UCP process of Education Code Section 

35186. CDE recommends no change. 

Elimination of the use of 30-day substitute 

teachers teaching beyond the 30-day time 

period for an entire semester or year was an 

aim of the Williams case settlement. The

Vivian Castro, LAUSD, at public 

hearing 


Relations, Long Beach Unified School 

District (USD), in writing and at public 

hearing 

shall serve for the entire year or entire 

semester or the school has made all 

reasonable efforts to place a 

permanent teacher at the beginning 

of the school year but is unable to do 

so due to unforeseen circumstances 

(i.e., hired teacher accepts another 

position at the last minute, illness, 

etc.). Commenter believes these 

circumstances should be addressed 

in regulations. 

Commenter states she concurs with 

comments of ASCA (and one 

comment in detail). She states she 

also concurs one comment in detail 

from Mr. Affeldt that the definition 

should be as shown for teacher 

vacancy but do need to clarify what is 

the beginning of the school year in 

4600(u). 

Commenter states that regarding the 

definition of “teacher vacancy”, she 

agrees with LAUSD and ACSA that 

you must define beginning of the 

school year. She recommends 4 

weeks or 20 working days. There is 

often a period at the beginning of the 

school year and semester, where 

student enrollment fluctuates and 

therefore teacher assignments may 

be adjusted. There should be some 

commonly defined time period before 

which complaints are not appropriate. 

We don’t think it was the intent to 

make it the first day of school. 

9 


Attachment 2 


definition is consistent with Education Code 

Section 35186 if the substitute teacher is 

assigned to teach a class at the beginning of 

the year or semester. The definition for 

“vacant teacher position” in Education Code 

35186 does not speak to a permanent teacher 

for the entire year or semester. That 

requirement is only in Education Code Section 

33126, addressing school accountability 

report cards. CDE recommends no change. 

The intent of the Williams Settlement was to 

provide qualified teachers from the beginning 

of the school year and throughout the year. 

CDE recommends adding a definition of 

“beginning of the school year.” Also, a 

principal, in receiving said complaint, has 30 

working days to remedy a valid complaint by 

filling the teacher vacancy. CDE recommends 

no change. 

For purposes of filing a (Williams) complaint 

under the UCP, the existence of a teacher 

vacancy is defined in Education Code Section 

35186: 

Education Code Section 33126 – “the total 

number of the school’s fully credentialed 

teachers, the number of teachers relying 

upon emergency credentials, the number of 

teachers working without credentials, and 

any assignment of teachers outside their 

subject area of competence for the most 

recent three-year period.” 

CDE recommends change. See definition in 

4600(c)

Section 4610. Purpose and Scope. 

4610(c) 

Margarita Villareal, Fresno USD; 

Cynthia Wilson, ESL/ELD Teacher; 

July Ugas, Mental Health Specialist, 

Kennedy Family Center; Denis 

O’Leary, Education Advisor, League 

of United Latin American Citizens 

(LULAC); Magaly Lavadenz, 

President, CABE; Shelly Spiegel 

Coleman, President, Californians 

Together; Jennifer Richard, Senator 

Kuehl’s office; Senator Sheila Kuehl; 


Inc.; David Valladolid, President and 

CEO, Parent Institute for Quality 

Education; David Valladolid, Chair, 

Latino Policy Institute; Carmen 

Martinez-Eoff, California Public 

School Teacher, Retired; Ana Gamiz, 

California Policy Analyst, National 

Council of La Raza; Raymond Uzeta, 

President and CEO, Chicano 

Federation of San Diego County, Inc.; 

Pete Farruggio, Ph.D., Parent and 

former complainant; Lani Hunt, 

Parent; Laurie Olsen, Executive 

Director, California Tomorrow; Alberto 

M. Ochoa, Professor and Chair, 

Policy Studies Department, College of 

Education and Dr. Lisa M. Sparaco, 

Policy Studies and Cross-Cultural 

Education Dept, San Diego State 

University (SDSU); Denise Quintana, 

first grade teacher of bilingual 

students, submitted in writing; Martha 

Commenters oppose the elimination 

of specific references to the bases for 

filing claims of discrimination (such as 

ethnic group identification, religion, 

age, sex, color, disability) as it is 

difficult for people to have access to 

the originating codes. 

Commenter recommends that the 

specific reference for the bases of 

filing discrimination complaints not be 

replaced with reference to the 

Education Code only. Commenter 

states CDE assumed that members 

of the public, other than attorneys, 

would know what is contained in 

Education Code sections 200 and 

220. 

“Many parents and public do not have 

access to legal codes, don’t own 

computers, don’t have access to the 

Internet, and don’t have access to 

public libraries with computers. So it 

would be difficult, if not impossible, for 

them to know what the bases are for 

filing discrimination complaints when 

(the code) is referenced. This is 

especially true for parents who do not 

read or understand English.” 

10 


Attachment 2 


In response to comments received, the 

specific reference to each protected group will 

be listed in accordance with Education Code 

sections 200 and 220, Government Code 

Section 11135 and Title VI of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964.

Zaragoza-Diaz, Advocate, CABE, at 

public hearing 

Senator Sheila Kuehl, in writing Commenter states the description in 

Section 4610 does not accurately 

reflect the prohibited bases of 

discrimination under California and 

federal law. She suggests the 

following changes to the existing 

regulation: 

(c). This Chapter also applies to the 

filing of complaints which allege 

unlawful discrimination against any 

protected group as identified under 

Education Code sections 200 and 

220 and Section 11135 of the 

Government Code including 

complaints of harassment, on the 

basis of actual or perceived sex, 

sexual orientation, gender, ethnic 

group identification, race, ancestry, 

national origin, religion, color, or 

physical or mental disability, or on the 

basis of association with a person or 

group with one or more of these 

actual or perceived characteristics, in 

any program or activity conducted by 

a local agency, which is funded 

directly by or that receives or benefits 

from any state financial assistance. 

4610(d) 

Linda Cook, Director Categorical 

Programs, North Sacramento School 

District; John W. Brewer, Deputy 

Superintendent, North Sacramento 

School District; Norm Gold, former 

Commenter states this addition to 

Section 4610(d) eliminates the right to 

file complaints about important equity 

issues, such as the lack of access of 

children to the core curriculum. 

11 


Attachment 2 


Harassment based on a protected group 

status is a form of discrimination and need not 

be stated separately. CDE recommends no 

change. 

CDE lists eight common complaint topics that 

are not covered under the scope of the UCP. 

CDE recommends deleting this subdivision. 

It is apparent from the numerous comments

CDE employee and manager of 

CDE’s Categorical Programs 

Complaints Management unit (1992- 

1999), Norm Gold Associates; Shirley 

Drake, Director of Special Programs, 

Culver City USD; Margarita Villareal, 

Fresno USD; Cynthia Wilson, 

ESL/ELD Teacher; July Ugas, Mental 

Health Specialist, Kennedy Family 

Center; Karen Cadiero-Kaplan, 

Sociopolitical Co-Chair, CATESOL; 

Genene Sepulveda-Kluck, Teacher; 

Denis O’Leary, Education Advisor, 

LULAC; Magaly Lavadenz, President, 

CABE; Shelly Spiegel Coleman, 

President, Californians Together; 

David Valladolid, President and CEO, 

Parent Institute for Quality Education; 

David Valladolid, Chair, Latino Policy 

Institute; Carmen Martinez-Eoff, 

California Public School Teacher, 

Retired; Charles W. Bader, Director, 

Governmental Relations, Los Angeles 

County Office of Education (COE); 

Mark Cooley, Co-Chariperson, Los 

Angeles County Bilingual Directors’ 

Association; Ana Gamiz, California 

Policy Analyst, National Council of La 

Raza; David Valladolid, Chair, Latino 

Policy Institute; Pete Farruggio, 

Ph.D., Parent and former 

complainant; Lilia Stapleton, Parent 

and Teacher; Cynthia L. Rice , 

California Rural Legal Assistance 

(CRLA), Inc.; Martha Guzman, 


Additionally, some state they perceive 

this change as “eliminating or 

narrowing the scope” of what is 

covered under the UCP. 

12 


Attachment 2 


that the inclusion of section 4910(d) has 

caused a great amount of confusion. The list 

was not intended to prevent the filing of 

complaints regarding these matters when they 

also alleged issues covered by subdivision 

4910(a)-(c). It was intended only to say that 

the CDE does not have jurisdiction over such 

a complaint (listed 4910(d)) if it did not also 

contain an issue covered by subdivision (a)- 

(c) or section 4680, 4781 or 4682. 

CDE recommends adding a new subdivision 

(d) to clarify the authority of an LEA: 

“(d) Nothing in these regulations shall 

prevent an LEA from using its local uniform 

complaint procedure to address complaints 

listed in (d) or any other complaints not 

otherwise covered by these regulations. 

CDE also recommends adding subdivision 

(e), which calls for developing a user-friendly 

pamphlet to replace the list of eight common 

complaint topics that are not covered under 

the scope of the uniform complaint 

procedures. This pamphlet will be a better 

means to help people understand the scope 

and process of the uniform complaint 

procedures: 

(e) The Department will develop a 

pamphlet for parents that will explain the 

Uniform Complaint Procedures in a user 

friendly manner and post this pamphlet on 

the Department’s Web site.”

(CRLA) Foundation; Maisie Chin, 

Lead Organizer/Director, CADRE; 

Lani Hunt, Parent; Helen Scheidt, 

Fresno USD; Raymond Uzeta, 



Laurie Olsen, Executive Director, 

California Tomorrow; Alberto M. 

Ochoa and Dr. Lisa M. Sparaco, 

SDSU; Elizabeth Fralicks, Title III 

Resource Teacher, Fresno USD, 

Denise Quintana, first grade teacher 

of bilingual students submitted in 

writing 

Sherry Skelly Griffith, ASCA, at public 


LAUSD, at public hearing; 

Martha Guzman, CRLA Foundation, 

at public hearing 

Ms. Griffith and Ms. Castro note these 

items are eliminated under the UCP. 

The change is not required under 

Williams and the Initial Statement of 

Reasons does not address the 

proposed definitions. 

Ms. Guzman states she believes 

these regulations will lead to 

inconsistencies of constitutional state 

oversight responsibilities. An example 

is Section 4610(d). No explanation is 

provided for the elimination of those 

complaints categories now not 

available. 

No justification is provided and no 

administrative alternative is offered. 

The regulations deliver a final blow by 

eliminating the independent judgment 

of CDE if the principal denies 

allegations. No other evidence 

allowed to be submitted by 

13 

See response above. 


Attachment 2 


4610(d)(1) 


CADRE, at the public hearing 




complainant –whole process does not 

have merit in our perception. 

Commenter states she opposes 

employer-employee relations no 

longer being applied within the UCP. 

She states that none of the new 

Williams provisions, particularly those 

for providing for complaints regarding 

teacher misassignments and 

vacancies, are intended to override 

collective bargaining agreements. 

With the language currently 

proposed, it feels as though the 

districts will be able to respond to 

complaints of teacher vacancy and 

missassignment by just referring to 

collective bargaining agreements and 

voiding their responsibility under this 

jurisdiction. Commenter states, “this 

provision is unnecessary, 

inappropriate, and should be stricken. 

Having long-term subs instead of 

certificated, qualified teachers is a big 

issue for parents. If you haven’t heard 

that already in other formats, I’m 

saying it here today. It is the onus of 

the school district to find those 

vacancies and fill those vacancies. 

There is no complaint process in (the) 

NCLB to support the school in 

fulfilling this responsibility.” 

Commenter states that none of these 

new Williams provisions, particularly 

those providing for complaints 

14 




Attachment 2 











Hector O. Villagra, MALDEF, at public 

hearing and in writing 




4610(d)(2) 


CADRE; The Williams v. California 

Plaintiff Class John T. Affeldt, Jenny 











Hector O. Villagra, at the public 


regarding teacher misassignments 

and teacher vacancies, are intended 

to override local collective bargaining 

agreements. Nonetheless, with the 

language as proposed, districts may 

well feel able to respond to teacher 

misassignment or vacancy complaint 

by stating to correct the problem 

implicates a collective bargaining 

agreement and thereby voids the 

district of jurisdiction under this 

provision. 

Commenter states that since teachers 

are required to provide services in a 

student’s IEP, and may refuse to do 

so, the UCP regulation cannot be 

amended to exclude employeremployee 

relation matters from the 

purview of this complaint procedure. 

Commenter states the lack of 

provision of core curricula subjects or 

college prep courses for students is 

reason for complaint. The lack of core 

curricula classes for students in Los 

Angeles is a problem. Again, not 

being able to file a complaint is a 

basis of potential discrimination 

claims. 

15 




Attachment 2 





4610(d)(3) 



















Commenter states Special Education 

students are entitled to IEP goals and 

services, which enable them to 

access and make progress in the 

core curriculum. Also, parents have a 

right to file a complaint about a 

teacher or school’s refusal to abide by 

this aspect of federal and state 

Special Education law. 

Commenter states that to the extent a 

pupil, such as an English Learner, is 

misassigned to a class where the 

teacher is not properly trained; there 

would be a valid Williams complaint of 

which this provision seeks to deprive 

them. 

Commenter states pupils with 

disabilities have the right not to be 

removed from regular education 

classes unless, even with 

supplementary aids and services, 

they cannot be satisfactorily educated 

there. Parents of Special Education 

pupils have a right to file a complaint 

about a district’s pupil classroom 

assignment when it breaches 

provisions of state or federal Special 

16 





Attachment 2 


4610(d)(4) 














Hector O. Villagra, Educational Fund, 

in writing and at the public hearing 




Education law. 

Mr. Affeldt states a valid 

discrimination claim could assert that 

discipline is being inappropriately 

imposed in programs using 

categorical funds. 

Ms. Chin adds regarding “pupil 

discipline - there is no shared 

decision-making! Parents have no 

recourse… “ 

She also states “don’t let it be 

optional. Say the LEA SHALL have a 

form at option of complainant. This 

was viewed as most victorious part of 

Williams by parents. (see all “shalls”) 

Williams cannot be seen as an 

opportunity to render the UCP 

ineffective. Not having a form would 

discourage many of us from filing a 

complaint.” 

Commenter states that discipline of 

Special Education students has 

special rules and is completely 

dictated by federal Special Education 

law. Commenter believes parents of 

Special Education pupils have the 

right to file a complaint about a 

district’s failure to abide by the 

procedures relating to the discipline of 

Special Education students. 

17 



Attachment 2 


Suspension and expulsion are covered under 

Education Code Section 48900 et seq. See 

response above.

4610(d)(5) 














hearing and in writing; Maisie Chin, 

Lead Organizer/Director, CADRE, in 

writing 




Commenters state that a valid 


advancement, retention or grades are 

being meted out on a discriminatory 

basis. Similarly, a valid claim could 

assert that programs using 

categorical funds are improperly 

advancing, retaining, or grading 

students. 

Commenter believes there is no basis 

for this overarching attempt to 

exclude such valid claims. 

Commenter states Special Education 

students’ placement is determined by 

his IEP team, of which the parent 

must be a part. Educational 

placement (in the IEP) is defined by 

California law as: 

“that unique combination of 

facilities, personnel, location, or 

equipment … as specified in the 

IEP. Parents of Special Education 

pupils have the right to file a 

complaint about a district’s failure 

to abide by the procedures relating 

to the placement, advancement or 

retention of Special Education 

students.” 

18 


Attachment 2 


All discrimination complaints based on a 

protected group specified in Education Code 

sections 200 and 220 or Government Code 

Section 11135 are covered under Section 

4610(a). Also, please see response above. 

See response above.

4610(d)(6) 


















4610(d)(7) 




Commenter states a valid 


graduation requirements are being 

imposed on a discriminatory basis. 

Similarly, a valid claim could assert 

that categorical funds are being used, 

inter alia, in programs that impose 

improper graduation requirements. 

Commenter states graduation 

requirements for Special Education 

students can mean different things. 

Special Education students are 

entitled to participate in graduation 

ceremonies…school districts are 

often loath to allow any students, 

including Special Education students, 

to participate in graduation 

ceremonies unless they are receiving 

a standard high school diploma. This 

is a violation of Education Code 

Section 56390, a statute which 

parents must be capable of filing UCP 

complaints to address. 

Commenter states a student 

complaining that their teacher did not 

assign them homework precisely 

19 



Attachment 2 


Appeals could either be filed based upon 

discrimination or filed with the district based 

upon other issues. The protections described 

by commenter are handled under due process 

complaints. Also, please see comment above. 

The Williams complaint could be made 

regardless as covered by sections 4680 

through 4686. Because of the confusion















4610(d)(8) 

















because there existed a shortage of 

textbooks would be stating a valid 

Williams complaint. 

Commenter states homework is 

frequently modified for Special 

Education students by their IEP 

teams. Teachers sometimes “balk” at 

modifying homework and complaints 

should be filed according to 34 CFR 

300.660-662. 

Commenter states “A legitimate 

Williams complaint might assert that a 

district did not provide standardsaligned 

instructional materials 

because it lacked sufficient 

standards-aligned textbooks. 

Similarly, a valid discrimination claim 

could assert that instructional 

materials policies and practices were 

being imposed on a discriminatory 

basis … (or) improper instructional 

materials were being imposed in 

programs that use categorical funds.” 

Commenter states that schools must 

educate Special Education students 

20 


Attachment 2 


4610(d) has caused, CDE is amending this 

subdivision. 

The teacher designs homework modifications. 

The school should be providing assistance to 

the teacher in determining modifications 

necessary. Nothing in the proposed 

regulations prevents complainants from filing 

complaints under 34CFR 300.660- 300.662. 

CDE recommends no change. 

The Williams complaint could be made 

regardless of the circumstances in this 

example and are covered by sections 4680 

through 4686. Because of the confusion 

4610(d) has caused, CDE will amend this 

subdivision. 

Because of the confusion 4610(d) has 

caused, CDE will amend this subdivision.

Inc., in writing in general education classrooms if 

these students can be satisfactorily 

educated in general education 

classrooms with the use of 

supplementary aids and services. In 

California, “supplementary aids and 

services” are defined to include 

“curriculum modifications.” 

4610(d)(9) 













Hector O. Villagra, MALDEF, in 

writing 

4610(d)(1-8) 




Commenters state that any one of the 

Williams complaint conditions could 

be created by the use or misuse of 

general education funds. The same 

can be said of any number of 

legitimate discrimination claims. 

Contrary to the SB 550 and 

Government Code Section 11135, 

this overarching provision would 

unlawfully eliminate those valid 

claims. 

Commenter states “you cannot sever 

these issues from the list of issues 

that can be the subject of a complaint 

about a Special Education students’ 

IEP, or the violation of statutory 

entitlements.” Commenter provides 

six pages of descriptions detailing 

how each one must be addressed. 

21 


Attachment 2 


Williams complaints are covered by sections 

4680 through 4686. Because of the confusion 

4610(d) has caused, CDE will amend this 

subdivision. 

See responses above. 

Section 4621. District Polices and Procedures. 

Sherry Skelly Griffith, ASCA, at public Commenter states “Page 6, Section Education Code 35186(g) regarding the

hearing and in writing 4621 indicates that the local 

governing board policies and 

procedures are not required to be in 

place until ‘within one year from the 

effective date of this chapter.’ The 

chapter sections cited are 4600- 

4695.“ 

Ronald D. Wenkart, General Counsel, 

Orange County Department of 

Education, in writing 

4621(c) 


CADRE, in writing; The Williams v. 

California Plaintiff Class John T. 

Affeldt, Jenny Pearlman, Liz Guillen, 

“We assume this means within the 

effective date of when the UCP 

regulations changes are in effect. 

Commenter asks, “Is this correct? If 

not, please clarify, as the deadline of 

January 1, 2005 will pass before the 

approval of UCP regulations by the 

State Board of Education.” 

Commenter states (a) Each LEA shall 

adopt policies and procedures and 

School Districts and County Offices of 

Education shall submit their policies 

and procedures to the local governing 

board for adoption within one year 

from the effective date of this chapter. 

Commenter states the use of the 

phrase “…from the effective date of 

this chapter…” is unclear. Commenter 

asks, “Does it mean one year from 

the adoption of the original 

regulations or one year from the 

adoption of these changes?” 

Commenter states this provision 

improperly permits a local education 

agency the option of providing a 

complaint form to persons wishing to 

22 


Attachment 2 


Williams Case Settlement states that a LEA 

shall establish local policies and procedures, 

post notices and implement this section on or 

before January 1, 2005. Education Code 

authority supersedes regulations, and 

establishes a deadline of January 1, 2005 for 

these requirements. The reference cited in the 

proposed regulations is related to the 

(original) enactment of the UCP regulations 

chapter in 1991. CDE recommends removing 

this phrase to avoid this confusion. 

Same response as above. 

This comment represents confusion between 

Williams and UCP complaint processes and 

requirements. Although many school districts 

offer a “complaint form” to file a UCP

Public Advocates, Inc.; Mark D. 

Rosenbaum, Catherine E. Lhamon, 

Peter J. Eliasberg, Brooks Allen, 

ACLU Foundation of Southern 

California; Jack W. Londen, Ellen 

Eagen, Morrison & Foerster LLP; 

Michael Feuer, Morrison & Foerster 

LLP; Alan Schlosser, ACLU 

Foundation of Northern California; 

Thomas Saenz, Hector O. Villagra, 

MALDEF, at public hearing and in 

writing 












file a complaint. SB 550 makes it 

clear that a district must provide such 

a form. Under the new Education 

Code sections 35186 (f)(3) and (a)(1)- 

(2) it is clear that districts must 

provide complainants with a proposed 

standard complaint form that districts 

are required to post a notice in every 

classroom informing parents and 

guardians of the location of such 

forms. Moreover, the forms must 

conform to certain requirements (e.g., 

there must be a space to mark if the 

complainant desires a written 

response; district must specify the 

location for obtaining a form for filing 

a complaint). These requirements, 

which are mandatory and not at the 

option of the LEA, cannot be 

complied without the existence of a 

form. 

Commenter states that if the situation 

is one regarding an emergency facility 

condition that poses a threat to health 

and safety of students, a limited 

amount of time should be permitted 

for the LEA to respond and possibly 

correct its error. 

23 


Attachment 2 


complaint, the federal and state regulations 

directing the UCP simply require that the 

complaint be in writing. In attempt to resolve 

the inconsistencies, CDE recommends adding 

the following to the proposed regulations: 

“(c) Except as to complaints under sections 

4680-4687 regarding instructional 

materials, emergency or urgent facilities 

conditions that pose a threat to the health 

and safety of pupils or staff, and teacher 

vacancies or misassignments, the local 

educational agency may provide a 

complaint form for persons wishing to file a 

complaint to fill out and file. However, a 

person is not required to use the complaint 

form furnished by the LEA in order to file a 

complaint. 

A complaint form shall be provided for 

complaints regarding instructional 




vacancies or misassignments.” 

Complaints regarding emergency conditions 

of facilities are handled under sections 4684 

through 4687. Also, please see response 

above clarifying this provision.




writing 

Sherry Skelly Griffith, ACSA, in 

writing; Vivian Castro, LAUSD, at 

public hearing; The Williams v. 

California Plaintiff Class John T. 


Public Advocates, Inc.; Mark D. 


Peter J. Eliasberg, Brooks Allen, 

ACLU Foundation of Southern 

California; Jack W. Londen, Ellen 

Eagen, Morrison & Foerster LLP; 

Michael Feuer, Morrison & Foerster 

LLP; Alan Schlosser, ACLU 

Foundation of Northern California; 

Thomas Saenz, Hector O. Villagra, 

MALDEF, at public hearing. 

Section 4622. Notice. 

Senator Sheila Kuehl; Magaly 

Lavadenz, President, CABE; Shelly 

Spiegel Coleman, President, 

Californians Together; Courtney 

Joslin, California Safe Schools 

Coalition; John T. Affeldt, Public 

Advocates, Inc., at public hearing and 

in writing; Dale Mentink, Senior 

Attorney, on behalf of Protection and 

Advocacy, Inc.; Cynthia L. Rice, 

CRLA, Inc.; Martha Guzman, CRLA 

Foundation; Judy Goddess, 

Educational Advocate; Dale Mentink, 

Senior Attorney, on behalf of 

Commenters state that sections 

4621(c) and 4680 (c) of the proposed 

regulations permit the option of 

providing a complaint form. The 

Williams settlement states there must 

be a form. Form does not have to be 

used by parents but district must offer 

a form. 

Commenter states clarification is 

needed as to why the Department 

proposes to eliminate the public notice 

requirement that the recipient of the 

notice be informed of any civil law 

remedies that may be available. 

Public Advocates commenter states 

the proposed strikeout should be 

withdrawn and the current language 

maintained. 

24 


Attachment 2 


CDE agrees with the comment. See response 

and proposed amendment above. 

CDE recommends adding back the public 

notice requirement as the following phrase to 

clarify that such notice only pertains to 

complaints of discrimination: 

“The notice shall also advise the recipient 

of any civil law remedies that may be 

available under state or federal 

discrimination laws, if applicable and the 

appeal pursuant to Education Code 

Section 262.3.

Protection and Advocacy, Inc., in 

writing 

Section 4630. Filing a Local Complaint; Procedures, Time Lines. 

4630(a) 














writing 

4630(b)(2) 





School District; Norm Gold, Norm 

Gold Associates; Shirley Drake, 

Director of Special Programs, Culver 

City USD; Margarita Villareal, Fresno 

USD; Denis O’Leary, Education 

LULAC; Magaly Lavadenz, President, 



Commenters state, “For clarity’s sake, 

this section would do well to also 

reference Section 4680 and the 

proper place to file complaints 

regarding instructional materials, 

teacher vacancy or misassignment 

and school facilities.” 

Commenter states the revision to 

Section 4630(b)(2) eliminates the right 

to request direct intervention from the 

CDE for complaints alleging 

discrimination where the complainants 

believe they will suffer immediate loss 

of some benefit. 

Representatives from CABE and 

Californians Together state the 

proposed amendment would require 

CDE to refer any issues raised in an 

25 


Attachment 2 


CDE recommends adding the following: 

“(a) Except for complaints under sections 

4680 – 4687 regarding instructional 




vacancies or misassignments and does 

not allege discrimination, any individual, 

public agency or organization may file a 

written complaint with the district 

superintendent or his or her designee 

alleging a matter which, if true, would 

constitute a violation by that local 

educational agency of federal or state law 

or regulation governing a program listed in 

Section 4610(b) of this Chapter. 

The matter of direct intervention is covered 

under Section 4650. It is the primary 

responsibility of the LEA to ensure there is no 

discrimination in any of its programs or 

activities and that safeguards exist throughout 

the investigative process. See Title 5, 

California Code of Regulations Section 4900 

et seq. and Education Code sections200 and 

220. The local administrative complaint 

procedures should be exhausted prior to State 

intervention.



Inc.; Cynthia Wilson, ESL/ELD 

Teacher; July Ugas, Mental Health 

Specialist, Kennedy Family Center; 






Retired; Charles W. Bader, Director, 


COE; Ana Gamiz, California Policy 

Analyst, National Council of La Raza; 

Raymond Uzeta, President and CEO, 

Chicano Federation of San Diego 

County, Inc.; Pete Farruggio, Ph.D., 

Parent and former complainant; 

Cynthia L. Rice, CRLA, Inc.; Martha 

Guzman, CRLA Foundation; Lani 

Hunt, Parent; Helen Scheidt, Fresno 

USD; Genene Sepulveda-Kluck, 

Teacher; Karen Cadiero-Kaplan, 

CATESOL; Mark Cooley, Co- 

Chariperson, Los Angeles County 

Bilingual Directors’ Association; 

Alberto M. Ochoa and Dr. Lisa M. 

Sparaco, SDSU; Elizabeth Fralicks, 

Title III Resource Teacher, Fresno 

USD; Denise Quintana, first grade 

teacher of bilingual students 

submitted in writing 

appeal back to the district for 

investigation if it determines that the 

district failed to address them. This 

proposed amendment eliminates the 

current right for a complainant to 

directly appeal to CDE and have them 

investigate the issues. A rationale as 

to the need of this change is not 

provided. Timelines are not included 

in the language as to when all this 

must take place and when the 

complainant must be informed of 

decisions made by the school district 

and or CDE. 

26 


Attachment 2 


The LEA has primary responsibility for 

addressing all complaints. The LEA has to 

have an opportunity to correct any violations 

of law and to remedy such violations. 

The comment regarding a timeline when 

issues are not addressed and sent back to the 

LEA is well taken. However, the timeline will 

depend on the issue and will be set at the 

discretion of the CDE. 

CDE recommends adding the phrase 

“Maintains the integrity of the process” to 

4630(b)(3). 

Section 4631. Responsibilities of the Local Educational Agency. 


hearing and in writing; Vivian Castro, Commenter states the Department No federal or state law, or regulation 

mandates offering mediation services as

LAUSD, at public hearing should provide a rationale for striking 

out lines 6 through 10 on page 9, 

which authorize an LEA to establish 

procedures for attempting to resolve 

complaints through mediation prior to 

the initiation of a formal compliance 

investigation. 

4631(b) 


Shelly Spiegel Coleman, President, 

Californians Together; Maisie Chin, 

Lead Organizer/Director, CADRE, 




Commenter asks, “Does the Williams 

Settlement require the deletion of this 

authority? Are there changes in 

statute which necessitate the 

elimination of mediation altogether 

from the UCP regulations?” 

Commenter recommends the 

following language be restored: “the 

investigation may include an 

opportunity for the parties to the 

dispute to meet to discuss the 

complaint or question each other or 

each other’s witnesses.” 

Commenter concurs with above 

statements. He also states the 

proposed amendments “eliminate the 

affirmative duty of the investigator to 

collect information from the LEA and 

eliminate the possibility that the 

complainant may examine the LEA’s 

27 


Attachment 2 


part of the UCP. However, mediation 

remains an option to resolve complaints at 

the local level. Nothing in SB 550 and SB 6 

or AB 2727 prohibits mediation of Williams 

complaints. CDE recommends no change. 

This language clarifies the requirement that 

there must be an opportunity to present 

information and evidence of the violation of 

law, but not to question any person with 

evidence in the matter considered. The 

investigator may have the parties meet and 

discuss the complaint and question witnesses 

but it is not required. Such meetings are at the 

discretion of the investigator. The LEA has 

more discretion in handling the investigation 

based on the issues in the complaint. CDE 


The UCP complaint resolution process need 

not be a process akin to a trail or deposition. 

This change eliminates the right of the LEA to 

question the complainant and his/her 

witnesses. Confronting and questioning 

witnesses is not always productive and can 

result in intimidation of witnesses by both




4631(d) 




CADRE, in writing 

28 


Attachment 2 


witnesses.” parties. CDE recommends no change. 

Commenter states it is unclear why 

the last sentence of this subdivision 

was deleted. Nothing in the existing 

regulation requires LEAs to include an 

opportunity for the parties to meet to 

discuss the complaint or to question 

each other’s witnesses. If a local 

agency finds that process effective in 

resolving complaints at the local level, 

the local agencies should be free to 

include this process in its local 

procedures. Deletion of this language 

from the existing regulations sends 

the message that such a process 

should not be included. The sentence 

should be restored. 

Commenter states the provision is too 

narrow in that it limits the imposition of 

any such sanction to cases where 

such a finding and remedy is “based 

on the evidence collected.” 

The commenter believes this provides 

an incentive to LEAs to limit access to 

unfavorable evidence. 

Commenter cites Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 37 as a discovery sanction, 

and states there is a range of possible 

sanctions up to a finding of liability. 

Commenter states he believes the 

An earlier statement in this subdivision states 

the investigation shall include an opportunity 

for the complainant, or the complainant’s 

representative, or both, to present the 

complaint(s) and evidence to support the 

allegations of non-compliance with state or 

federal laws and/or regulations. To further 

prescribe a methodology is inappropriate. 


Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 regarding 

discovery in federal civil cases is 

inappropriate for state administrative 

procedures. These are investigations not 

discovery procedures. LEA records are public 

records and subject to the Public Records Act. 

Adverse findings for failure or refusal to 

cooperate are an appropriate course of action. 

This language is identical to that of Section 

4663(d). CDE recommends no change. 

(4631(d) states local agency should say LEA)

Cynthia L. Rice, CRLA, Inc. and 

Martha Guzman, CRLA Foundation; 



Inc. 

language in Section 4663 (d) 

language is more appropriate. 

Commenter states if the complainant 

fails to adequately articulate the 

complaint, or if the school district fails 

to address it in its decision, etc., CDE 

will refer the complaint to the local 

district. 

Section 4632. Appeal of Local Educational Agency Decisions – Grounds. 

4632(a) Note: this information was originally in subdivision 4652(a) 

The Williams v. California Plaintiff Commenter states that the proposed 


regulations, without explanation or 


justification, deletes the following 

Advocates, Inc.; Mark D. Rosenbaum, language, “Extensions for filing 

Catherine E. Lhamon, Peter J. appeals may be granted, in writing, 

Eliasberg, Brooks Allen, ACLU for good cause.” Commenter requests 

Foundation of Southern California; that the language be added back in. 







writing 

See also Sections 4633(b) and 4663 









USD; Karen Cadiero-Kaplan, 

Commenter states sections 4632, 

4633(b), and 4663 place new burdens 

on complainants, many of whom are 

low-income parents and students who 

cannot afford an attorney, to 

essentially conduct their own 

investigation, provide evidence and 

demonstrate how school district is 

factually or legally incorrect. 

29 


Attachment 2 


As stated in Section 4620, each LEA shall 

have the primary responsibility for ensuring 

compliance with applicable state and federal 

law, and therefore should always initially 

investigate all complaints and/or all aspects of 

a complaint. CDE recommends no change. 

There is no federal or state law, or regulation 

describing such an extension for filing an 

appeal. CDE recommends no change. 

These revised sections do not place new 

burdens on people filing complaints, but do 

attempt to clarify what basic information is 

required in order for the LEA, and the CDE, to 

begin the investigation. These revisions will 

not require the complainant to research the 

law and/or conduct their own investigation. 

The revisions simply spell out what specific


Genene Sepulveda-Kluck; Denis 

O’Leary, Education Advisor, League 

of LULAC; Magaly Lavadenz, 



Together; David Valladolid, President 

and CEO, Parent Institute for Quality 




School Teacher, Retired; Charles W. 

Bader, Director, Governmental 

Relations, Los Angeles COE; 







Lani Hunt, Parent; Helen Scheidt, 

Fresno USD; Mark Cooley, Co- 


Bilingual Directors’ Association; Ana 

Gamiz, California Policy Analyst, 

National Council of La Raza; Alberto 

M. Ochoa and Dr. Lisa M. Sparaco, 

SDSU; Elizabeth Fralicks, Title III 

Resource Teacher, Fresno USD; 


of bilingual students, submitted in 

writing 

30 


Attachment 2 


information is necessary to explain the wrong 

the complainant believes needs to be 

corrected. This section restates the enabling 

code of federal regulations, that a complaint to 

CDE under these UCP, must contain a 

statement that a law, statute or regulation has 

been violated, and the facts that support the 

statement of the alleged violation. CDE 


Section 4632 states the complainant shall 

specify the basis for the appeal of the decision 

and how as a matter of fact or law the LEA is 

correct. According to federal regulation 

34CFR Part 299.12, the organization or 

individual who files a complaint with the state 

education agency, must state the “facts on 

which their complaint allegation is based and 

the specific requirement allegedly violated.” 

CDE recommends clarifying subsection (b): 

“(b) The complainant shall specify the basis 

for the appeal of the Decision and whether 

the facts are incorrect and/or the law is 

misapplied.” 

CDE recommends adding subdivision (e): 

“(e) If the Department determines that the 

Decision failed to address an issue raised 

by the complaint, the Department shall 

refer the matter back to the local 

educational agency to make the necessary 

findings and conclusions on any issue not 

addressed. The local educational agency



Education, submitted in writing 

4632(e) 














writing 

Commenter asks, “If the Department 

determines the appeal raises issues 

not contained in the local complaint, 

the Department will refer those new 

issues back to the LEA for resolution 

under Section 4630 or 4631? 

Commenter also asks, “When the 

matter is referred back to the LEA, 

does the complainant have to file a 

new complaint or is the LEA required 

to treat it as a new complaint or an 

amendment to the original 

complaint?” 


allows the Department to remand an 

appeal back to the LEA if it 

determines that the Decision failed to 

address an issue raised by the 

complaint. Given that, with respect to 

facilities complaint appeals, LEAs 

should not be given substantial 

additional time to resolve the 

complaint. Indeed, as written, should 

only have 10 days, the provision 

provides an incentive for an LEA to 

avoid addressing all the issues in a 

complaint to invite a remand. 

31 


Attachment 2 


will address the issue within 20 days from 

the date of referral.” 

Section 4663 provides both the complainant 

and LEA with due process. 

New issues constitute a new complaint and 

(1) the appeal which contains the new issue 

shall be considered a new complaint or 

(2) the complainant will be notified that they 

must file a new complaint. 

CDE recommends adding a new subdivision: 

“(d) If the Department determines the 

appeal raises issues not contained in the 

local complaint, the Department will refer 

those new issues back to the local 

educational agency for resolution as a 

new complaint under Section 4630 or 

4631.” 

The point is well taken. The local agency has 

primary responsibility for addressing 

complaints, and shall have opportunity to 

investigate or address the complaint. 

Additionally, the “Williams” complaints and 

appeals have different timelines for resolving 

complaints. Therefore, regulations for the 

“Williams” complaints will remain in a separate 

section. CDE proposes the following 

amendment: 

“(e) If the Department determines that the 

Decision failed to address an issue raised 

by the complainant, the Department shall 

refer that matter back to the local

Section 4633. Appeal of Local Educational Agency Decision. 

4633(a)(1) 







Commenter states, “In this day and 

age of faxed and e-mailed 

documents, it is difficult to determine 

which document is the original and 

which one is the copy. Should this 

provision be reworded to say ‘A copy 

of the original complaint’?” 

Commenter writes, “One of the 

concerns that comes up fairly often 

from an LEA’s point of view is that the 

Department many times bases its 

decision on information obtained by 

the investigator over the telephone 

and the LEA is not made aware of the 

information or given an opportunity to 

respond. Complainants may have 

similar concerns. We would 

recommend that the Department 

document in writing any additional 

information received and give all 

parties an opportunity to respond to 

any additional information. Such a 

procedure will ensure fairness to all 

parties and avoid decisions based on 

biased, unsubstantiated or incorrect 

information.” 

32 


Attachment 2 


educational agency. The local educational 

agency shall have 20 days from the date of 

referral to make the necessary findings 

and conclusions.” 

Agreed. CDE recommends adding this 

change to the proposed revisions. 

CDE’s investigation and information are public 

documents. Due process will be provided to 

both parties. CDE recommends no change.

4633(b) 




Institute; Cynthia Wilson, ESL/ELD 



Carmen Martinez-Eoff, California 

Public School Teacher, Retired; 

Charles W. Bader, Director, 


COE; Mark Cooley, Co-Chariperson, 

Los Angeles County Bilingual 

Directors’ Association; Ana Gamiz, 






former complainant, in writing 

4633(d) 














Commenter states this will impose 

new burdens on complainants, many 

of whom are low-income parents and 

students who cannot afford an 

attorney, to essentially conduct their 

own investigation, provide evidence, 

and demonstrate how school district 

is factually or legally incorrect. 

Commenter states this provision and 

subdivision (f) misapply the basic 

principles of administrative law in 

proposing to have the Department 

review LEA legal conclusions under a 

substantial evidence test. It allows the 

LEA to be both judge and jury. 

Factual findings are commonly 

reviewed for substantial evidence, but 

legal determinations of lower 

administrative agencies are reviewed 

de novo. Maples v. Kern County 

Assessment Appeals Board, 96 Cal. 

33 


Attachment 2 


34CFR Section 299.12 requires that written 

complaints include a statement that the (LEA) 

violated a requirement of a statute or 

regulation that applies to an applicable 

program and the facts on which the statement 

is based and the specific requirement 

allegedly violated. 

Speculation, conjecture and opinion are 

insufficient to support a finding that there is a 

violation of law. CDE recommends adding to 

Subdivision (b): 

“(b) The Department shall not receive 

evidence from the parties that could have 

been presented to the local educational 

agency investigator during the investigation, 

unless requested by the Department.” 

See also CDE Response under Section 4632. 

The point is well taken. CDE uses the 

substantial evidence test for finding whether 

or not the LEA followed their own procedures. 

CDE recommends that conclusions of law be 

not reviewed under the substantial evidence 

test. 

CDE recommends 4633(d)(3) be rewritten as 

suggested by commenter. Now Subdivsion 

(e): 

“(e) The Department shall review the 

conclusions of law which are the subject

writing and at the public hearing App. 4 th 1007, 1013 (2002) 

(Substantial evidence standard 

applies factual determinations by 

agencies exercising quasi-judicial 

powers; however, agency decisions 

on questions of law are reviewed de 

novo); Department of Rehabilitation v. 

Workers Comp. Appeals Bd, 76 Cal. 

App 4 th 513, 515-516 (1999). 

4633(d)-(f) 





Inc. 

Commenter states, “There is no 

reason here to give the LEA special 

deference with respect to their legal 

conclusions, not more deference than 

a court might give the Department in 

reviewing its determinations. 

Accordingly, subdivision (d) should be 

recrafted as follows: 

(d) and determine whether 

(1) substantial evidence exists: 

(A) That the LEA followed its 

complaint procedures; and 

(B) That the relevant findings of 

fact in the Decision which are the 

subject of the appeal are 

supported by the evidence; and 

(C) the conclusions of law which 

are the subject of the appeal are 

correct.” 

Commenter states there is no 

meaningful oversight or investigation 

by eliminating the independent 

judgment of the department 

investigator or reviewer and requiring 

that the school district decision be 

34 


Attachment 2 


of the appeal and determine whether they 

are correct.” 

CDE believes it is meeting the oversight 

requirement and recommends no change. 

See above where the conclusions of law will 

not be reviewed under substantial evidence.

4633(e) 















4633(f) 















upheld if it is supported by substantial 

evidence. 

Commenter states to be internally 

consistent, and allow the department 

the ability to conduct additional 

investigation wherein new evidence 

will likely be received, the first 

sentence should be rewritten to add 

“Except as provided for in subdivision 

(g)(3) of the section, the department 

shall not receive evidence from the 

parties that could have been 

presented to the local agency 

investigator during the investigation.” 

Commenter states this subdivision 

should be amended to read as the 

following: 

(f) If the department finds that the 

decision is supported by substantial 

evidence and that the legal 

conclusions are not contrary to law, 

the appeal shall be denied. 

Commenter also states the 

subdivision is erroneously labeled (f), 

it should be properly labeled as 

subdivision (h). 

35 


Attachment 2 


CDE recommends adding the following 

clarification to what is now Subdivision (a)(7): 

“The Department shall not receive 

evidence from the parties that could have 

been presented to the local educational 

agency investigator, unless requested by 

the Department. Any confidential 

information or pupil information in the 

investigative file shall remain confidential 

and shall not be disclosed by the 

Department.” 

CDE will amend the section to reflect that the 

conclusions of law are correct. 

4633(h)(1) 

The Williams v. California Plaintiff Commenter states, “If the department The local agency has primary responsibility














determines that an appeal has merit, 

there should be no reason to remand 

it back to the LEA. Of the two reasons 

given for doing such in this provision, 

the first, a lack of substantial 

evidence- is redundant with 

subdivision (e) of this section and 

unnecessary here. The second, a 

procedural deficit, should only be a 

basis for remand if the defect is one 

of the bases for appeal or if it 

prevents the department from 

reaching an ultimate determination on 

the merits. If the department is able to 

determine the appeal has merit and 

corrective action is required, such 

action should not be delayed based 

on a non-prejudicial procedural 

defect. As with subdivision (e) in this 

section, any remand for procedural 

defects should be limited to short, 

specified timeframes.” 

36 


Attachment 2 


for ensuring compliance with federal and state 

law. However, 4633 is amended to clarify how 

the Department will issue a decision. The 

decision shall contain a finding that the LEA 

complied or did not comply with its complaint 

procedures, and the Department’s findings of 

fact and conclusions of law regarding the 

issue on appeal. Where a determination is 

made that the LEA failed to comply with the 

applicable state or federal law or regulation, 

remedial orders and/or required actions to 

address the violations will be issued. 

Section 4640. Filing a State Complaint That Has Not Yet First Been Filed at the Local Educational Agency; Time Lines, Notice, 

Appeal Rights. 

Senator Sheila Kuehl, in writing; John 

T. Affeldt, Public Advocates, Inc.; 

Courtney Joslin, California Safe 

Schools Coalition, submitted in writing 

4640(b)(1)-(3) 


Inc., at public hearing and in writing 

Commenter states, “Section 4640 

(b)(2) ends in ‘or’; believes this should 

be ‘and’.” 

Commenter states there is no 

justification for insertion of the word 

“extraordinary” in this subdivision. 

The circumstances either meet a 

criterion for direct state intervention 

under 4650 (and therefore should not 

Correct, CDE recommends adding this 

change to the proposed revisions. 

CDE inserts this as clarification since so many 

complainants file first with the state rather 

than with the LEA. These complaints do not 

require direct state intervention except in 

extraordinary circumstances. CDE 

recommends no change.



4640(b) 




Section 4650. Basis of Direct State Intervention. 

4650(a)(1) 


Martha Guzman, CLRA Foundation; 

Dale Mentink, Senior Attorney. 


writing 

be remanded to the local level) or 

they do not. 

Commenter states subdivision (b)(1) 

should be deleted and subdivisions 

(b)(2) and (3) should be renumbered 

accordingly with the “or” between 

them changes to an “and”. If a 

complaint is mistakenly filed with the 

Department first, it should simply be 

referred down to the appropriate LEA 

without a dismissal due to the lack of 

jurisdiction. 

At the same time, language should be 

added to make clear that statute of 

limitation timelines, e.g., the sixmonth 

limitation on discrimination 

claims as well as LEA investigation 

and resolution timelines are tolled 

pending receipt of the complaint by 

the LEA. 

Commenter states this subdivision 

should be amended to read: “Where a 

complaint has been erroneously filed 

with the Department, (a) letter shall 

be sent.” 

Commenter states the language 

deleted in Section 4650 allows a 

direct complaint only under 

circumstances where complainant 

alleges a failure by the district to 

37 


Attachment 2 


Subdivision (b) merely provides information to 

the complainant regarding the process - that 

the complaint must be filed with the LEA in the 

first instance and that the Department is 

forwarding it to the LEA, rather than requiring 

the complainant to send/file another written 

complaint. 


This is how CDE generally does business; 

responding to written requests in writing. CDE 


The LEA is mandated to comply with laws 

providing for this protection against 

discriminatory actions and is required to have 

non-discrimination/harassment policies, and 

to investigate such complaints. Utilizing and









USD; Magaly Lavadenz, President, 




Inc.; Dale Mentink, Senior Attorney, 

on behalf of Protection and Advocacy, 






School Teacher, Retired; Charles W. 

Bader, Director, Governmental 

Relations, Los Angeles COE; Denise 

Quintana, first grade teacher of 

bilingual students, in writing 



comply with the investigative process. 

Under these rules, a victim of race or 

sex discrimination must first present 

her case to the very administration 

that has engaged in the 

discriminatory action and wait no less 

than 60 days for the inevitable 

negative decision or failure to act 

before she can call on the state to 

conduct an investigation. 

Commenter opposes changes to UCP 

that eliminate right to request direct 

intervention by CDE for complaints 

alleging discrimination. 

Commenter states this proposed 

language eliminated the right to 

38 


Attachment 2 


exhausting administrative procedures is a 

valid requirement for claims of discrimination. 

However, in response to comment received 

regarding many subdivisions, CDE 

recommends some modifications. 

The right to request State intervention for 

discrimination complaints is not eliminated but 

will be accepted for such intervention only in 

extraordinary situations. 

See other responses.





Raza; Raymond Uzeta, President and 

CEO, Chicano Federation of San 

Diego County, Inc.; Pete Farruggio, 


complainant; Helen Scheidt, Fresno 

USD; 

Genene Sepulveda-Kluck; Karen 

Cadiero-Kaplan, Sociopolitical Cochair, 

CATESOL; Laurie Olsen, 

Executive Director, California 

Tomorrow; Alberto M. Ochoa and Dr. 

Lisa M. Sparaco, SDSU, in writing 

4650(a)(3) 


writing 

request direct intervention by CDE for 

complaints alleging discrimination 

where the complainants believe they 

will suffer immediate loss of some 

benefit. 

Commenter states the complainant 

should be required to present 

evidence that they face danger of 

retaliation and “would suffer 

immediate and irreparable harm” if 

they attempt to file the complaint 

locally. 


language be reinstated to the 

following: 

“would suffer immediate and 

irreparable harm if he or she filed a 

complaint with the LEA.” 

39 


Attachment 2 


CDE recommends reinstating former 

regulatory language to Section 4650(3) and 

adding a new section (7). 

The original language in (a)(ii) dealt with 

complaints of discrimination. 

The language proposed in subdivision (a)(3): 

“The complainant requests anonymity 

because he or she would suffer immediate 

and irreparable harm if he or she filed a 

complaint with the local educational 

agency.” 

The language proposed in subdivision (a)(7): 

“The complainant alleges and the 

Department verifies that he or she would 

suffer immediate and irreparable harm as a

Judy Goddess, Educational 

Advocate, in writing 

4650(a)(4) 



Inc.; Magaly Lavadenz, President, 


President, Californians Together; Lani 

Hunt, Parent; Senator Sheila Kuehl; 


Schools Coalition, in writing; John T. 

Affeldt, Public Advocates, Inc. at 


4650(6)(E)(b) 



Californians Together, in writing 

Commenter states while Section 4650 

allows anonymity and direct 

intervention when the complainant 

fears retaliation, it does not provide 

this same protection to complainants 

alleging discrimination. 

Commenter asks if the Department 

will not directly intervene to enforce a 

local agency final decision or local 

mediation agreement, what is the 

complainant’s remedy for obtaining 

compliance? Commenter believes 

subdivision should be restored as 

another criterion calling for direct 

state intervention. 

Commenter requests this language: 

“The complainant alleges that the 

local agency failed or refused to 

implement the final decision resulting 

from its local investigation or local 

Mediation Agreement.” 

Commenter states the complainant 

would have to present CDE with clear 

and convincing and verifiable 

40 


Attachment 2 


result of an application of a district-wide 

policy that is in conflict with state or federal 

law covered by this chapter, and that filing a 

complaint with the local educational agency 

would be futile.” 

Anonymity can be requested but a complaint 

of discrimination would be difficult to 

investigate if the complainant is anonymous. 


In response to comment, CDE will restore the 

provision as suggested by commenter in this 

subdivision. 

Section 4650 as amended, describes ten 

situations in which CDE may directly intervene 

prior to completion of the local investigation.

evidence. To accomplish this, it would 

require hiring an attorney for this step. 

Commenter states this would be a 

barrier to many low-income parents 

and students who do not have access 

to or resources to hire an attorney. 

Commenter states, “We believe this 

new standard is not necessary. It is 

recommended that a simple 

identification of the basis under 

subdivision (a) and the facts of the 

complaint are sufficient information 

for CDE to determine whether the 

circumstances call for direct state 

intervention or not.” 

41 


Attachment 2 


As required in Section 4620 and in Education 

Code Section 260, the local agency has the 

primary responsibility for compliance with 

federal and state laws and regulations 

governing programs. The requirement for the 

complainant to provide clear and verifiable 

evidence supporting the basis for direct filing 

with CDE will remain. This requirement for 

clear and verifiable evidence is to support the 

rationale for the direct state intervention and 

does not affect what level of detail is required 

to identify the underlying situation that the 

complainant believes needs to be corrected. 

Limiting the situations, which would warrant 

direct state intervention, ensures that LEAs 

exercise their primary responsibility and 

prevents complainants from seeking to 

bypass the LEA. 

Although attorneys are not required to utilize 

this complaint process, attorneys provide 

most recent complainants “free” legal advice 

and representation. These attorneys are 

provided by many of the groups offering these 

comments. Complainants may pursue 

available civil law remedies outside of the 

district and CDE’s complaint procedures. 

34CFR Title 34 Part 299.12 requires a 

complaint filed with the state educational 

agency to include: 

“A statement that… the agency has violated a 

requirement of federal statute or regulation 

that applies to an applicable program; and the 

facts on which the statement is based and the

4650(b) 



Californians Together; Dale Mentink, 

Senior Attorney, on behalf of 


writing; John T. Affeldt, Public 


in writing 

Commenter states “This revision adds 

a new requirement for the 

complainant to present the 

Department with clear, convincing 

and verifiable evidence that supports 

the basis for the direct filing.” 

Commenter believes language should 

be deleted or rewritten to state a 

“reasonable evidence” standard. The 

proposed “clear and convincing” 

standard is higher than the 

“preponderance of the evidence” 

burden of proof standard for finding 

liability on the underlying claim. 

Indeed, in many cases, such as in the 

Special Education context, the liability 

allegation and the reason for direct 

state intervention are the same (e.g., 

due process procedures for IEPs 

were not followed)…a meritorious 

complaint may not be taken by the 

Department because it could not 

meet the unnecessarily higher clear 

and convincing procedural hurdle for 

direct state intervention. 

42 


Attachment 2 


specific requirement allegedly violated.” 

In response to comments, CDE will change 

the phrase to: 

“The complaint shall identify the basis, as 

described in subdivision (a) above for filing 

the complaint directly to the Department. 

The complainant must present the 

Department with clear and verifiable 

evidence that supports the basis for direct 

filing, except as in subdivision (a)(5).” 

The standard is not an onerous one and 

allows complainant to present un-contradicted 

evidence since no investigation or opportunity 

to respond is given to the party charged with 

the violation of law. 

Subdivisions provide five situations in which a 

complaint related to Special Education is 

appropriate for intervention. Minor edits for 

continuity are added.

Section 4660. Department Resolution Procedures. 

4660(a) 



Margarita Villareal, Fresno USD, 



Californians Together; Helen Scheidt, 

Fresno USD; Genene Sepulveda- 

Kluck, Teacher; Karen Cadiero, 






of bilingual students, in writing 

Commenter states, “Even if a direct 

complaint is accepted, the proposed 

regulations do not even require that 

the Department do an on-site 

investigation. The commenter states 

the requirement that the complainant, 

agency administrators, staff, related 

committees/groups, and any other 

involved persons be interviewed to 

determine the facts in the case has 

been eliminated.” 

Commenter states this language 

eliminates the mandate for CDE to 

conduct an independent, on-site 

review. 

43 


Attachment 2 


CDE recommends the following clarification 

regarding State Investigation Procedures: 

“When the Department determines that 

direct State intervention is warranted 

pursuant to any provision of Section 4650, 

the following procedures shall be used to 

resolve the issues of the complaint: 

1. The Department shall consider 

alternative methods to resolve the 

allegations in the complaint. 

2. If both parties request mediation, the 

Department shall offer to mediate the 

dispute which may lead to a state 

mediation agreement. 

3. The Department shall conduct an 

investigation, including an on-site 

investigation if necessary, into the 

allegations in the complaint unless a 

settlement agreement has been 

reached between the parties that 

disposes of all the issues in the 

complaint.” 

Nothing in the Chapter shall prohibit the 

parties from utilizing alternative methods to 

resolve the allegations in the complaint, 

including but not limited to, mediation to 

resolve the allegations in the complaint 

On-site investigations are not always 

necessary, but the Department has the 

discretion to do an on-site investigation.






Commenter states, “Do not cut 

mediation.” 

Commenter suggests the words “If 

necessary” should be deleted. 

Commenter believes if the 

Department accepts a complaint for 

direct state intervention, on-site 

investigation should be the norm as is 

the case under the current 

regulations. At most, only in cases 

where the Department affirmatively 

determines that an investigation 

would be futile to resolve a complaint, 

should an on site investigation not 

take place. 

Section 4661. Mediation Procedures, State Mediation Agreements; Notice. 


Inc.; Carmen Martinez-Eoff, California 








Council of La Raza; Cynthia Wilson, 



Center; David Valladolid, Chair, 

Latino Policy Institute; Raymond 

Commenter notes and opposes the 

elimination of the requirement that 

CDE offer mediation services. 

Commenter states because there is 

no justification for change, current 

mediation options, with department 

support, should be maintained. 

Commenter wonders why the 

mediation process was deleted. 

Commenter believes it should be 

stated in the Statement of Reasons. 

44 


Attachment 2 


There is no mandate in state or federal law to 

conduct an on-site investigation or mediation. 


An on-site investigation will be conducted 

when the situation warrants. It is within the 

discretion of the Department to determine if 

an on-site investigation is necessary. See 

response above. CDE recommends no 

change. 

No federal or state law, or regulation 

mandates offering mediation services as part 

of the UCP. However, mediation was added 

back in Subdivision 4660(a)(2) as 

“If both parties request mediation, the 

Department shall offer to mediate the 

dispute which may lead to a state mediation 

agreement.” 


Uzeta, President and CEO, Chicano 




Parent; Helen Scheidt, Fresno USD; 

Judy Goddess, Educational 

Advocate; Dale Mentink, Senior 

Attorney, on behalf of Protection and 

Advocacy, Inc.; Alberto M. Ochoa and 

Dr. Lisa M. Sparaco, SDSU; Elizabeth 

Fralicks, Title III Resource Teacher, 

Fresno USD; Denise Quintana, first 

grade teacher of bilingual students, 



LAUSD, at public hearing; Linda 

Cook, Director Categorical Programs, 

North Sacramento School District; 

John W. Brewer, Deputy 






USD; Denis O’Leary, LULAC; Dale 

Mentink, Senior Attorney, on behalf of 

Protection and Advocacy, Inc.; 



Education; John T. Affeldt, Public 

Advocates, Inc., in writing 

Holly Jacobson, Assistant Executive 

Director and Judy Cias, Assistant 

General Counsel, CSBA, in writing 

Other commenter asks, “Was it a cost 

saving measure? Was the mediation 

process infrequently used?” 

Commenter states, “In our view, state 

mediation can be of tremendous 

benefit in resolving disputes.” 

Commenter states as Section 4661 is 

repealed, it eliminates the mediation 

process at the state level, and it is not 

clear if there will be a cost shift from 

the state to local districts should 

45 


Attachment 2 


Mediation remains a possible choice at both 

state and local levels. CDE recommends no 

change.

Section 4662. Investigation. 


CABE, at public hearing; Magaly 

Lavadenz, President, CABE; Shelly 

Spiegel Coleman, President, 




4662(b) 


Shelly Spiegel Coleman, 

President;Californians Together; Lani 

Hunt, Parent, in writing 

mediation be utilized. 

Commenter states the current 

regulation requires CDE to conduct 

an on-site investigation if one party 

waived mediation or mediation failed. 

The proposed amendment would no 

longer require CDE to perform on-site 

visits unless it is deemed “necessary”. 

Commenter states, “We believe that 

on-site investigations should always 

be conducted when CDE determines 

that direct intervention is warranted.” 

Commenter states the Department 

should include an explanation for the 

deletion of mediation opportunities. 


regulation requires CDE to complete 

its investigation and report within 60 

46 


Attachment 2 


An on-site investigation will be conducted 

when the situation warrants. It is within the 

discretion of the Department to determine if 

an on-site investigation is necessary. 34 CFR 

Section 299.12 requires an on-site 

investigation when it is determined that an onsite 

investigation is necessary. 

No federal or state law or regulation mandates 

offering mediation services as part of the 

UCP. CDE recommends no change. 

However, because of the many comments 

regarding the deletion of mediation, CDE will 

offer mediation if requested by both parties to 

the complaint and if the state directly 

intervenes in the first instance. 

34 CFR Section 299.12 requires an on-site 

investigation when it is determined that an onsite 

investigation is necessary.


Sparaco, SDSU; David Valladolid, 

President and CEO, Parent Institute 

for Quality Education; Cynthia Wilson, 



Center; Carmen Martinez-Eoff, 


Retired; Charles Baden, LACOE, 

Mark Cooley, Co-Chairperson, Los 


Association; Raymond Uzeta, 

days from receiving an appeal. 

Extensions may be granted only if 

exceptional circumstances exist. The 

proposed amendments require CDE 

to complete its investigation within 60 

days but does not require CDE to 

have to complete its report or to 

provide a decision, within 60 days. 

Commenter recommends that this 

subdivision be revised to read, “An 

investigation will be completed, and a 

final decision reported, within 60 days 

after.” 

Commenter states this revision allows 

CDE to delay its investigation or 

report when no exceptional 

circumstances exist. 

47 


Attachment 2 


The SEA (CDE) shall have complaint 

procedures that call for a reasonable time limit 

for resolving written complaints, and an 

extension of the time limit only if exceptional 

circumstances exist with a particular 

complaint. 

When federal regulations were reviewed, 

commented upon, and enacted, it was 

decided the state agency could make that 

determination of a reasonable time limit. 

CDE recommends allowing 60 days to 

complete the investigation, and an additional 

60 days to issue its report. This amount is 

reasonable given the administrative process 

for review of decisions issued by the 

Department. CDE recommends no change. 

CDE will not purposely delay its investigation 

or report. CDE recommends no change.



Ana Gamiz, California Policy Analyst, 

National Council of La Raza; 

Elizabeth Fralicks, Title III Resource 

Teacher, Fresno USD, in writing 

Section 4663. Department Investigation Procedures. 




writing 




Commenter states they want to see a 

statement in the Initial Statement of 

Reasons explaining the elimination of 

the mediation provisions. 


following revisions to Section 4633 (b) 

on Pages 10-11 to read: 

“The Department shall only receive 

additional evidence from the parties 

that could have been presented to the 

LEA investigator during the 

investigation, if the delay in receiving 

that evidence was beyond the control 

of either party. The Department shall 

determine applicability of the 

additional evidence.” 

Commenter states the burden for the 

investigation is shifted as CDE may 

now dismiss a complaint if a 

complainant does not provide 

documents or other evidence. Again, 

CDE would not be required to 

conduct an independent investigation 

on the issues. Commenter states, 

“We oppose the proposed 

amendments for the same reasons 

outlined in Section 4632.” 

48 


Attachment 2 


The CDE provided additional information in 

the Final Statement of Reasons. CDE 


CDE can best determine the particular 

evidence needed on a case-by-case basis. If 

the delay was beyond the control of the party 

responsible for submitting the evidence, then 

it only goes to say that it could not have been 

presented to the investigator. 


The burden of presenting facts that support 

the allegations of a violation remains with the 

complainant. A complainant must present 

more than their opinion, speculation or 

conjecture. 

The complainant does not, however, need to 

conduct an investigation in order to ascertain 

all the facts. The complainant’s responsibility 

is to allege enough facts that the CDE can 

conduct the investigation.

4663(a) 


LULAC; John T. Affeldt, Public 

Advocates, Inc., in writing 

4663(a)(1) 

Cynthia Rice, CRLA and Martha 

Guzman, CRLA Foundation, in writing 

4663(d) 



Commenter states that the affirmative 

duty of the investigator to collect 

information from the local agency is 

eliminated. The commenter requests 

the proposed “stricken language be 

restored.” 

Commenter states the requirement 

that the complainant, agency 

administrators, staff, related 



determine the facts in the case have 

been eliminated. The current 

language in 4664(a) is stricken in the 

proposed regulation and replaced by 

a requirement that the complainant be 

provided only an opportunity to 

present evidence. (See proposed 

Section 4463(b)), and this provision 

should be restored. 


proposes, as a potential sanction for 

an LEA’s non-cooperation with an 

investigation, a finding that a violation 

has occurred and the possible 

imposition of a remedy in favor of the 

complainant. 

49 


Attachment 2 


CDE remains the agency to which an appeal 

of the local investigation is filed. CDE 


CDE determines the documents or other 

evidence necessary to fully investigate the 

allegations of a complaint. CDE recommends 

no change. 

The Department has discretion to conduct an 

onsite investigation and to gather evidence to 

support or refute the allegations. The parties 

have an opportunity to present evidence and 

information leading to evidence to support the 

allegations of non-compliance with state and 

federal laws and/or regulations. CDE has 

discretion to conduct its investigation and 

there is no set of required actions to follow. 

The current language does not limit an 

investigation in any way. CDE recommends 

no change. 

Federal sanctions imposed after a hearing 

that finds the failure/refusal to respond to 

discovery in federal civil cases are 

inappropriate for administrative investigations. 

CDE will do what is necessary to obtain an 

LEA’s cooperation and obtain relevant 

evidence.




Section 4664. Department Investigation Report. 

4664(a) 




The commenter states the provision 

is too narrow because it limits the 

imposition of the sanction to only 

those that gave evidence. (Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 37) 

Commenter states the local 

investigative file often contains 

confidential attorney-client privileged 

information and it may not be 

appropriate for districts to provide the 

entire file to the Department. Rather, 

an abbreviated investigative report 

can be submitted, and if the 

Department still requires additional 

information, then such information 

can be supplied as needed. 

Commenter states to meet 

requirements of Education Code 

56500.2, CDE must include specific 

remedies to address failures by 

schools to provide appropriate 

services. 

50 


Attachment 2 


Findings cannot be made on opinion, 

speculation or conjecture. The party must 

present evidence-supporting facts that 

demonstrate a violation of law. 

The evidence upon which a decision would be 

made under this provision is not limited to 

facts gathered from the LEA. Therefore, the 

provision is not too narrow, and CDE does not 

recommend a change. 

The district may remove from the file any 

names or other information to ensure the 

necessary confidentiality. CDE recommends 

no change. 

Special Education programs have different, 

additional federal requirements that need not 

be specified in these regulations. CDE 


CDE recommends adding the following as 

(a)(10): 

“For those programs governed by Part 76 of 

Title 34 of the Code of federal Regulations, 

the parties shall be notified of the right to

4664(b) 

Norm Gold, Norm Gold Associates Commenter states Section 4664(b) 

allows CDE to delay investigation and 

resolution of complaints. 

Norm Gold, Norm Gold Associates; 


National Council of La Raza; Pete 

Farruggio, Ph.D., Parent and former 

complainant; Helen Scheidt, Fresno 


Teacher; Karen Cadiero-Kaplan, 








COE; Cynthia Wilson, ESL/ELD 










Commenter states the proposed 

revision to sections 4662 and 4664(b) 

allows the CDE to extend its time to 

complete its investigation or report 

where no exceptional circumstances 

exist. 

51 


Attachment 2 


appeal to the United States Secretary of 

Education.” 

CDE proposed striking the phrase “Except 

in Special Education complaints” and the 

restoration of the “35 days” in which to file 

for reconsideration. 

CDE must complete its investigation “in a 

reasonable time period” per Federal Code of 

Regulations. Extensions require exceptional 

circumstances. CDE recommends no change. 

These sections are clear and do not allow 

extensions of investigations where no 

exceptional circumstance exists. The Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 299.10-12 

directing state uniform complaint procedures 

took effect June 23, 1997. The federal 

directive now states the educational agency 

should complete its investigation “in a 

reasonable time period.” When federal 

regulations governing this process were 

adopted in 1997, the Secretary of Education 

responded to similar comment that a 

reasonable time period for hearing and 

resolving a complaint would generally be 60 – 

90 days, and that regulating specific timelines 

for all complaints, no matter how detailed, 

does not seem necessary or appropriate. 



complainant; John T. Affeldt, Public 

Advocates, Inc.; Helen Scheidt, 

Fresno USD; Shirley Drake, Director 

of Special Programs, Culver City 


teacher of bilingual students, in 

writing 







COE; Cynthia Wilson, ESL/ELD 











complainant; Denis O’Leary, LULAC; 

Lani Hunt, Parent; Alberto M. Ochoa 

and Dr. Lisa M. Sparaco, SDSU; 

Shirley Drake, Director of Special 

Programs, Culver City USD; Elizabeth 

Fralicks, Title III Resource Teacher, 

Fresno USD, in writing; and John T. 

Affeldt, Public Advocates, Inc., at 


Margarita Villareal, Fresno USD, in 

writing 

Commenter states this allows the 

CDE to delay its investigation and 

report beyond 60 days. 

Commenter states 60 days is entirely 

too long to permit the Department to 

52 


Attachment 2 


As stated before, CDE believes the proposed 

amount of time is “reasonable” per CFR. CDE 


See justification above. Complaints need not 

take the entire time specified and can be







complete and mail an investigation 

report to the parties. Under this 

timeline, complaints routinely will not 

be resolved until nearly the end or the 

end or after the end of the school 

year. The Department should be 

required to complete its investigation 

report and inform the parties of its 

determination within 60 days of 

receipt of the request for direct state 

intervention or appeal. 

Commenter states they assume the 

addition of time to complete report is 

an oversight; cites 34CFR 

300.661(a)(4) 


amendment allows CDE 60 days from 

the date of the conclusion of its 

investigation to issue an investigative 

report. 

Commenter disagrees with this 

change and cites CFR 300.661 (a)(4). 

Commenter suggests this statement 

replace the proposed language: 

“An investigation report shall be 

mailed to the parties within 60 days 

from the receipt of the request for 

direct state intervention.” 

53 


Attachment 2 


resolved in less than the maximum time 

specified. CDE recommends no change. 

Nothing in these regulations prevents Special 

Education complaints – which are the only 

complaints covered under the referenced 

34CFR 300.661(a)(4) from being addressed 

within 60 days. Each individual program 

governed by these regulations may and does 

set additional procedures and/or time limits. 


The CFR cited is related to Special Educationfunded 

programs and services only. Special 

Education complaints will still be required to 

be in compliance with federal statute. 


Section 4665. Discretionary Reconsideration of Department Investigative Report. 

4665(a) 

Stacy L. Inman, Assistant Legal 

Counsel, Schools Legal Service, in 

writing 


writing 




Commenter states 15 days is 

inadequate as to Special Education 

matters. “In evaluating whether to 

request reconsideration, a district 

must review the report with staff and 

perhaps consult with counsel. Then 

the written request setting out the 

specific basis for reconsideration 

must be prepared. Fifteen days is not 

sufficient time, particularly given the 

vacation and holiday schedules of 

school district. I would request that 

the present time frame of 35 days 

remain.” 

Commenter states on page 19 

beginning on line 20, be amended to 

read: 

“Upon determination that an LEA 

violated the provisions of this 

chapter, the Department shall 

notify the LEA in writing that it 

must take corrective action to 

come into compliance. If 

corrective action is not taken, the 

Department may use any means 

authorized by law to effect 

compliance and shall provide 

such action in writing to the LEA, 

including but not limited to….” 


regulation reduces the time limit for a 

request for reconsideration without 

54 


Attachment 2 


In response to comments received, CDE will 

restore the time to request reconsideration to 

35 days. 

Additionally, CDE recommends adding the 

following sentence to this subdivision: 

“The request for reconsideration shall also 

state whether the findings of fact are 

incorrect and/or the law is misapplied.” 

CDE issues an Investigative Report as 

specified in Section 4664 of these regulations. 

The report contains the information requested 

and the action that needs to be taken to 

correct the violation. CDE recommends no 

change. 

In response to comment, CDE has restored 

the time frame.

4665(c) 






General Counsel, CSBA 




Education, David Valladolid, Chair, 



School Teacher, Retired; Ana Gamiz, 


Council of La Raza; Cynthia Wilson, 


consideration as to many valid 

reasons for need for more time such 

as sickness, out of town 

commitments, etc. 

Commenter states that on page 19, 

on line 2, it explicitly states that there 

shall be no reconsideration of Special 

Education Decisions of complaints. 

The Department should explain the 

purpose or cite the statutory direction, 

which prohibits the reconsideration of 

Special Education decisions or 

complaints. 

Commenter states this section 

eliminates Department 

reconsideration for Special Education 

Complaints, which has the effect of 

limiting due process for school 

districts. Commenter states, “While in 

practice we understand that 

reconsiderations are rarely, if ever, 

granted, we are uncomfortable 

eliminating the potential from the 

regulations.” 

Commenter opposes the proposed 

changes to UCP that reduce the time 

for filing a request for reconsideration 

with the superintendent from 35 days 

to 15 days. 

55 


Attachment 2 


In response to comments received, CDE has 

restored this provision. 

. 


See response above.


Center; Karen Cadiero-Kaplan, 



LULAC; Raymond Uzeta, President 

and CEO, Chicano Federation of San 



complainant; Magaly Lavadenz, 



Together; Lani Hunt, Parent; Alberto 

M. Ochoa and Dr. Lisa M. Sparaco, 

SDSU; Denise Quintana, first grade 

teacher of bilingual students, 





Stacy L. Inman, Assistant Legal 

Counsel, Schools Legal Service, in 

writing 

Commenter states the reason for the 

disparate treatment of reconsideration 

requests on the basis of disability is 

unclear. Commenter states, “We 

request that reconsideration of 

complaints by students with 

disabilities be restored so as to 

prevent CDE from discriminating on 

the basis of disability in violation of 

Section 504.” 

Commenter states, “It is simply unfair 

and untenable that the Department of 

Education would start issuing Special 

Education investigation reports which 

could not be questioned. Investigation 

reports can impose costly corrective 

actions on school districts. Further, 

56 




Attachment 2 


Section 4670. Enforcement. 




Special Education complaints 

frequently involve allegations that a 

school district has failed to comply 

with applicable laws or regulations. A 

Special Education investigation 

report, which finds a district out of 

compliance, can be used to support a 

civil action against a district and the 

filing of further complaints on the 

same matter with other government 

agencies. A school district must have 

the opportunity to question an 

investigation report, which the district 

feels is wrong. Fairness and common 

sense demand this.” 

Commenter states (CDE) “cannot 

insert the word ‘educational’ in front of 

agency in this regulation,” and cites 

“Title 2 CCR Section 60560 and GGC 

7585 and Tri-County Special 

Education Local Plan Area v. County 

of Tuolumne (2004) 23 

Cal.App.4 th 563; 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 

884,891.” Commenter suggests CDE 

also review Section 4600(f). 

57 


Attachment 2 


Interagency agreements are only at the IEP or 

student level. Therefore, any interagency dispute 

would be a due process complaint, not a 

UCP complaint. Furthermore, CCR Title 2, 

Article 9 Section 60600 Application of Procedures 

for Interagency Dispute Resolution 

(b) requires when there is a dispute between 

or among CDE or an LEA or both and any 

agency over the provision of related services 

over which agency is to deliver services in the 

IEP, it shall be negotiated through a hearing 

officer or mediator after a request for state 

interagency dispute resolution. CDE could not 

resolve a mental health service complaint, for 

example, because it could not withhold funds 

from that agency. CDE recommends no 

change. Note: Please see page 134, where 

upon further discussion, CDE recommends 

amendments to the regulations.

4670(a) 


CADRE; John T. Affeldt, Public 


in writing 






Retired; Cynthia Wilson, ESL/ELD 





amendment seeks to change the 

notice the Department sends to 

districts upon finding a violation to 

include only that it must “take 

corrective action” instead of the prior 

requirement that the Department 

clearly notify district representatives 

“of the action he or she will take to 

effect compliance.” 

Commenter states there is no good 

reason for making it less clear and 

requests CDE add these references: 

(a) what action is needed for 

district to come into 

compliance with the law and 

(b) when the department can take 

further action to effect 

compliance from an LEA (i.e., 

because the district has failed 

to take sufficient action). 

The commenter requests prior 

language for this subdivision is 

retained. 

Commenter states this revision 

eliminates the requirement that the 

CDE notify the district of specific 

corrective action it must take after the 

CDE determines that a violation has 

occurred. 

58 


Attachment 2 


CDE monitors the corrective action required in 

any investigative report and requires the LEA 

to submit evidence that required corrective 

action was completed according to the 

required timeline. 

CDE recommends adding to the existing 

section 4670(a) and (a)(1): 

“Upon determination that a local 

educational agency violated the provisions 

of this chapter, the Department shall notify 

the local educational agency pursuant to 

Section 4664(a) that it must take corrective 

action to come into compliance. If corrective 

action is not taken, the Department may 

use any means authorized by law to effect 

compliance, including but not limited to: 

The withholding of all or part of the local 

educational agency’s relevant state or 

federal fiscal support in accordance with 

state or federal statute or regulation.” 

It is not the intent of this section to eliminate 

any specific corrective action. The proposed 

regulations state corrective action will be 

taken. Specificity is found in the investigative 

report issued that specifies the corrective 

action based on findings from the 

investigation. Timelines for adhering to the 

corrective action, as well as a description of 

the evidence to demonstrate the change











Parent; Helen Scheidt, Fresno USD; 

Genene Sepulveda-Kluck, Teacher; 

Karen Cadiero-Kaplan, Sociopolitical 

Co-Chair, CATESOL; Denis O’Leary, 

LULAC; Alberto M. Ochoa and Dr. 

Lisa M. Sparaco, SDSU; Shirley 

Drake, Director of Special Programs 

Culver City USD; Elizabeth Fralicks, 

Title III Resource Teacher, Fresno 


teacher of bilingual students, in 

writing 

Section 4671. Federal Review Rights. 




Commenter states withholding of 

funds is an important tool available to 

the Superintendent to compel stateadministered 

program compliance. 

59 


Attachment 2 


occurred, is measured and is adequate to 

remedy the violation/noncompliance. CDE 


The withholding of funds is now found in 

Section 4670 Enforcement. CDE recommends 

no further change. 

Section 4680. Complaints Regarding Instructional Materials, Teacher Vacancy or Misassignment and School Facilities. 




Commenter states Section 4680 

refers to “deficiencies” in instructional 

materials, while there is only a 

definition of “sufficient” described in 

statutes. 

Commenter states the regulations 

Agreed. CDE will make this change and 

remove the phrase ”any deficiencies related 

to” from all related subdivisions.




4680(c) 














should conform to statutory 

terminology. 

Commenter states this new section 

creates an internal inconsistency in 

the UCP. Section 4650(a)(5)(C) 

specified that certain complaints 

concerning Special Education 

students (those indicating that a child 

or a group of children may be in 

immediate physical danger or that the 

health, safety or welfare of a child or 

group of children is threatened) 

requires direct state intervention. 

Section 4680 now states that 

complaints regarding conditions that 

pose a threat to the health and safety 

of pupils must be filed with site 

principals or, perhaps, local district 

officials. This regulation must be 

amended to make it “subject to the 

provisions of Section 4650(a)(5)(C) 

regarding Special Education pupils.” 

Commenter suggests rewriting the 

section with the following language: 

“The LEA shall have a complaint form 

available for such complaints to be 

used at the option of the complainant. 

The complaint form shall identify the 

place for filing the complaint and it 

shall include a space to mark to 

indicate whether a response is 

requested.” 

Commenter also believes a 

complainant may add as much text as 

60 


Attachment 2 


Section 4650(a)(5)(C) does not specify only 

Special Education students but is applicable 

where any facilities are in a condition that 

poses a threat to the health and safety of 

pupils or staff. The complaint deals with the 

condition of the facilities. Complaints under 

sections 4680 through 4682 are not subject to 

the regular UCP process. The UCP and 

Williams’ complaint processes, timelines and 

subjects are quite different. CDE recommends 

no change. 

CDE agrees that a complaint form must be 

provided for complaints filed under sections 

4680 through 4682. CDE recommends 

Section 4680, subdivision (c) be amended as 

follows: 

“The school shall have a complaint form 

available for such complaints. The 

complaint form shall identify the place for 

filing the complaint and include a space to 

indicate whether a response is requested. 

However, the complainant need not use a 

complaint form.”


hearing 

needed to explain the deficiency and 

the complaint form may contain more 

than one allegation of deficiency. 

Section 4681. Contents of Complaints Regarding Instructional Materials. 


Relations, Long Beach USD, at the 


Rudy M. Castruita, Superintendent of 

Schools, San Diego COE, in writing 



LAUSD, at the public hearing; Andrea 

Ball, Director, Government Relations, 

Long Beach USD, at the public 


Commenter requests term 

“instructional materials” be clarified. 

Commenter states that it will be 

unclear to parents, teachers, staff and 

students that this term is meant to 

refer specifically to those standardsaligned 

instructional materials, which 

are subject to the sufficiency standard 

of Education Code Section 60119. 

Commenter requests adding an 

amendment to the regulations in 

order to limit the content of the 

(Williams) complaint form to the 

specific information required by the 

implementing statutes with additional 

detail provided by complainant. 

Writer recommends user-friendly 

forms with clear instructions to enable 

parents and guardians to file a 

complaint quickly and easily. 


following language for clarification on 

what defines “sufficiency” due to 

confusion that may arise between the 

requirements of Education Code 

sections 60119 and 60422. 

Commenter states that the 

responsibility be placed on the local 

61 


Attachment 2 


CDE recommends that the definition be added 

from Education Code 60010(a) that defines 

“Basic Instructional Materials as “instructional 

materials that are designed for use by pupils 

as a principal learning resource and that meet 

in organization and content the basic 

requirement of the intended course.” 

The intent of this settlement is to provide an 

easy method of filing a complaint and CDE 

concurs the form should be clear and userfriendly. 

CDE recommends the current 

revisions to sections 4681(b) and 4685 to 

reflect this recommendation. 

The intent of the Williams case settlement 

legislation is that instructional materials are 

available at the beginning of the school year. 

CDE has proposed a definition for “beginning 

of the school year”. 

CDE recommends adding the term “stateadopted” 

to the revisions.

governing board and every formal 

document about Williams complaints 

reflect this so that people are not 

confused. 

Commenter offers the following 

specific suggestions: 

On page 21, at the end of line 12, 

add: 

“Pursuant to the local board 

resolution certifying sufficiency of 

instructional materials as required 

under Education Code sections 

60119 and 60422.” 

On page 21, beginning at line 13 

amend to read: 

“A pupil, including an English learner, 

has insufficient textbooks or 

instructional materials, or both, in 

each of the following subjects, as 

appropriate, that are consistent with 

the content and cycles of the 

curriculum frameworks or current 

state adopted textbooks or 

instructional materials identified 

pursuant to the local board resolution 

as required by Education Code 

Section 60119.” 

On Page 21, line 19 amend to read: 

“(D) English/language arts, including 

the English language development 

component of a state adopted 

program. (unless the intent is to 

62 


Attachment 2 


CDE recommends the definition in Education 

Code 60010 for “basic instructional materials” 

be added as instructional materials are those 

that are designed for use by pupils as a 

principal learning resource and that meet in 

organization and content the basic 

requirements of the intended course.

4681(a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) 




4681(a)(2) 







provide a new ELD component for 

grades 9-12).” 

Commenter Ball states she concurs 

with statements from ASCA in the 

inclusion of Education Code 60100A 

being added to the definition for 4681. 

Commenter states the term 

instructional materials should be 

clarified. It will be unclear to parents, 

teachers, staff and students that this 

term is meant to refer specifically to 

those standards-aligned instructional 

materials, which are subject to the 

sufficiency standards of Education 

Code Section 60119. 

Commenter recommends that the 

regulations refer to Education Code 

Section 60010 (a), which defines 

“Basic Instructional materials” as 

“instructional materials” that are 

designed for use by pupils as a 

principal learning resources and that 

meets in organization and content the 

basic requirement of the intended 

course. 

Commenter states the word 

“inconsistent” should be changed to 

“consistent”. 

63 


Attachment 2 


This definition is added at the beginning of the 

regulations in the definitions section as 

“instructional materials” per Education Code 

60010 (h) or (a). 

CDE recommends adding the descriptive 

phrase “grade level” to these subdivisions that 

define contents of complaints regarding 

instructional materials. 

This correction was made.









4681(a)(2) 















4681(d) 


Relations, Long Beach USD; Martha 

Zaragoza-Diaz, Advocate, CABE, at 

Commenter states a new subdivision 

(a)(2)(e) needs to be inserted, adding 

the language, “laboratory science 

equipment for grades 9-12.” 

Commenter also proposes changing 

the word “subjects” in (a)(2) to 

“areas”. Commenter states this 

change clarifies the fact that 

laboratory science equipment is one 

of the types of instructional material 

shortages addressed by Education 

Code 35186 and SB 550. 

Commenter states according to the 

settlement, insufficiency occurs if 

there are not enough state-aligned 

foreign language and health 

textbooks. Commenter believes 

language could be made more 

explicit. 

Commenter requests that this 

subdivision refers only to grades K-3 

and that the category of English 

64 


Attachment 2 


CDE recommends deleting all of Subdivision 

4681 (a)(2)(A)(B)(C) and (D) to address this 

concern. 

CDE recommends deleting all of Subdivision 

4681 (a)(2)(A)(B)(C) and (D) to address this 

concern.

public hearing; Magaly Lavadenz, 



Together, in writing 



COE 

Language Arts/English Language 

Development remain without 

modifying language for grades 4-12. 

Commenter states “We believe this is 

critical in order to ensure students 

who are English learners access to 

standards aligned materials in grades 

4-12.” 

Commenter also states, “The current 

state-approved, English Language 

Arts program adopted by the state 

board for ELs for grades 4-8 is 

Highpoint. This program is not a 

component of an English Language 

Arts program but is on the State- 

Adopted list, and for students new to 

US and for students working two 

grades below grade level. In grades 

9-12, there are no standard aligned 

text for ELs.” 

Commenter opposes language 

because this denies ELs access to 

state adopted English language 

development materials in grades 4-8 

and specifically, that the language in 

this section would deny standards 

aligned materials for English Learners 

in grades 9-12. 

Commenter requests that Section 

4681(d) only refer to grades K-3 and 

that the category of English Language 

Arts/ English Language Development 

remain without any modifying 

language for grades 4-12. 

65 


Attachment 2 


All students must have instructional materials 

as described. CDE recommends no change.

Section 4682. Contents of Complaints Regarding Teacher Vacancy or Misassignment. 


Relations, Long Beach USD, in 

writing and at the public hearing 

4682(a)(1) 















Commenter states provision (a)(1) is 

unclear as to what point is 

appropriate as the “beginning of the 

semester” in regard to filing a 

complaint. Commenter states there is 

often a period at the beginning of the 

school year and semester, where 

student enrollment fluctuates; 

therefore, teacher assignments may 

be adjusted. Commenter believes 

there should be some commonly 

defined time period before which 

complaints are not appropriate. 

Commenter proposes allowing 20 

days from the beginning of the school 

year or semester. 

Commenter states the language 

describing what constitutes a teacher 

vacancy tracks the current erroneous 

language in SB 550. The statute 

should be changed to reflect the final 

language defining a teacher vacancy 

in Education Code 33126, and is 

used in 4600 (U). 

The commenter believes this did not 

get conveyed properly in Education 

Code 35186. 

66 


Attachment 2 


As now described in the Definition portion of 

these regulations, the beginning of the school 

year” is defined as: 

“The first day of classes necessary to serve 

all the students enrolled are established 

with a single, designated certificated 

employee assigned for the duration of the 

after the first day students attend classes 

for that semester.” 

1. A position to which a single designated 

certificated employee has not been assigned 

at the beginning of the year for an entire year 

or, if the position is for a one-semester 

course, a position of which a single 

designated certificated employee has not 

been assigned at the beginning of a semester 

for an entire semester class, but not later than 

20 working days. 

Education Code 33126 (A)(5) as amended by 

SB 550, states “the total number of the 

school’s fully credentialed teachers, the 

number of teachers relying on emergency 

credentials, the number of teachers working 

without credentials, any assignment of 

teachers outside their subject area of 

competence, misassignments, including 

misassignments of teachers of English 

learners and the number of vacant teacher 

positions for the most recent three-year 

period.







Commenter states the proper 

definition of a teacher vacancy is 

used in Education Code 33126 and is 

incorporated into these proposed 

regulations at Section 4600(u). That 

same definition should be utilized in 

this subdivision. 

Commenter states that this section 

should recognize the enrollment shifts 

in schools at the beginning of the 

school year which impact teacher 

assignment. Generally, these 

enrollment shifts stabilize after 3-4 

weeks of school. The definition of 

misassignment should allow for an 

adjustment period during that time 

frame. 

Commenter states that this section 

should also recognize and clarify that 

under certain circumstances where a 

teacher is legally misassigned either 

under California law or NCLB, it does 

not constitute misassignment for 

purposes of the Williams complaint 

procedures. 

67 


Attachment 2 


(A) For purposes of this paragraph, “vacant 

teacher position” means a position to which a 

single designated certificated employee has 

not been assigned at the beginning of the 

year for an entire year or, if the position is for 

a one-semester course, a position for which a 

single designated certificated employee has 

not been assigned at the beginning of a 

semester for an entire semester. 


This section accurately reflects the 

requirements of Education Code Section 

35186. CDE recommends no change. 

Section 4685. Investigation by Principal. 

The Williams v. California Plaintiff Commenter states in order to conform The Williams case settlement as enacted in












Hector O. Villagra, MALDEF, at the 


Section 4686. Responsibilities of Governing Board. 




with SB 550 and this proposed 

provision itself, the provision should 

be re-titled “Section 4685. 

Investigation by Principal or Designee 

of District Superintendent.” 

Commenter states adding sections 

4680, 4681, 4682, 4683, 4684, 4685, 

4686, and 4687 may impose upon 

LEAs new state mandated 

requirements as no appropriation was 

provided in the Williams Settled 

legislation or the 2004-2005 State 

Budget. 

Some examples of new state 

mandated costs which may constitute 

requests for reimbursable costs 

include, 

but are not limited to: 

Section 4680 – Development and 

distribution of new complaint forms. 

Section 4684 – Development and 

posting of notices in each classroom 

in each school. 

Section 4685 – Investigation 

conducted by principal, report of 

resolution to the complainant, report 

68 


Attachment 2 


SB 550 calls for the principal to conduct the 

review or a designee of the district 

superintendent, as applicable. CDE will make 

the change to the title. 

Any mandated costs are as a result of SB 550 

and not these regulations. CDE recommends 

no change.

4686(a) 




of principal to district superintendent. 

Section 4686 – Quarterly reporting of 

summarized data regarding school 

and district complaints to the county 

superintendent of schools. 

Commenter states Section 4684(a) 

refers to a regularly scheduled 

“hearing” of the governing board. 

While this language is consistent with 

statute, it should be noted that there 

are regularly scheduled meetings of 

governing boards, but not hearings. 

Hearings are conducted by governing 

boards as part of due process 

considerations in student expulsions, 

employee discipline, etc. 

69 

Agreed. CDE will make this change. 


Attachment 2 


Section 4687. Appeal of Facilities Complaint to Superintendent. 

Section 4910. General Definitions. (k) “Gender” 

Jennifer Richard, Senator Kuehl’s Thank you. No response required. We appreciate your 

office 

comment. 

Senator Sheila Kuehl; Courtney Commenter states she supports the No response required. We appreciate your 

Joslin, California Safe Schools proposed change to section 4910(k), comment. 

Coalition 

to ensure that the definition of 

“gender” in the regulations is fully 

consistent with the statutory definition 

of “gender” as recently revised by SB 

1234 (Kuehl) Statutes of 2004. Such 

consistency will help remove any 

confusion that may result from 

inconsistent definitions.

General Comments 

Senator Sheila Kuehl, in writing Commenter states although not the 

subject of this regulatory comment 

period, “I would also urge the 

department to include the same 

language describing the scope of the 

prohibited forms of discrimination in 

all other relevant provisions of the 

Education Regulations such as 

Section 4900, which is more up-todate 

than the current Section 4610, 

but does not reflect the most recent 

changes to Education Code sections 

200 and 220.” 







Commenter then offers specific 

changes to Section 4900. 

Commenter states, “ Sections 4680- 

4687 put into place regulations to 

address recent legislation enacted as 

a result of the Williams case. We find 

these regulations to be consistent 

with that statute and are supportive of 

them moving forward for adoption. In 

addition, we offer some additional 

items for consideration.” 

Commenter states, “In addition to the 

proposed Williams changes, the draft 

regulations propose a variety of other 

changes to the Uniform Complaint 

Procedure. The bulk of these 

changes appear to bring the 

regulations in conformity with existing 

law, which CSBA supports. For 

example, the proposed regulations 

eliminate the requirement that civil 

70 


Attachment 2 


This is not a subject of this regulatory 

comment period. However the Education 

Equity regulations will be revised to comply 

with the most current changes to Education 

Code sections 200 and 220. 

No response required. We appreciate your 

comment. 

No response required


of bilingual students, in writing 




law remedies be included in the 

notice to parents. This is a critical 

change because the Coordinated 

Compliance Review process has 

come to interpret this requirement as 

mandating districts to list in their 

UCPs, local attorneys and advocates 

that parents can retain to sue the 

district. This is well beyond the scope 

of the statute. Additionally, the 

proposal seeks to ensure that 

complaints are submitted with 

sufficient information for the district to 

conduct a meaningful investigation. 

This is critical to ensuring a timely 

response to complaint. 

Commenter states she believes 

“Many of the proposed changes could 

likely endanger the rights, safety, and 

quality of education for many 

students.“ 

Commenter states, “Despite Special 

Education continuing to be one of the 

categorical programs to which these 

complaint procedures apply 

[§4610(a)(7)], the proposed 

amendments appear to have been 

drafted without recognition of the 

prevailing and overlapping provisions 

of federal and state Special Education 

law and state inter-agency statutes 

and regulations concerning students 

with disabilities. It would appear that 

the proposed amendments to these 

regulations will have to be 

dramatically amended to note 

71 

No response required. 


Attachment 2 


Each program covered under the UCP has 

particular attributes and/or law or regulations 

that apply only to that program. State and 

federal statutes and regulations that are 

specific to Special Education apply and would 

supersede these regulations if a conflict 

exists. CDE recommends no change.

Sherry Skelly Griffith, ASCA, at public 



Laurie Olsen, Executive Director, 

California Tomorrow, in writing 




Norm Gold, Norm Gold Associates; 

Carol Kaylor, Director of Special 

exceptions for Special Education 

students from application of many of 

these proposed amendments.” 

Commenter states much of the 

proposed regulatory amendments or 

new sections only restate current 

statute rather than further clarifying to 

implement state statute. 


changes go far beyond anything 

conceivably required by the Williams 

lawsuit, and dramatically reduces the 

rights of parents, students, teachers 

and other staff and community 

members to pursue administrative 

complaints and appeals. 

Commenter states despite Special 

Education continuing to be one of the 

categorical programs to which these 

complaint procedures apply, the 

proposed amendments appear to 

have been drafted without recognition 

of the prevailing and overlapping 

provisions of federal and state 

Special Education law. 

Commenter states given this (UCP) 

process is often the only one 

72 


Attachment 2 


The purpose of regulations is to clarify 

Education Code and provide additional 

procedures. Some of the new sections restate 

Education Code 35186 but it is necessary to 

restate what is in the statutes because these 

new sections clarify the statutes and that 

would be confusing without restating what is 

in statute. Some examples include providing 

information about specific courses, specificity 

of curriculum framework and providing specific 

information about conditions that warrant a 

complaint. CDE recommends no change. 

These regulations not only address the 

Williams lawsuit settlement but also what the 

requirements by federal law. The 

amendments also are designed to better 

serve complainants and LEAs. CDE 


Special Education complaints are subject to 

these complaint regulations, which are not in 

conflict with federal or state Special Education 

statutes, and/or regulations regarding such 

complaints. Government Code 11342.2 states 

agencies must adopt regulations that are not 

in conflict with statute and those that are 

reasonably necessary to effectuate the 

purpose of the statute. CDE recommends no 

change. 

Similar comment was made when the 

enabling federal regulations were reviewed in

Projects, Monrovia USD; Margarita 

Villareal, Fresno USD; Denis O’Leary, 

LULAC; David Valladolid, President 

and CEO, Parent Institute for Quality 

Education; Charles W. Bader, 

Director, Governmental Relations, 

Los Angeles COE; Mark Cooley, Co- 


Bilingual Directors’ Association; 






Sparaco, SDSU., in writing 

Shirley Drake, Director of Special 

Programs, Culver City USD; Karen 

Cadiero-Kaplan, Sociopolitical Co- 

Chair, CATESOL, in writing 

available to low-income, limited 

English proficient parents when their 

rights or the rights of their children are 

violated. 

Commenter requests that the 

proposed regulations be translated 

into the dominant languages spoken 

by the parents of public school 

children. 

Commenter also requests that the 

proposed changes be made available 

for comment prior to action by the 

state board. 

Commenter states, “We are very 

concerned that reducing these rights 

to a uniform process will increase 

litigation as parents and others will 

have no recourse, other than the 

courts. We have found that when the 

Uniform Complaint process is well 

distributed in the district and parents 

realize they have an avenue, we are 

able to resolve the complaints within 

the district.” 

73 


Attachment 2 


1997. In response to the need for parents to 

be aware of the complaint procedure, a 

provision was added to the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) for LEAs to adequately 

inform parents of these complaint procedures. 

The provision of this information is now and 

has been monitored by CDE through the CCR 

process. Additionally, a requirement that each 

LEA provide information about the UCP 

process, interpreted and written in languages 

other than English, is specified in Education 

Code Section 48985. 

Furthermore, the regulatory process as 

defined by the Office of Administrative Law 

does not allow for or require this action. CDE 


Translation of regulations into a language 

other than English is not required by state or 

federal law. There are a number of parent 

advocacy groups and free legal services 

groups that are capable of assisting parents 

and translating these regulations into their 

primary language. 

CDE’s Uniform Complaint Procedures have 

been in effect since 1991, and describe a joint 

process of state and local complaint resolution 

procedures for allegations of possible 

discrimination or violation of laws addressing 

specific federal or state funded programs to 

be resolved. Local complaint procedures exist 

for resolution of many additional issues. The 

proposed regulations do not remove a 

complainant’s right to appeal local agency 

decisions to the CDE or to present at local


CABE, at public hearing; Dale 

Mentink, Senior Attorney, on behalf of 


writing; Charles W. Bader, Director, 


COE; David Valladolid, Chair, Latino 

Policy Institute; Karen Cadiero- 

Kaplan, Sociopolitical Co-Chair, 

CATESOL; Magaly Lavadenz, 



Together; Cynthia Wilson, ESL/ELD 



Margarita Villareal, Fresno USD; Lani 

Hunt, Parent; Helen Scheidt, Fresno 


Teacher, Elizabeth Fralicks, Title III 

Resource Teacher, Fresno USD, in 

writing; Francisco Estrada, MALDEF 



LULAC; Karen Cadiero-Kaplan, 

Sociopolitical Co-Chair, CATESOL, 


Eve Sutton, Teacher, Palo Alto USD; 

Dr. Ann Berlak, San Francisco State 

University 

Commenter requests the proposed 

regulations be translated into the 

dominant languages spoken by the 

parents of public school children and 

that the proposed changes be made 

available to them for comment prior to 

action by the State Board. 

The MALDEF commenter states that 

the parents he spoke with regarding 

the proposed changes were outraged 

by the lack of ability to review these 

regulations and that they were not 

available in a language they could 

understand. MALDEF recommends 

withdrawing these regulations and 

only work towards Williams’s 

regulations and in full consultation 

with stakeholders. Parents outraged 

they were not able to comment on 

these given the time allowed. 

Recommend withdrawing regulations 

and then work only on the Williams 

regulations and in consultation with 

the stakeholders. 

Commenter asks the board to 

postpone this process. 

Commenter asks that board postpone 

the vote and vote no on all proposed 

changes that weaken or eliminate 

rights of individuals to file and pursue 

74 


Attachment 2 


board meetings as supported by law. CDE 


While CDE is mindful that there are large 

numbers of parents and guardians in 

California who are non or limited English 

speaking, translation (to other languages) of 

the proposed regulation document is not 

required by law or the Office of Administrative 

Law. It is CDE’s hope that parent advocacy 

groups, LEAs, and other organizations who 

have translation capabilities will volunteer 

their services and translate these regulations 

for interested parents, as needed. 


The existing regulations were adopted in 1991 

and have failed to keep current with existing 

state and federal laws and regulations. CDE 

will recommend amendments at the March 

SBE meeting. 

Please see response above. 

CDE believes these amended regulations 

provide adequate protection for all parties.

administrative complaints and 

appeals. 

Judy Cias, CSBA, at public hearing. Commenter states there seems to be 

a lack of understanding of the 

differences between “old” UCP and 

Williams. For example, there is not a 

possibility for direct state intervention 

for a Williams complaint, only a “old” 

UCP complaint. 

Sally Myles, Teacher Specialist, 

Glendale USD, in writing 

Williams complaints cannot be filed at 

the state level except for appeal of a 

facility complaint and then it is 

pursuant to statute. Commenter 

states with this confusion between 

Williams and “old” UCP complaints 

perhaps the Department should 

clarify in definitions in section 4600 

consider renumbering or establishing 

a separate article or chapter for the 

Williams complaints. 

Commenter requests clearly 

separating the two processes – the 

long-standing UCP process that 

applies only to complaints of 

discrimination and categorical 

programs and processes that apply 

only to the new Williams complaints 

so people understand the differences. 

Commenter states, “Educational 

Reform demands that teachers have 

the ability and procedures available to 

them to bring to light discriminatory 

practices that negatively affect their 

children.” Commenter is concerned 

75 


Attachment 2 


Williams complaints cannot be handled 

separately from the existing UCP process. 

Education Code 35186 specifically requires 

Williams complaints to use the UCP process 

but proscribes specific handling of such 

complaints unique and separate from the 

existing UCP process. 

CDE recognizes the need to clarify the regular 

UCP process for non-Williams complaints and 

Williams complaints and will amend the 

regulations to provide that clarification. 

Complaints of discrimination are subject to 

these regulations. As stated previously, there 

is no change in “access to core curriculum” in 

the proposed regulations. CDE recommends 

no change.


National Council of La Raza; 

Margarita Villareal, Fresno USD, in 

writing 




Parent and former complainant, in 

writing 

David W. Page, Chairman, DAC, San 

Diego USD, in writing 

about the “discriminatory nature itself 

of proposals that would limit a 

parent’s right to bring administrative 

complaints if his/her child does not 

have access to the core curriculum or 

that would curtail CDE’s duty to 

collect information and go on-site to 

review complaints.” 

Commenter states, “The role of the 

State Board of Education is to ensure 

that all students are provided a quality 

educational experience free of 

discrimination, and to encourage 

meaningful family involvement in the 

schools. It is unclear to us how the 

proposed rules would achieve these 

goals.” 

Commenter states that in the opinion 

of many people and groups, the 

proposed changes exceed the 

requirements of the Williams lawsuit 

and significantly reduce the rights of 

parents, students, teachers and other 

staff and community members to 

pursue administrative complaints and 

appeals. 

Commenter states if parents are to do 

their own legal homework, the 

document must be easily understood. 

Commenter suggests adding the 

Williams Case as an addendum, to 

separate the issues. Commenter 

asks, “What can be done to unify the 

process under one time line and 

recording process? How many former 

participants in the UCP process were 

76 


Attachment 2 


Complaints of discrimination are subject to 

these regulations and will continue to be 

subject to these regulations. 

UCP and Williams complaints are handled 

differently. CDE believes the new Williams 

provisions are consistent with the 

requirements of the Education Code 35186. 

The UCP process has been in existence since 

1991 and these amendments do not diminish 

the rights of complainants. CDE recommends 

no change. 

The regulatory development process involves 

the general public by design through their 

public comment. Education Code 35186 

requires Williams complaints to be handled 

through the UCP process. CDE will clarify the 

procedures for handling Williams complaints 

because they are not subject to the regular 

UCP procedures.


Martha Guzman, CRLA Foundation, 

in writing 

Dr. Princess Sykes, Evangelist, 

Parents International, “PABE” and 

Students “in and out of LAUSD”, at 

public hearing. 

involved in this draft? Insufficient 

stakeholder involvement?” 

Commenter requests to please table 

the adoption for a more evenly 

informed discussion that involves a 

diversity of representation. 

Commenter states regulations as 

proposed are inconsistent with the 

constitutional and statutory mandates 

that require the State ensure school 

districts are providing equal 

educational opportunity and 

complying with state and federal 

mandates. 

Commenter states she is concerned 

about parents who cannot read, and 

those that cannot read or see. She 

states parents (in general) have not 

been privileged with the opportunity to 

dissect all we have here to read; if not 

broke, don’t fix it. 

Commenter states she is speaking for 

all those in the Los Angeles area. 

Parents were not privy to these 

proposed regulations and if they 

were, they would have a lot to say 

about them. 

Commenter states parents are so 

disrespected. Have parents involved 

if you want to win. 

Parents were not given the 

77 


Attachment 2 


The state is still required to provide equal 

educational opportunity and comply with state 

and federal mandates and these amendments 

are consistent with state and federal 

mandates CDE recommends no change. 

Citations of what constitutes parent 

involvement from SB 550 (legislation that 

enacted the Williams case Settlement) on 

page 40 Item (F)(e) (1): 

“The parental involvement component shall 

contain a strategy to change the culture of the 

school community to recognize parents and 

guardians as partners in the education of their 

children and to prepare and educate parents 

and guardians in the learning and academic 

progress of their children. At minimum, this 

strategy shall include a commitment to 

develop a school-parent compact as required 

by Education Code Section 51101 and a plan 

to achieve the goal of maintaining or 

increasing the number and frequency of 

personal parent and guardian contacts each 

year at the school site and school-home 

communications designed to promote parent

Margarita Villlareal, Fresno USD, in 

writing 


Schools Coalition, in writing 

opportunity to consider these. She 

does not believe this is the goal of 

CDE to handicap parents, given the 

Williams Case Settlement and take 

away everything else. Parents want to 

be treated as equal and fair 

stakeholders. 

Commenter states she “often works 

with parents who feel they have not 

been heard by the administrator at 

their child’s school site. It is ashamed 

(sic) that some administrators do not 

attempt to listen and discuss with 

parents the issues that face their 

students. Sometimes parents have no 

other option but to find parent 

advocate groups that can antagonize 

not only the school site but will attend 

board meetings. Therefore the 

uniform complaint process is often the 

only one available to low-income, 

limited English proficient parents 

when their rights or the rights of their 

children are violated.” 

Commenter states although not the 

subject of this regulatory comment 

period, we urge the department to 

include the same language describing 

the scope of the prohibited forms of 

discrimination in all other relevant 

provisions of the regulations such as 

Section 4900, which is more up- todate 

than the current section 4610, 

but does not reflect the most recent 

78 


Attachment 2 


and guardian support for meeting state 

standards and core curriculum requirements. 

School plan options are detailed on page 41 

(A-F) as ideas for parental involvement. 

These proposed regulations were distributed 

for the 45-day comment period as prescribed 

by the State Office of Administrative Law. 


The UCP process remains available, and the 

new Williams process added by legislation 

last year gives parents additional rights. CDE 


See changes made in sections 4600 and 

4610. CDE is considering amending the 

Education Equity Regulations commencing 

with Section 4900 in the near future to reflect 

current statutes.

Francisco Estrada, MALDEF 



CADRE, at public hearing 

changes to Education Code sections 

200 and 220 and specifically 

recommends language for the 

sections which would read “any 

category identified under Education 

Code 200 and 220 and GC 11135 

including actual or perceived sex, 

sexual orientation, gender, ethnic 

group identification, race, ancestry, 

national origin, religion, color, or 

mental or physical disability or on the 

basis of association with a person or 

group with one or more of these 

characteristics. 

Commenter states MALDEF is 

concerned that CDE took a positive 

case, one that confirms parents’ 

rights and used it to change the UCP 

regulation and diminish parent rights. 

Commenter states he is concerned 

about CDE’s abdication of oversight 

of the public schools. 

Commenter states it is difficult for 

(other parents) to attend a hearing at 

9AM on a Tuesday. Pleased with 

Williams. 

She states, “There are significant 

barriers for parent involvement at all 

levels. There is preaching and 

marketing about parent involvement 

but it takes a turn when a parent has 

a complaint. There is a huge negative 

reaction when parents have 

complaints. You are about to gut 

79 


Attachment 2 


Parent rights are as established by law and 

have not been diminished by amendments to 

these regulations. The 45 day comment 

period and 15 day comment period for any 

substantive amendments gives the public, 

including parents, an opportunity to comment 

on the proposed changes. Parents’ rights 

have not been diminished. CDE recommends 

no change. 

The addition of coverage by the Williams 

complaints is in accordance with the Williams 

legislation. Parents have a right to file 

complaints in accordance with these 

regulations and LEA Board policy. Adverse 

reaction to complaints should not deter 

parents and parent advocates from filing such 

complaints. 

The amendments do not diminish the rights of 

parents or other complainants to file complaint 

and to have those complaints investigated 

and acted upon.

something (the UCP) that parents do 

not even know about in the first place. 

Parents that complain are brushed 

off, pushed aside, retaliated 

against…(CADRE) knows of parents 

who have been arrested for simply 

having complaints. 

UCP is important to CADRE’s 

mission. Expanding it, not diminishing 

it is what we need. CADRE formed for 

the primary purpose to be the 

infrastructure and the backing for 

parents to be the primary 

stakeholders that you so often say 

that they are, but they are not. At 

CADRE, we work daily with parents to 

develop their leadership and activism 

so that true parent involvement, one 

that involves working collectively to 

hold schools accountable, can 

actually occur. Williams adds a 

tremendous amount of leverage that 

parents are supposed to have but do 

not currently. 

The state logically agreed to use the 

UCP so it would have a system for 

enforcing Williams (the settlement) so 

it was not just on paper. We urge you 

to give full breath of potential to let 

UCP be all it can be. We are staring 

potential in the face for full 

engagement and democratic 

engagement and participation that we 

all say we want. 

80 


Attachment 2 


UCP is a process and procedure that provides 

the parties to the complaint with certain rights.

These complaints found in Williams 

are those that are always set aside. 

(Williams) gives potential for parents 

that have dignity and respect. Parents 

do not want to be ignored by school 

desk clerks any more. Parents filing 

complaints are seen as 

troublemakers rather than people with 

value. County and State will also be 

concerned. 

The UCP changes recommended 

would nullify the achievement of 

Williams. You state parents are 

primary stakeholders but they are not. 

Expanding rather than diminishing the 

UCP is what CADRE wants. Adding 

the response times and the 

accountability mechanisms of 

Williams adds tremendous leverage. 

Literally, schools do not want to hear 

from parents with complaints, 

especially when they are complaints 

of discrimination or about unfair 

treatments that brings to question the 

ethics of school personnel. 

Expanding, not diminishing, the UCP 

is what parents need, especially 

those we serve in South Los Angeles 

in CADRE. 

The Williams Notice needs to be 

clear. Should not be burden of 

parents to define what “you” want 

them to do. Schools on own accord 

will not come into compliance. 

81 


Attachment 2 


Jennifer Richard, on behalf of Senator 

Sheila Kuehl, at public hearing 

Jennifer Richard, on behalf of Senator 

Sheila Kuehl, at public hearing 

Martha Guzman, CRLA, at public 

hearing 

Williams is the only one that parents 

related to- we all want you to do it…. 

yes, it is a local mandate, but a 

victory for parents. 

No standard for how parents are 

treated and no requirement those 

principals listen. People will not do on 

their own. Without the strong 

provisions in UCP, Williams will just 

be something on paper that parents 

have to fight for day and night to live 

up to its expectations.” 

Commenter states, “Please keep in 

mind it is difficult for a student who is 

not allowed to attend the prom 

because they are part of a gay couple 

to wait 60 days to file a complaint with 

the state because 60 days will end 

before the prom is over. Also, 

Injunctive relief is difficult for students 

or parents to access.” 

Commenter states, “Thank you for 

updating gender definition.” 

Commenter states the complaint 

process, the UCP, is cherished by 

rural people; mostly non-English 

language speakers. Difficult when 

process becomes more onerous 

when English is not spoken by 

parents. For greater participation of 

parents, request these regulations be 

translated – because it is such an 

important process and the 

82 


Attachment 2 


This is a situation where the state may 

intervene if there is immediate and irreparable 

harm. 

No required response. 

Parents are provided information as provided 

by law. Commenter confuses the UCP and 

Williams processes. There is a whole process 

that CDE must follow administered by the 

Office of Administrative Law. CDE 


establishment of a working group to 

address the proposals from today. A 

time certain for participation by 

parents –either the 12 th or the 13 th , so 

parents don’t have an extra day off 

from work. Commenter requests 

posting of the information and time to 

meet. Commenter feels we do not 

need these new regulations except 

for complying with Williams 

Settlement. Commenter states she 

does not recommend adoption. She 

recommends staff be directed to 

prepare another draft- just Williams. 

She urges you to take some 

consideration of participation of 

parents, including translation, 

establishing a working group and a 

time extension. 

83 


Attachment 2 


COMMENTS RECEIVED 15-Day Comment Period from March 21 - April 4, 2005 

4600(e) “Complaint” 



Education (CABE); Magaly Lavadenz, 

President, CABE; Shelley Spiegel 


Together, submitted in writing 

Commenter states, “To ensure 

parents who are not English proficient 

receive assistance in filing a 

complaint, it is recommended that the 

words “or the inability to speak 

English” be added along with the 

conditions of “disability or illiteracy.” 

Subdivision 4600(e) states: 

“If the complainant is unable to put the 

complaint in writing, due to condition such 

as a disability or illiteracy, the public agency 

shall assist the complainant in the filing of 

the complaint.” 

It is not necessary or advisable to add the 

phrase suggested by the commenter as it is 

already implied in the current phrasing. 

Adding more specificity could create potential 

confusion regarding any circumstances 

omitted.

4600(h) 

Dale Mentink and Stephen 

Rosenbaum, Attorneys, Protection 

and Advocacy, Inc. 

Commenter states, “The Department 

misunderstands. PAI never 

mentioned ‘interagency agreement’ 

violations or concerns with the same 

in its initial set of comments. Rather, 

breach of interagency regulations by 

non-educational agencies was the 

concern and is the subject of 2 

California Code of Regulations 

§60560. Interagency disputes are 

resolved under Government Code 

§7585 and involve the Office of 

Administrative Hearings ultimately. 

PAI’s concern is that this amendment 

[as well as the amendment to the 

enforcement section, section 4670, 

see below] has the effect of 

preventing or at least discouraging 

students and parents from filing 

complaints against county mental 

health agencies or CCS under the 

UCP with the CDE for mental health’s 

or CCS’s breach of Title 2 regulations 

as they relate to individual children. 

Title 2 California Code of Regulations 

section 60560 requires only an 

allegation of failure of, for example, a 

mental health agency to comply with 

“these regulations,” i.e., Title 2 

California Code of Regulations. 

sections 60000-60610. There is no 

counter-part complaint process and 

investigatory division or unit, for 

example, at the Department of Mental 

84 



Attachment 2 


These Government Code sections referenced 

by commenter define the required interagency 

agreements between the State 

Superintendent of Public Instruction and the 

Secretary of Health and Welfare Services. 

These agreements require both agencies to 

coordinate the provision of services for 

students receiving special education 

programs and services. The Government 

Code requires unresolved disputes between 

two agencies to be resolved by the Office of 

Administrative Law. Referenced Government 

Code further clarifies CDE has no jurisdiction 

over agencies other than local education 

agencies. California Government Code 

Section 7586(d) states: 

”No public agency, state or local, may 

request a due process hearing pursuant to 

Section 56501 of the Education Code 

against another public agency.” 

CDE may only address educational agencies 

and therefore recommends no change to the 

proposed definition. 

Note: Please see page 134, where upon 

further discussion, CDE recommends 


4600(n) “Good repair” 


Class, John T. Affeldt, Jenny 









Health which has any authority over 

counties. The CDE should contact 

Zoey Todd, at DMH [916-651-2024], 

and ask her whether she has UCPtype 

compliance complaint 

investigatory authority over county 

mental health agencies. A county 

mental health agency could breach 

one or more of the various time lines 

in section 60045 regarding 

assessments, for example. Such a 

complaint need not go through an 

evidentiary due process hearing and 

would likely be rejected by that 

system and referred to the UCP 

process under 2 California Code of 

Regulations 60560. An evidentiary 

hearing is not required to compare 

the date on the referral packet and 

the date on the responsive assessment 

plan cover letter and count to 

15. We repeat our recommendation to 

remove ‘educational’ from section 

4600(h).” 

“In our written comments submitted 

on January 4, 2005, we explained 

that ‘[t]he definition for ‘good repair’ 

should not be limited to the interim 

definition but should incorporate the 

ultimate definition to be developed by 

the State as called for by SB 550. 

Accordingly, we suggested the 

following language be added to the 

definition: ‘The definition of ‘good 

85 


Attachment 2 


The definition of 4600(n) “Good repair” has 

been amended to accurately reflect the 

citation as noted by commenter.



Hector O. Villagra, MALDEF. 

repair’ determined pursuant to the 

interim evaluation instrument shall be 

superseded by the definition adopted 

by statute by September 1, 2006 in 

accord with California Education 

Code § 14501(d)(2).’ This suggested 

sentence included a typo. We 

intended to reference Calif. Education 

Code § 17002(d)(2), not § 14501(d) 

(2.)). The revised definition now refers 

to ‘Education Code 17002,’ but still 

does not account for the fact that the 

interim evaluation instrument shall be 

superseded as the definition of ‘good 

repair’ in less than 18 months. The 

sentence we suggested above, with 

the reference to California Education 

Code § 17002(d)(2) should be 

added.“ 

4000(q) 

Staff Technical Change Add “direct-funded charters” to the 

definition of “local educational 

4621(a) 







agency” 

“A date certain should be given to 

school districts and County Offices of 

Education as to when they need to 

submit their policies and procedures 

to the local governing board for 

adoption. It is recommended that the 

one year date be kept in place and 

that the districts forward a copy of 

their policies to the State 

Superintendent.” 

86 


Attachment 2 


Required per statute. CDE recommends 

change. 

CDE maintains a UCP policy review process 

of all school districts through the Coordinated 

Compliance Review (CCR). 


4622 

Technical Change per CDE staff Add phrase “appropriate private 

school officials or representatives “ to 

the list of parties noticed annually of 

4630 (also 4650) 

Dr. M. Norma Martinez-Palmer, 

Director for Bilingual Education in San 

Jose Unified School District; Marcia 

Vargas, Director, 2-Way CABE, an 

affiliate of the California Association 

for Bilingual Education; Jose 

Sanchez, Policy Chairperson, The 

Student Empowerment Project 

(StEP); Soung Bae, Teacher; Miriam 

Warren, Bilingual Second Grade 

Teacher and President of 

CABE-PODER, the Hayward 

Chapter; Emma L. Lerew, Director of 

ELL Programs and Services, 

Hayward Unified School District and 

Administrator, CABE- PODER, the 

Hayward Chapter; Catherine Gray, 

Resource Specialist, Title III, Fresno 

Unified School District; Lorena 

Morales-Ellis, Bilingual Educator and 

Parent; Michelle Siprut de Ibarra, 

Teacher 

Cynthia Rice, Luis Angel Alejo, 

California Rural Legal Assistance, 

Inc; Martha Guzman, California Rural 

Legal Assistance Foundation 

the UPC. 

Commenter is opposed to adoption of 

the proposed regulations as “they 

dramatically reduce the rights of 


staff by eliminating the right to 

request direct intervention by CDE for 

complaints alleging discrimination 

where the complaints (sic) believe 

they will suffer immediate loss of 

some benefit.” 

Commenter states this section 

“continues to eliminate the option of 

filing a direct complaint with the state 

even if complaint claims 

discrimination and can show 

immediate loss of an educational 

benefit.” 

87 


Attachment 2 


Chapter 34 CFR 299.11(d) mandates this 

change. 

Please see previous response. CDE 


The regulations state the opposite under the 

subdivision dealing with direct state 

intervention. 


4630(a) 














Commenter writes, “The introductory 

clause in Subsection 4630(a) is 

convoluted and confusing. It also 

limits ‘hybrid’ complaints to Williams 

complaints that also involve 

discrimination, excluding potential 

hybrid Williams complaints that may 

overlap with an allegation of a 

deficiency under a categorical 

program (e.g., involving English 

Learners). To clarify that Section 

4630’s procedures and timelines do 

not generally apply to complaints filed 

under Sections 4680 – 4687, and yet 

acknowledge that both sets of 

procedures may apply to a complaint 

that alleges discrimination or a 

categorical program violation and 

involves Williams issues, Subsection 

4630(a) should be revised to read as 

follows: 

Any individual, public agency, or 

organization may file a written 

complaint with the district 

superintendent or his or her designee, 

alleging a matter which, if true, would 

constitute a violation by that local 

educational agency of federal or state 

law or regulation governing a program 

listed in Section 4610(b) of this 

Chapter. Complaints regarding 

instructional materials, teacher 

vacancies and misassignments, and 

school facilities, must be filed and 

88 


Attachment 2 


The language proposed by commenter would 

add additional appeal processes on every 

Williams complaint. This process would 

conflict with Education Code 35186. CDE will 

continue to separate “hybrid complaints” and 


4630(b)(2) 

Cynthia Rice, Luis Angel Alejo, California 

Rural Legal Assistance, Inc; 

Martha Guzman, California Rural 


processed in accordance with 

Sections 4680 – 4687 if they do not 

involve allegations of discrimination or 

allegations of violations under a 

program listed in Section 4610(b). If a 

complaint alleges allegations that 

concern instructional materials, 

teacher vacancies and 

misassignments, and school facilities 

under Sections 4680—4687 and also 

alleges discrimination or a violation of 

a program under 4610(b), both sets of 

procedures governing both types of 

complaints must be followed.” 

Commenter also states “A similar edit 

should be incorporated into Section 

4631(a).” 

“This independent review by the 

Department is eliminated by the 

proposed amendments including the 

ability to file with the Department in 

cases where direct intervention is 

requested.” 

4631 

John T. Affeldt, Public Advocates, Inc. Public Advocates, Inc. identifies the 

following additional provisions which 

are also in need of amendment to 

adequately serve the purposes of the 

UCP, of educational equity and antidiscrimination: 

“Subsection (b). Complainants should 

have the ability to examine the LEA’s 

witnesses, where appropriate, 

89 


Attachment 2 


The basis for direct state intervention is 

covered in Section 4650. CDE recommends 

no change. 

As recommended for Subsection (b): 

This process is not specified in any of the 

laws governing the UCP. CDE recommends 

no change. 

As recommended for Subsection (d): 

Again, there is no such process described in 

law. Accepting this recommendation would 

impose an unfounded mandate on the LEAS.

ecause LEA’s typically have access 

to the most critical information 

regarding a complaint. The proposed 

amendment eliminates even the 

possibility that a complainant may 

examine the LEA’s witnesses. By 

placing the entire burden on the 

complainant to justify his or her 

complaint and then eliminating the 

ability to examine witnesses (and 

later reviewing for only substantial 

evidence) the proposed regulations 

set up a complaint system heavily 

weighted against complainants. If the 

proposed language is intended to 

allow for the possibility that the 

investigator may “have the parties 

meet and question witnesses,” as the 

comments in the Update of Initial 

Statement of Reasons suggests (see 

p.27), the current language is hardly 

clear on that possibility. The stricken 

language should be restored and 

amended to clearly allow complainants 

to confront the LEA’s witnesses. 

Subsection (d). This provision is too 

narrow in that it limits the imposition 

of a sanction for an LEA’s noncooperation 

to cases where such a 

finding and remedy is “based on 

evidence collected.” A range of 

possible sanctions should be 

available when LEAs limit discovery 

unduly, up to and including a public 

censure, an order for disclosure of 

documents, an adverse finding on 

90 



Attachment 2 


4631(d), 4632(b), 4632(e), 4633(b) 





specific issues, a finding of liability on 

the merits and/or a withholding of 

funds. Without providing for such a 

range of potential sanctions, LEAs 

that control all the critical information 

in a case may find it in their interest 

not to cooperate with damaging 

aspects of an investigation in order to 

delay the investigation or prevent any 

type of finding on the merits. The prior 

(now stricken) language of Section 

4663(b) allowing for ‘official 

applicable sanctions’ against a noncooperating 

LEA is a sensible 

approach. Such language should be 

inserted here. Though the responses 

to comments in the Update to Initial 

Statement of Reasons state that CDE 

will do what is necessary to obtain an 

LEA’s cooperation and obtain 

relevant evidence (e.g., p. 49), the 

regulations as written fail to convey 

that notion.” 

“The entire nature of the complaint 

process is skewed by placing 

additional burdens on the 

complaining parent, who cannot 

afford an attorney and are 

unsophisticated. New requirements 

are imposed on the complainant to 

articulate how the facts are incorrect 

and/or the law is misapplied to the 

appeal (4632(b)). 

A complainant may not submit new 

91 


Attachment 2 


These revised sections do not place new 

burdens on people filing complaints, but do 

attempt to clarify what basic information is 

required in order for the LEA, and the CDE, to 

begin the investigation. These revisions will 

not require the complainant to research the 

law and/or conduct their own investigation. 

The revisions simply spell out what specific 

information is necessary to explain the wrong 

the complainant believes needs to be 

corrected.

evidence on appeal unless 

requested by the Department. 

(4633(b). If a complainant fails to 

adequately articulate a violation in 

her complaint, but raises it in appeal, 

the Department must refer it back to 

the School District for investigation 

(4631(d)). If the parent raises the 

issue, but the School District fails to 

address it in its decision, the 

Department must refer it back to the 

School District (4632(e)). If the 

decision is not supported by 

appropriate findings and conclusions 

the Department may refer it back to 

the school district for further action 

(4633(f)).” 

“Other proposed modifications 

diminish the likelihood that a full and 

independent investigation will occur. 

The proposed regulations eliminate 

any sanctions for a District’s failure 

to cooperate other than a finding of 

non-compliance, which must, 

nonetheless, be independently 

supported by substantial evidence 

based on facts submitted by 

complainant 4631(d). Although 

School Districts retain the right the 

seek extensions, the proposed 

regulation eliminates any extension 

of time to file an appeal for good 

cause (4632(a)).” 

92 


Attachment 2 


The various requirements for returning all or 

part of the appeal to the LEA is required in 

order to keep the responsibility for 

investigating and resolving the complaint with 

the LEA which is responsible for ensuring that 

educational programs are carried out in a 

lawful manner. 

4632(b) Response: 

Federal regulatory language requires 

complainants file a written signed complaint 

that includes “a statement that the agency 

violated a requirement of a Federal Statute or 

regulation that applies to an applicable 

program; and the facts on which the 

statement is based and the specific 

requirement allegedly violated” is from the 

federal code of regulations governing the UCP 

process. (34 CFR 299.10 (a)(1)). 

4632(d), 4632(e) and 4633(d) Response: 

Processes proposed by these regulations 

comply with federal and state law and 

regulations. The LEA has the primary 

responsibility for demonstrating and 

maintaining compliance with the law. 

4632(a) Response: 

Section 4650(5) describes direct state 

intervention when ”no action has been 

taken by the LEA within 60 calendar 

days.” 


4632 (former 4652(a) 














“In our previous comments, we 

recommended that the proposed 

regulations not delete the following 

provision, ‘Extensions for filing 

appeals may be granted, in writing, 

for good cause.’ 

CDE’s response was that ‘such an 

extension’ is not described by any 

federal or state law, or regulation. 

This misses the point. Flexibility 

should be allowed, to be used with 

discretion, so unforeseen 

circumstances will not prevent justice 

from being served. We strongly 

recommend that the provision be 

added back in. 

Subsection (e). This provision allows 

the Department to remand an appeal 

back to the local educational agency 

if it determines that the Decision 

failed to address any issue raised by 

the complaint. Because facilities 

complaint appeals concern alleged 

emergency threats to health and 

safety, LEAs should not receive 

substantial additional time to resolve 

a complaint. The 20 day limit added 

after we submitted our previous 

comments is an improvement over 

the original proposal, but it still allows 

LEAs too much time. The additional 

days provide an incentive for an LEA 

93 


Attachment 2 


Subdivision (e) Response: 

A complaint regarding an urgent facility issue 

as described should be addressed under the 

Williams Complaint procedures. Those 

procedures are described in subdivisions 

4680 – 4687. 


4632 (also 4633(b), 4663) 











Teacher and President of CABE- 

PODER, the Hayward Chapter; 

Emma L. Lerew, Director of ELL 

to avoid addressing all issues in a 

complaint in order to invite a remand 

and buy more time. This simply 

builds 20 more days into an LEA’s 

timeline for responding to emergency 

complaints. LEAs should be required 

to address the remanded issue within 

10 days. 

This subsection also fails to designate 

when the LEA should notify the 

complainant and the Department of 

its response, and how much time 

complainants shall have to appeal or 

otherwise respond. LEAs should be 

required to notify the complainant and 

the Department of its response within 

5 days after it addresses the 

remanded issue. Complainants 

should then be provided 10 days to 

appeal or otherwise respond.” 





staff by imposing new burdens on 

complaints (sic), many of whom are 

low-income parents and students who 

cannot afford an attorney, to 

essentially conduct their own 

investigation, provide evidence and 

demonstrate how school district is 

factually or legally incorrect.” 

94 




Attachment 2 


Programs and Services, Hayward 

Unified School District and 

Administrator, CABE- PODER 

Hayward Chapter; Catherine Gray, 

Resource Specialist, Title III, Fresno 

Unified School District; Lorena 



Teacher 

4633 (f), (g), (h)(1) 














“(f). As with Subsection 4632(e) 

above, if the Department determines 

that a decision — particularly one 

regarding an emergency facility 

condition that poses a threat to 

health and safety — lacks adequate 

findings of facts or conclusions of 

law, only an explicit, limited amount 

of time should be permitted for the 

LEA to correct its error. The LEA 

should be permitted no more than 10 

days to correct its deficient decision, 

should be required to notify the 

complainant within 5 days thereafter, 

and the complainant should be 

allowed an additional 10 days to 

respond to the modified decision. 

Subsection (g). Consistent with the 

most-recent revisions made to 

Subsections (d) and (e) to 

distinguish between Department 

reviews of factual findings and legal 

conclusions, proposed subsection 

(g) should be amended to read as 

95 


Attachment 2 


Subdivision (f) Response: 

State or Federal law or regulations do not 

require a 10-day resolution period for non- 

Williams complaints. Descriptions of how 

complaints regarding emergency facility 

conditions are addressed are covered in 

subdivisions 4680 – 4687. 

Subdivision (g) Response: 

CDE accepts this request and recommends 

restating (g): 

If the Department finds that the Decision is 

supported by substantial evidence, and 

that the legal conclusions are not contrary 

to law, the appeal shall be denied. 

And (e): 

“The Department shall review the 

conclusions of law which are the subject of 

the appeal and determine whether they are 

correct.” 

Subdivision (h)(1) Response: 

California Education Code Section 260 states: 

“The governing board of a school district 

shall have the primary responsibility for

follows: “(g) If the Department finds 

that the Decision is supported by 

substantial evidence and that the 

legal conclusions are not contrary to 

law, the appeal shall be denied.” The 

CDE Update of Initial Statement of 

Reasons stated that the CDE will 

amend this section to reflect that the 

conclusions of law are to be 

reviewed de novo. The failure to do 

so appears to be a technical error. 

Subsection (h)(1). If the Department 

determines that an appeal has merit, 

there should be no reason to remand 

it back to the local educational 

agency. Of the two bases given for 

doing such in this provision, the first 

— a lack of substantial evidence — 

is redundant with Subsection (f) of 

this section and unnecessary here. 

The second — a procedural defect 

— should only be a basis for remand 

if the defect is one of the bases for 

appeal or if it prevents the 

Department from reaching an 

ultimate determination on the merits. 

If the Department is able to 

determine the appeal has merit and 

corrective action is required, such 

action should not be delayed based 

on a non-prejudicial procedural 

defect. As with Subsection (f) in this 

section, any remand for procedural 

defects should be limited to short, 

specified timeframes.” 

96 


Attachment 2 


ensuring that school district programs and 

activities are free from discrimination based 

on ethnic group identification, age, sex, 

color, or physical or mental disability, and 

for monitoring compliance with any and all 

rules and regulations promulgated pursuant 

to Section 11138 of the Government Code.”

4633(a)(d)(g)(h) 











“Current regulation allows CDE to 


of allegations in a complaint. The 

proposed (g) states that CDE can 

deny an appeal based solely on 

‘substantial evidence’ (the file 

submitted to CDE by the 

school/district). The ability for CDE to 


has been eliminated. It is recommended 

that CDE be allowed to 

conduct an independent investigation. 

This section specifies the process the 

Department must adhere to if the 

Department agrees to the appeal of 

an LEA decision. Timelines are not 

provided in these subsections and 

timelines should be required in order 

for a timely implementation of the 

process.” 

“The regulations deliver the final blow 

to any meaningful oversight or 

investigation by eliminating the 

independent judgment of the 

Department investigator or reviewer 

and requiring that the district decision 

be upheld if it is supported by 

substantial evidence. In essence this 

means that if a district investigated a 

complaint against the principal of a 

school and the principal denies the 

allegations, and the district denies the 

complaint basing its findings and 

conclusions on the statement of the 

97 


Attachment 2 


The ability for CDE to conduct an independent 

investigation has not been eliminated. CDE 

has the opportunity to conduct an 

independent investigation when CDE believes 

it is warranted based upon the evidence. 


Please see previous response 

The independent judgment of the CDE 

investigator will determine the type of 

investigation needed based upon the 

evidence. 

It is not warranted or cost-effective for the 

state to conduct an on-site investigation for 

each and every appeal received. 






principal, the Department must deny 

the appeal. The Department may, but 

need not, interview the complainant, 

the principal or other staff when 

reviewing this decision. (4633(c)).” 

“The Department can make findings 

solely on the file submitted on appeal 

without any independent investigation 

(proposed 4633(g)). All of our recent 

cases have included independent 

investigation through the UCP and all 

have derived new facts that have 

provided the Department with 

sufficient evidence to direct the 

necessary corrective actions. Such a 

standard may be appropriate in some 

circumstances where the first level 

administrative hearings are 

adversarial, evidence is obtained 

under oath and production of 

witnesses and documents may be 

compelled through subpoena. 

However, those guarantees are not 

provided to complainants who submit 

their complaints to the local school 

district. Application of the substantial 

evidence test under these 

circumstances is completely 

inconsistent with the protections 

afforded an individual attempting to 

enforce a fundamental right, such as 

the right to education. A substantial 

evidence review is also inconsistent 

with the State’s ultimate responsibility 

for ensuring that all children receive 

equal educational opportunity.” 

98 


Attachment 2 


CFR 299.10(a)(3) states a state educational 

agency shall adopt written procedures for 

receiving and resolving any complaint that an 

agency is violating a federal statute or 

regulation by “conducting an independent onsite 

investigation of a complaint if the SEA 

determines that an on-site investigation is 

necessary.” 


4640 

John T. Affeldt, Public Advocates, Inc. “Because many complainants 

mistakenly file first with the State 

rather than with the LEA, language 

should be added to make clear that 

statute of limitations timelines, e.g., 

the six-month limitation on 

discrimination claims, as well as LEA 

investigation and resolution 

timelines, are tolled pending receipt 

of the complaint by the LEA.” 

4650(a)(1) 

John T. Affeldt, Public Advocates, Inc “The revised regulations eliminate 

the following language which 

describes a condition for direct State 

intervention in a complaint: ‘to 

otherwise prevent the complainant 

from presenting evidence to support 

the allegations in the complaint.’ 

There does not appear to be any 

justification for this elimination. The 

circumstance described is a valid 

reason for permitting direct State 

intervention and should be retained.” 

4650(a)(5) 





Commenter writes, “Prior to State 

intervention, the Department shall 

attempt to work with the local agency 

to allow it to complete the 

investigation if it has taken no action 

after 60 days (Proposed 4650(a)(5)). 

Hence, even after an (sic) local 

agency has proven to be 

99 


Attachment 2 


Timelines are in effect regardless of the 

circumstances. 


This process as described in “Responsibilities 

of the Local Educational Agency” subdivision 

4631(b), was redundant and therefore 

removed. 


4650(a)(5) states ”The complainant alleges 

and the Department verifies that through no 

fault of the complainant, no action has been 

taken by the local educational agency to allow 

it to complete the investigation and issue a 

Decision.” 

If the LEA has not acted, it is in the best 

interest of all to have them begin an

4650(a)(6) and (7) 

Laura Faer, Attorney, Public Counsel 

Law Center 




disinterested in addressing the issue, 

the Department will continue to 

provide the agency assistance 

instead of responding directly to the 

complainant.” 

“We are writing in support of the 

comments put forth by Protection and 

Advocacy, Inc. and to add one 

additional comment for consideration. 

Specifically, as it relates to Section 

4650(a)(6) and (7) subdivision (7) 

should be deleted and changed to (a). 

Accordingly, proposed subdivision 

(a)(7)(A) should become (a)(6)(B), 

etc.” 

“It appears the Department intended 

to provide a list of complaints relating 

to special education which would 

require direct state department 

intervention in section 4650(a)(6), and 

these are listed as subsections (A) 

through (E). However, the 

Department has identified the first 

such item on that list as a new 

subdivision (7) rather than (A). 

Subdivision (7) should be deleted and 

changed to (A). Proposed subdivision 

(a)(7)(A) would become (a)(6)(B); 

proposed subdivision (a)(6)(B) would 

become (a)(6)(C), and so on.” 

100 


Attachment 2 


investigation and hopefully resolve the issue. 


Agreed, this was a typographical error. 

CDE corrected the error. 

Agreed, this was a typographical error. 

CDE corrected the error. 

4650(a)(7) 

Cynthia Rice, Luis Angel Alejo, Cali- “In addition, if the complainant is the Agreed, was a typographical error requiring

fornia Rural Legal Assistance, Inc; 



4650(b) 






Law Center 

parent of a special education child, 

they will have to present how their 

‘immediate and irreparable harm as a 

result of a district-wide policy’ that is 

in conflict with state or federal law 

(proposed 4650(a)(7).” 

“Additional burdens also placed on 

the complaining parent when filing 

directly since a complainant must now 

present the Department with ‘clear 

and verifiable evidence’ that supports 

the basis for direct filing (proposed 

4650(b)).” 

“In addition, Section 4650(b) appears 

to impose an untenable burden on 

petitioners who have filed complaints 

because the local education agency 

has refused to provide the 

appropriate information, and because 

they are unable to discern, without an 

investigation, why such required 

actions have not been performed. For 

low-income complainants who have 

few resources and little access to 

information or legal counsel, the 

requirement that evidence presented 

be ‘clear ‘ and ‘verifiable’ in the first 

instance is likely to cause many of 

such complainants with valid claims 

to forfeit their rights. In sum, in cases 

where a violation has occurred but 

complainant is unable to acquire the 

necessary evidence from the local 

education agency without the 

intervention of the state, this provision 

101 

re-numbering. 

Please see previous responses. 



Attachment 2 


is likely to be prohibitive. The second 

sentence of Section 4650(b) 

beginning with ‘The complainant’ and 

ending with ‘as in subdivision (a)(5)’ 

should be deleted.” 

4650(a)(7) 

John T. Affeldt, Public Advocates, Inc “The revised regulations add in, as a 

basis for direct State intervention, 

the allegation that an individual 

would suffer immediate and 

irreparable harm and that filing a 

complaint with an LEA would be 

futile. This addition is warranted. 

However, it should not be limited to 

instances where ‘a district-wide 

policy’ is present. If immediate and 

irreparable harm are at stake due to 

a violation of applicable state or 

federal law, the Department should 

consider engaging in direct State 

intervention. Whether the harm is 

generated by a district-wide policy or 

an individual-specific policy is 

irrelevant and should not be one of 

the Department’s criteria for direct 

State intervention in this subsection.” 

4660(a) 





Commenter writes, “The extreme 

limits on the direct complaint 

processes are matched by 

amendments that limit the 

Department’s review of appeals of 

the School District’s decision. 

Currently the Department has an 

102 


Attachment 2 


If the violation of state or federal law occurs 

as the result of an action of an individual in 

the LEA and not a district-wide policy, it is 

likely that the LEA will correct the situation 

once they are made aware of the problem via 

the complaint. If the violation is a district-wide 

policy, the chances that the LEA will correct 

the problem are slim, and therefore direct 

state intervention is appropriate. 

This issue may still be covered by subdivision 

(b). 

CDE’s experience is that a district-wide policy 

could be the basis for justifying direct state 

intervention. 


CDE will continue to carefully review every 

appeal that is received. 


obligation to independently 

investigate the complaint once it is 

appealed. 

These mandates provide important 

protections to unsophisticated 

parents who are normally not 

represented by an attorney during 

this complaint process. A parent is 

not likely to know what reports are 

generated by a school that may 

support their claims. They have no 

means of insisting that school staff 

speak to them about allegations 

contained in their complaint. While 

the informal complaint process 

through the School District may 

present the opportunity to resolve a 

mistake or correct the behavior of an 

aberrant staff member, evidence 

supporting allegations of 

malfeasance is not likely to be 

uncovered through voluntary 

compliance and self investigation by 

the very district against whom the 

complaint is made. 

The independent review by the 

Department is eliminated by the 

proposed amendments including the 

ability to file with the Department in 

cases where direct intervention is 

requested (4630(b)(2).” 

103 


Attachment 2 


4660(a)(1) 

John T. Affeldt, Public Advocates, Inc “The discretion given the Department 

to determine whether an onsite 

investigation ‘is necessary’ 

under this section is too broad and 

standard-less. On-site investigations 

by the Department should be the 

norm when the Department has 

determined that direct State 

intervention is warranted. In such 

cases, the Department should not 

rely exclusively on what a parent 

complainant can produce by way of 

documentation or on what an LEA 

may be willing to provide. At most, 

the section should be amended to 

provide that an on-site investigation 

need not take place only in cases 

where the Department affirmatively 

determines that an investigation 

would be futile to resolve the 

complaint.” 

4660(a)(3) (and 4662) 





“Even if a direct complaint is 

accepted, the proposed regulations 

do not even require that the 

Department do an on-site 

investigation unless it is deemed 

necessary. All references to ‘on-site’ 

have also been eliminated in Section 

4662. In addition, the requirement 

that the complainant, agency 

administrators, staff, related 


104 

Please see previous response. 


Attachment 2 


CFR 299.10(a)(3) states that a state 

educational agency (SEA) shall adopt written 

procedures for receiving and resolving any 

complaint that an agency is violating a federal 

statute or regulation by “conducting an 

independent on-site investigation of a 

complaint if the SEA determines that an onsite 

investigation is necessary.” 

To perform an onsite investigation each and 

every time a complaint is received would be 

an inefficient use of public funds. 


It is not cost-effective or necessary to always 

conduct an on-site investigation to determine 

resolution of an appeal. CDE will determine 

the appropriate type of investigation. 


4660 and 4663 







4660 (see also 4662, 4663 4650(b)) 





been eliminated. The current 


proposed regulation and replaced by 

a requirement that the complainant 

be provided only an opportunity to 

present evidence (proposed section 

4663(b)). There is no indication that 

there has been abuse of the direct 

complaint process which would 

justify limiting access in this 

manner.” 

“These sections outline the process 

the Department must adhere to with 

regards to state investigation 

procedures. The Department may 

conduct an on-site investigation if 

necessary into the allegations of a 

complaint. At this point in the process 

unresolved complaints are of the 

most egregious kinds (a complainant 

suffering from immediate and 

irreparable harm, failure of an LEA or 

public agency to comply with due 

process procedures required by the 

federal government, a child or group 

of children may be in immediate 

physical danger, etc). An on-site 

investigation should be required in 

both of these sections.” 



105 






Attachment 2 















Administrator, CABE- Poder Hayward 

Chapter; Catherine Gray, Resource 

Specialist, Title III, Fresno Unified 

School District; Lorena Morales-Ellis, 

Bilingual Educator and Parent; 

Michelle Siprut de Ibarra, Teacher 

4661 






staff by eliminating the mandate for 

the CDE to conduct an independent 

on-site review.” 

“We repeat our request that the 

Department restore Section 4661 

which preserves the option of 

mediation of complaints. Mediations 

could involve less state resources 

than on-site investigations, interviews, 

document reviews, and preparation of 

decisions and corrective actions and 

add the advantage of party buy-in to 

the resolution of the dispute. A 

mutually arrived at resolution will also 

reduce the number of requests for 

reconsideration of decisions and also 

reduce the number of necessary 

enforcement actions by the 

Department of decisions unilaterally 

106 


Attachment 2 


Please see previous response. The use of 

mediation continues to be allowed under 

these proposed regulations. CDE 


4662(b) 
















Administrator, CABE- Poder Hayward 

Chapter; Catherine Gray, Resource 

Specialist, Title III, Fresno Unified 

School District; Lorena Morales-Ellis, 

Bilingual Educator and Parent; 

Michelle Siprut de Ibarra, Teacher. 

4663 





imposed.” 





staff by allowing the CDE to extend its 

time to complete its investigation or 

report where no exceptional 

circumstances exist.” 

“If the Department determines that a 

violation has occurred, it must notify 

the district that it must take corrective 

actions. However, the delay of 

another 60 days to mail the report 

from the conclusion of the 

investigation is simply an 

unnecessary delay that will further 

defer needed corrective action. In all 

107 




Attachment 2 


This time period is determined to be 

reasonable per Federal regulation. CDE 


cases that CRLA has assisted 

parents in filing through the UCP, 

none have exhausted the existing 60day 

limit for both completion and 

notification. The 60 days are already 

a burden on the student’s educational 

benefit. Therefore, there is no reason 

to further delay the much needed 

corrective actions.” 

4663 

John T. Affeldt, Public Advocates, Inc “Subsection (a). The proposed 

amendments make it less clear that 

the investigator should affirmatively 

interview individuals from the local 

educational agency, the 

complainant(s), and any other 

involved person. (It is not clear what 

the phrase ‘The investigator(s) shall 

request other evidence’ covers.) The 

full and fair implementation of these 

complaint procedures is not served by 

the obfuscation and the original 

language in this subsection should be 

restored. 

Subsection (d). This provision is too 

narrow in that it limits the imposition 

of a sanction for an LEA’s noncooperation 

to cases where such a 

finding and remedy is ‘based on 

evidence collected’. A range of 

possible sanctions should be 

available when LEAs limit discovery 

unduly, up to and including a public 

censure, an order for disclosure of 

documents, an adverse finding on 

specific issues, a finding of liability on 

108 


Attachment 2 



Please also see 4664(a)(6), (a)(7), and (a)(8). 

Subsection (a) Response: 

CDE makes the determination of how the 

investigation will be conducted, who needs to 

be included or interviewed and obtains the 

evidence necessary to determine and resolve 

any findings. 

Subsection (d) Response: 

As described in Subdivision 4670 of these 

regulations, “Enforcement” of corrective action 

required for a violation of these regulations 

may range from withholding funds to court 

proceedings and a reporting to the Attorney 

General. 


.

4664(b) and (c) 




the merits and/or a withholding of 

funds. Without providing for such a 

range of potential sanctions, LEAs 

that control all the critical information 

in a case may find it in their interest 

not to cooperate with damaging 

aspects of an investigation in order to 

delay the investigation or prevent any 

type of finding on the merits. The prior 

(now stricken) language of Section 

4663(b) allowing for ‘official 

applicable sanctions’ against a noncooperating 

LEA is a sensible 

approach. Such language should be 

inserted here. Though the responses 

to comments in the Update to Initial 

Statement of Reasons state that 

‘CDE will do what is necessary to 

obtain an LEA’s cooperation and 

obtain relevant evidence’ (e.g., p. 49), 

the regulations as written fail to 

convey that notion.” 

“PAI has reviewed the CDE’s 

response to PAI’s earlier comment on 

these subsections on the website. It is 

true that nothing in these regulations 

prevents special education 

compliance complaints from being 

addressed within 60 days. Nothing in 

these regulations prevents special 

education compliance complaints 

from being addressed in one day 

either. The problem is that the 

proposed amendments to the 

109 


Attachment 2 


The federal regulations governing Special 

Education programs require response within 

60 days. 

Federal regulations supercede state 

regulations. 



Law Center 

regulations now authorize the CDE to 

address special education 

compliance complaints in 120 days 

from the date of filing to receipt of the 

CDE’s decision. The Department 

cannot delete section 4664(c) and 

add section 4664(b) and thereby, in 

combination with section 4662(b), 

extend the timeline for resolution of a 

direct state intervention special 

education complaints from 60 days to 

120 days. The Education Code 

identifies the UCP complaint 

procedure as California’s 

implementation of the federal law 

which requires a 60-day complaint 

resolution procedure from filing to 

receipt of the Department’s decision. 

See California Education Code 

section 56500.2 and Title 34 Code of 

Federal Regulations section 

300.661(a)(1)&(4). By refusing to 

adopt Protection & Advocacy’s initial 

comment on this unlawful change, the 

Department exposes itself to legal 

actions and findings of 

noncompliance by the U.S. 

Department of Education and risks 

continued receipt of federal financial 

assistance. Please delete section 

4664(b) and restore section 4664(c) 

as they related to special education 

complaints.” 

“California Education Code identifies 

the UCP complaint procedures as 

110 

Please see previous response. 


Attachment 2 


4670 




California’s implementation of federal 

law, which requires a 60-day 

complaint resolution procedure. See 

California Education Code Section 

56500.2 and CFR Sections 

400.661(a)(1) and 4. It is 

impermissible for the Department to 

extend the 60-day timeline to 120 

days. Section 4664(b) must be 

deleted and section 4664(c) should 

be undeleted. The Department’s 

response to the concerns raised 

previously by Protection and 

Advocacy is insufficient.” 

“Again, it was not ‘Interagency 

agreement’ violations that PAI was 

concerned about in its first set of 

comments. Interagency agreements 

are not mentioned in PAI’s initial 

comments. PAI is concerned that by 

the Department limiting its UCP 

enforcement jurisdiction to local 

“educational” agencies, CDE was 

strongly discouraging parents and 

students from filing complaints 

against non-educational agencies for 

failures of those agencies to comply 

with the ‘interagency regulations’ at 

Title 2 California Code of Regulations 

§§ 60000 through 60610. The 

Department cannot limit its 

enforcement obligations to 

‘educational’ agencies. The 

Department clearly has jurisdiction to 

111 


Attachment 2 


Commenter cites California and Federal 

Education Codes related to Special 

Education. The California UCP process 

covers more than just Special Education 

Programs. The Education Code remains in 

effect for Special Education programs, and 

those responses must be made within the 60day 

timeline. 


Please see previous response. There are 

remedies under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). CDE does 

not have enforcement authority over other 

agencies. 

Note: Please see page 134, where upon 

further discussion, CDE recommends 



Law Center 

directly intervene to investigate and 

make findings of noncompliance 

against agencies other than local 

educational agencies. See section 

4650(a)(7)(A). It makes no sense to 

investigate these agencies but then to 

preclude enforcement of corrective 

actions against them. The word 

‘educational’ must be removed before 

‘agency’ throughout this section, or a 

subsection must be added which 

preserves the Department’s authority 

to enforce compliance orders against, 

at least, those local agencies 

specified in Government Code 

section 7570, et seq.” 

“We agree that the Department’s 

enforcement cannot be limited to 

‘educational’ agencies and that the 

word ‘educational’ must be removed 

before agency throughout this section 

or a subsection added which 


to enforce complaint orders versus at 

least those agencies specified in 

Government Code Section 7570 et 

seq. California Education Code 

provisions requiring interagency 

coordination in the provision of a Free 

Appropriate Public Education to 

students with disabilities mandate that 

such language be stricken.” 

4670(a) 

John T. Affeldt, Public Advocates, Inc “The proposed amendment seeks to 

change the notice the Department 

112 


Attachment 2 


CDE has no enforcement authority over other 

agencies. 

If a service is not provided as specified in a 

student’s individual education program (IEP), 

CDE may require the local educational 

agency to provide that service. 


The CDE issues an Investigation Report (see 

subdivision 4664) that specifies any actions

sends to districts upon finding a 

violation to include only notice ‘that it 

must take corrective action’ instead of 

the prior requirement that the 

Department clearly notify district 

representatives ‘of the action he or 

she will take to effect compliance.’ 

The revisions to this section based on 

the comments nonetheless fails to 

restore the requirement that the 

Department affirmatively notify LEAs 

‘of the action he or she will take to 

effect compliance.’ There is no good 

reason for making less clear: (a) what 

action is needed for a district to come 

into compliance with the law and, 

therefore, for making less clear (b) 

when the Department can take further 

action to effect compliance from an 

LEA (i.e., because a district has failed 

to take sufficient action). Often, what 

precise corrective action is required 

from a district will be clear. Yet, at 

other times, the precise action 

needed to come into compliance may 

need to be spelled out with precision. 

It is in the Department’s interest to 

have the clarity of required action 

spelled out for both the district and for 

the Department so that both parties 

know when further action from the 

Department to compel compliance is 

warranted. The prior language for this 

subsection should be retained.” 

113 


Attachment 2 


required of an LEA and the timeline for 

completing those corrective actions. 

Subdivision 4670 regarding enforcement 

describes a notice that may be sent following 

non-compliance with the corrective action. 


4681 














“Subsection (a)(1). We made this 

comment previously, but it was not 

addressed in the summary of 

comments set forth in the Update of 

Initial Statement of Reasons, and 

therefore CDE has provided no 

response. It remains a critical point. 

The language of this provision should 

clarify that the ‘in class’ sufficiency 

standard for instructional materials 

and textbooks is that each student is 

to have his or her own independent 

materials. This is the standard which 

is set forth in SB 550, amending 

California Education Code § 

60119(c)(1), and in these proposed 

regulations at § 4684(a)(1). 

Accordingly, the following language 

should be inserted as follows: 

(1) A pupil, including an English 

learner, does not have his or her own 

standards-aligned textbooks… 

Deletion of former proposed 

Subsection (a)(2). 

Based on Karen Steentofte’s 

conversation with John Affeldt on 

March 8, 2005, we understand that 

the shared position of the Department 

of Education and the State Board of 

Education is that the revised Uniform 

Complaint Procedures, specifically, 

Section 4681(a), allow complaints 

related to instructional materials to 

114 


Attachment 2 


This language is taken directly from the 

statute. 

Deletion of former proposed Subsection (a)(2) 

Response: 

In order to address the inclusive nature of the 

materials requirement and ensure that 

laboratory equipment and other such items 

are considered “instructional materials”, CDE 

chose to remove the specific listings of types 

of textbooks formerly in (a)(2) and simply state 

the students shall have “standards-aligned 

textbooks or instructional materials or state 

adopted or district adopted textbooks or other 

required instructional materials to use in 

class” in 4681(a)(1). This statement includes 

items such as laboratory equipment. 


4681(b) and 4683(a) 

Elaine Hodges, Ed.S, Senior Director, 

Leadership and Accountability Chair, 

San Diego County Office of 

Education, Williams Settlement 

Advisory Committee 

allege deficiencies in any subject 

area, including, but not limited to, the 

core subject areas, foreign language 

and health, and including laboratory 

science materials for grades 9-12. 

Likewise, we understand that 

laboratory science equipment will 

qualify as ‘instructional materials’ 

under the definition in Subsection 

4600(o), consistent with the Williams 

settlement and other provisions of 

law. See, e.g., California Education 

Code §§ 60119(a)(1)(C) and 

33126(b)(6)(B)(iii). This reading is 

subsequent to and supercedes the 

statements of the CDE in its Update 

of Initial Statement of Reasons in 

which the CDE stated that laboratory 

science equipment was not covered 

by the Williams portions of the UCP.” 

“We recommend that the State Board 

of Education remove proposed 

language that requires complaints 

regarding instructional materials and 

facilities to include specific 

information. Specifically, we 

recommend that the following 

sections be deleted – 4681(b) and 

4683(a). The language in 4683(a) 

could be replaced with the following: 

‘A complaint regarding the condition 

of school facilities may allege that 

there are emergency or urgent 

115 


Attachment 2 


It is necessary to have information about 

where the deficiency exists in order to 

investigate and remedy a shortage of 

instructional materials. 

It is also necessary to know the location of an 

urgent facility issue in order to address the 

problem. 

Therefore, CDE recommends no change.

4682 














facilities conditions at a school site 

that pose a threat to the health and 

safety of pupils or staff.’ 

The proposed content requirements 

for complaints would render invalid 

any complaint that does not include 

all the required information. The draft 

regulations would also end up 

requiring school districts to create 

lengthy complaint forms that may be 

difficult for some parents and 

guardians to complete. In addition, 

the information requested could be 

obtained through follow-up by the 

principal if it is not all included as part 

of the original complaint.” 

“Subsection (b). We made this 

comment previously, but it was not 

addressed in the summary of 

comments set forth in the Update of 

Initial Statement of Reasons and 

therefore CDE has provided no 

response. It remains a critical point. 

To be consistent with the proposed 

regulations regarding instructional 

materials and facility complaints 

(specifically proposed §§ 4681(c) 

and 4683(b)), a new subsection 

should be added here to clarify that 

a complainant may add as much text 

to explain the teacher vacancy or 

misassignment as he or she wishes 

and that one complaint may contain 

116 


Attachment 2 


CDE concurs with commenter and 

proposes making the change this 

change by adding subdivision (b) and 

(c).

4684(a)(3) 














more than one allegation of teacher 

vacancies or misassignments.” 

“The Department initially proposed 

and now deletes a requirement that 

the notice posted in each classroom 

also state that 

‘There should be a certificated 

teacher assigned to teach each 

course or grade level or 

combination of grade levels for 

which the teacher has the 

credential and the appropriate 

subject matter competency to 

teach the class.’ 

This provision should be added back 

in. SB 550 clearly authorizes the 

State Board and the Department to 

require this additional information be 

included in the SB 550 classroom 

notice. Teacher vacancies and 

misassignments are clearly central 

to the new regulatory, reporting, and 

complaint scheme under SB 550. It 

is only appropriate that all parties 

also be put on notice with the new 

classroom notice required by SB 550 

that teacher vacancies and 

misassignments are part of the new 

UCP scheme. The State Board and 

the CDE are well within their 

discretionary bounds to add this 

information to the required notice. 

117 


Attachment 2 


At this point in time, adding this 

recommendation would constitute a state 

mandated local cost. CDE recommends no 

change.

General Comment 
















Doing so will only serve the 

legislation and the affected public.” 

“While considerable improvements 

have been made to the proposed 

regulations, we still have an ‘oppose’ 

position.” 

“The proposed regulations 

established a process that is based 

primarily upon ‘paper investigations’, 

substantially decreases the ability of 

the California Department of 

Education (CDE) to directly intervene 

on a complaint, eliminates the 

mandate for on-site investigations, 

and imposes a much higher standard 

of proof on parents (complainants) 

who file complaints. 

The current regulations allow 

complaints concerning discrimination 

to bypass the district and go directly 

to the CDE. The proposed regulations 

still eliminate the right to request 

direct intervention by CDE for 

complaints of discrimination.” 

“PAI has reviewed and also wishes to 

join in supporting the comments of 


Inc. and the California Rural Legal 

Assistance Foundation which were 

submitted also on this date, 

118 



No response required 


Attachment 2 












April 4, 2005.” 

“CDE will no longer have the 

obligation to conduct a meaningful 

independent investigation. CDE will 

make findings solely on the 

‘substantial evidence’ provided. The 

proposed complaints procedures will 

rarely allow complaints to go directly 

to the state for intervention. On-site 

investigations to verify or clarify 

evidence/information presented by 

parents (complainants) and school 

districts are not required not even at 

the direct state intervention level. 

Often times an on-site visit will 

provide a more accurate picture 

regarding a complaint than what is 

presented on paper.” 

Commenter states, “Our 

organizations continue to oppose 

these regulations insofar as they 

address changes to the Uniform 

Complaint Process not necessary to 

implement Education Code 35186 

and the Williams Settlement. 

Adoption of the proposed regulations 

would violate California Administrative 

Procedure Act, as they are both 

inconsistent with the express 

authority and responsibility of the 

State of California to regulate and 

ensure equal educational opportunity 

to all children; and they are not 

reasonable necessary to effectuate 

any statutory or legislative mandate 

imposed upon the State Department 

119 



Attachment 2 


Government Code 11342.2 states, “Whenever 

by the express or implied terms of any statute 

a state agency has authority to adopt 

regulations to implement, interpret, make 

specific or otherwise carry out the provisions 

of the statute, no regulation adopted is valid or 

effective unless 

consistent and not in conflict with the statute 

and reasonably necessary to effectuate the 

purpose of the statute.” 

This code characterizes the purpose of CDE’s 

proposed regulations. The Uniform Complaint 

Procedures, developed in 1991, are currently 

not consistent with the federal regulations 

guiding this process, which were developed in 

1997. CDE proposes these amended 

regulations to meet the requirements of all
















of Education, See Government Code 

11342.2.” 

“The proposed complaints procedures 

continue to place additional burdens 

on parents to articulate both the facts 

and the legal basis for the complaint. 

Even though the regulations call for 

the development of a pamphlet 

(which will be placed on CDE’s 

website) for parents regarding the 

complaint procedures, this is not 

sufficient for parents to fully 

comprehend the proposed complaints 

procedures process. Parents, 

especially those who are Limited 

English proficient, will find it difficult to 

articulate the legal basis of their 

complaints and will find it difficult to 

navigate through the process. 

Additionally, computers are not found 

in all homes.” 

“The proposed regulations would 

unlawfully and unnecessarily limit the 

rights of parents to seek intervention 

by the state when a local school 

district fails to comply with state or 

federal laws. Eliminating these 

administrative remedies will force 

more litigation in some cases and 

eliminate an avenue for redress in 

others.” 

“Due to the fact that this process is 

often the only process available to 

low income and/or limited English 

proficient parents when their rights of 

their children are violated, translations 

120 


Attachment 2 


laws currently governing complaint processes. 

The LEAs are responsible for annually 

notifying parents and guardians, employees, 

students and advisory committees of the 

Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP). If 15% 

of the students’ families speak a language 

other than English, information will be 

provided in that language as well per 

Education Code 48985. 


Please see previous response.

Together, Dr. M. Norma Martinez- 

Palmer, Director for Bilingual 

Education in San Jose Unified School 

District; Marcia Vargas, Director, 2- 

Way CABE, an affiliate of the 


Education; Jose Sanchez, Policy 

Chairperson, The Student 

Empowerment Project (StEP); Soung 

Bae, teacher; Miriam Warren, 

bilingual second grade teacher and 

president of CABE-PODER, the 

Hayward Chapter; Emma L. Lerew, 

Director of ELL Programs and 

Services, Hayward Unified School 

District and Administrator, CABE- 

Poder Hayward Chapter; Catherine 

Gray, Resource Specialist, Title III, 

Fresno Unified School District; Lorena 



teacher 





of these proposed amendments in the 

dominant languages spoken by the 

parents of public school children 

should be made available to them for 

comment prior to action by the State 

Board.” 

“The proposed regulations continue to 

create a complaint investigation 

process that allows the Department to 

rubber stamp the findings and 

decision of a local school district 

without conducting any independent 

investigation. On the heels of settling 

litigation alleging that the State failed 

to adequately monitor educational 

equity, the Department now proposed 

to change its oversight mechanism to 

decrease direct intervention, eliminate 

the mandate for on-site investigations 

and even abandon the requirement 

121 



Attachment 2 












that complainants and school district 

staff be personally interviewed. The 

complaints process should be 

designed to be accessible and 

responsive to all parents of children 

enrolled in California public schools. 

Instead, the new regulations continue 

to impose higher standards of proof 

and less independent analysis and 

oversight.” 

“The proposed regulations do not 

contain a mechanism that provides 

some form of accountability by 

schools/districts as to the adherence 

of these procedures and the 

disposition of filed complaints. A 

reporting mechanism should be 

included requiring schools/districts to 

report to the State, at a minimum 

annually, as to the number of 

complaints filed, type of complaints 

and the disposition of the complaints.” 

“These proposed regulations continue 

to be unnecessary and will undermine 

rather than promote the State’s 

ultimate responsibility for ensuring 

that California children are receiving 

equal educational opportunity. 

Accordingly, they are inconsistent 

with constitutional and statutory 

mandates that require that the state 

ensure that school districts are 

providing equal educational 

opportunity and complying with state 

and federal mandates. The proposed 

regulations also place significant 

122 


Attachment 2 


Education Code 35186 requires each County 

Superintendent to annually present a report to 

the Governing Board of each school district. 

The reporting components are specified under 

this Education Code. 

No response required.

123 


Attachment 2 


additional burdens on the complaining 

parents that will only complicate the 

process for them. CRLA and CRLAF 

urge the Board to reject these 

proposed regulations and direct staff 

to draft new regulations implementing 

the procedural changes necessary 

under the Williams settlement and 

Code 35186.” 

COMMENTS RECEIVED SECOND 15-DAY COMMENT PERIOD FROM MAY 24 – JUNE 7, 2005 

4600(a) 


writing 

4600(h) “Compliance agreement” 

Dale Mentink, Senior Attorney, 

Protection and Advocacy, Inc. 

4600(y) “Vacant Teacher Position” 

Change required by revisions to 

California Education Code 35186 as 

enacted by AB831 

4630 

Luis Angel Alejo, Staff Attorney, 


Watsonville (CRLA); Alma 

Hernandez, Chairperson, California 

Association of Bilingual Education 

(CAPBE); Dorothy Herrera Settlage, 

Senior Attorney, Legal Aid 

Foundation of Los Angeles 

Commenter states, “We recommend 

the following technical amendment on 

line 10, page 1: add: “…primary, 

elementary, or secondary educational 

institutions…” 

Commenter states, “We repeat our 

recommendation to remove 

‘educational’ from section 4600(h).” 

Commenter states, “Section 4630 

continues to eliminate the option of 

filing a direct complaint with the state 

even if complainant claims 

discrimination, and can show 

immediate loss of benefit (see 

4630(b)(2)).” 

Agreed; this is a technical error. 

CDE corrected the error and added the word 

“elementary” to the definition. 

Since there is no mention of “Compliance 

Agreement” found within the regulations, CDE 

recommends as a technical change, the 

removal of the entire “compliance agreement” 

definition from the regulations. 

CDE recommends changing “Vacant Teacher 

Position to “Teacher Vacancy.” 

No response is required because the 

comments do not pertain to the proposed 

modifications made to the text during the 

second 15-day comment period.

4630(a) 

The Williams v. California Plaintiff’s 

Counsel, Brooks Allen, Mark D. 


Peter J. Eliasberg, ACLU Foundation 

of Southern California; John T. 


Public Advocates, Inc.; Jack W. 

Londen, Ellen Eagen, Morrison & 

Foerster LLP; Michael Feuer, 

Morrison & Foerster LLP; Alan 



Hector O. Villagra, MALDEF 

Commenter states, “The proposed 

provision needs to be amended to 

comply with and properly enforce the 

Williams Settlement. The 

introductory clause in subsection 

4630(a) is still unduly confusing and 

seemingly excludes ‘hybrid’ Williams 

complaints that also involve an 

allegation of discrimination and/or an 

allegation of a deficiency under a 

categorical program (e.g., involving 

English Learners). To clarify that 

section 4630’s procedures and 

timelines do not generally apply to 

complaints filed under Sections 4680 

– 4687, and yet acknowledge that 

both sets of procedures may apply to 

a complaint that alleges 

discrimination or a categorical 

program violation and involves 

Williams issues, subsection 4630(a) 

should be revised to read as follows: 

Any individual, public agency, or 

organization may file a written 

complaint with the district 

superintendent or his or her 

designee, alleging a matter 

which, if true, would constitute a 

violation by that local educational 

agency of federal or state law or 

regulation governing a program 

listed in Section 4610(b) of this 

Chapter. Complaints regarding 


124 


Attachment 2 






4631(a) 

The Williams v. California Plaintiff’s 

Counsel, Brooks Allen, Mark D. 


Peter J. Eliasberg, ACLU Foundation 

of Southern California; John T. 


Public Advocates, Inc.; Jack W. 

Londen, Ellen Eagen, Morrison & 

Foerster LLP; Michael Feuer, 

Morrison & Foerster LLP; Alan 



Hector O. Villagra, MALDEF 

vacancies and misassignments, 

and school facilities, must be 

filed and processed in accordance 

with sections 4680 – 4687 

if they do not involve allegations 

of discrimination or allegations of 

violations under a program listed 

in section 4610(b). If a complaint 

alleges allegations that concern 


vacancies and misassignments, 

and school facilities under 

Sections 4680—4687 and also 

alleges discrimination or a 

violation of a program under 

4610(b), both sets of procedures 

governing both types of 

complaints must be followed.” 

Commenter states, “A similar edit (as 

suggested above for subsection 

4630(a)) should be incorporated into 

section 4631(a).” 

125 


Attachment 2 


No response is required because the co 

mments do not pertain to the proposed 


second 15-day comment period. 

4631(d) 

Luis Angel Alejo, Staff Attorney, “Other proposed modifications No response is required because the


Watsonville (CRLA) 

Dorothy Herrera Settlage, Senior 

Attorney, Legal Aid Foundation of Los 

Angeles 

4632 



Angeles 

Alma Hernandez, Chairperson, 

CAPBE 

diminish the likelihood that a full and 

independent investigation will occur. 

The proposed regulations eliminate 

any sanctions for a district’s failure to 

cooperate other than a finding of noncompliance, 

which must, nonetheless, 

be independently supported by 

substantial evidence based on facts 

submitted by complainant. Although 

school districts retain the right to seek 

extensions, the proposed regulation 

eliminates any extension of time to 

file an appeal for good cause 

(4632(a)).” 

Commenter states, “CDE is removed 

from participation or involvement in 

mediation, which previously provided 

for use of mediation as an alternative 

for resolving problems, without 

delaying the appeal process.” 

Commenter states she finds the 

proposed revisions objectionable as 

there is an “increased burden that 

particularly weighs on lay/parent 

complaints to ‘justify’ the complaint, 

e.g., complainants without resources 

would have to provide additional 

evidence.” And there are “adjusted 

timelines and shifting of responsibility 

to investigate from CDE to the 

districts that will cause further delay in 

ameliorating problems.” 

Commenter states these regulations 

“impose new and unreasonable 

126 


Attachment 2 














comments do not pertain to the proposed

4633 




burdens on complainants, who will 

essentially be required to conduct 

their own investigation, provide 

evidence and demonstrate how a 

school district is factually or legally 

incorrect. This is particularly unjust for 

low-income parents who will not have 

the resources necessary to hire the 

attorney, or other expert or 

professional to do the level of fact 

finding that will be required. (See also 

4663(b) and 4663).” 

Commenter states, “The Department 

may, but need not interview the 

complainant, the principal or other 

staff when reviewing this decision 

(4633(c)). In fact, as written, the 

proposed regulation does not allow 

any investigation beyond the 

evidence submitted by the school 

district unless there is a finding that 

the appeal has merit based upon the 

record submitted by that district 

(4633(h)). The Department can make 

findings based solely on the file 

submitted on appeal without any 

independent investigation (proposed 

4633(g)). All of our recent cases have 

included independent investigation 

through the UCP and all have derived 

new facts that have provided the 

Department with sufficient evidence 

to direct the necessary corrective 

actions.” 

127 


Attachment 2 








4650 




4650 (a)(ii) 



Watsonville (CRLA); Alma 

Hernandez, Chairperson, CAPBE 

4650 (a)(5) 




Commenter states, “Direct 

intervention may only be invoked 

under limited circumstances including 

when the complainant requests 

anonymity based upon a fear of 

irreparable harm due to retaliation. 

The new regulation still does not 

define ‘irreparable harm’ but it will 

likely be construed to be more than 

the loss of an educational benefit 

since that language has been 

deleted.” 

Commenter states, “The ability for a 

complainant to seek direct 

intervention in cases where 

discrimination is alleged and the facts 

alleged indicate that the complainant 

will suffer an immediate loss of some 

benefit if the department does not 

intervene is eliminated.” 

Commenter states, “Furthermore, 

prior to direct State intervention, the 

Department shall attempt to work with 

the local agency to allow it to 

complete the investigation if it has 

taken no action after 60 days. Hence, 

even after a local agency has proven 

to be disinterested in addressing the 

issue, the Department will continue to 

provide the agency assistance 

instead of responding directly to the 

complainant.” 

128 


Attachment 2 














4650(a)(7) 




4650(b) 




Commenter states, “In addition, if the 

complainant is the parent of a special 

education child, they will also have to 

present how their ‘immediate and 

irreparable harm’ as a result of a 

‘district-wide policy’ that is in conflict 

with state or federal. Parents often 

lack the knowledge of knowing what 

the evidence and policies are that 

have been violated. All they should be 

required to know is that their child has 

been wronged, as is current 

regulation.” 

Commenter states, “Additional 

burdens also placed on the 

complainant parent when filing 

directly since a complainant must now 

present the Department with ‘clear 

and verifiable evidence’ that supports 

the basis for direct filing.” 

Laura Faer, Attorney, Public Counsel Commenter states regulations 

“appear to impose an untenable 

burden on petitioners who have filed 

complaints because the local 

education agency has refused to 

provide the appropriate information 

and because they are unable to 

discern, without an investigation, why 

such required actions have not been 

performed. For low-income 

complainants who have few 

129 


Attachment 2 














4660(a)(3) 




4660 

Alma Hernandez, Chairperson, 

CAPBE 

4662 



resources and little access to 

information or legal counsel, the 

requirement that evidence presented 

be ‘clear’ and ‘verifiable’ in the first 

instance is likely to cause many of 

such complainants with valid claims 

to forfeit their rights. In sum, in cases 

where a violation has occurred but 

complainant is unable to acquire the 

necessary evidence from the local 

education agency without the 

intervention of the state, this provision 

is likely to be prohibitive. The second 

sentence of section 4650(b) 

beginning with ‘The Complainant’ and 

ending with ‘as in subdivision (a)(5) 

should be deleted.” 

Commenter states, “Even if a direct 

complaint is accepted, the proposed 

regulations do not even require that 

the Department do an on-site 

investigation unless it is deemed 

‘necessary’.” 

Commenter states, “Eliminate the 

mandate for the CDE to conduct an 

independent, on-site review, which 

we believe is often absolutely 

required for CDE to accurately assess 

a complaint.” 

Commenter states, “All references to 

‘on-site’ have also been eliminated in 

130 


Attachment 2 











comments do not pertain to the proposed

Watsonville (CRLA); Dorothy Herrera 

Settlage, Senior Attorney, Legal Aid 

Foundation of Los Angeles 

4663 




section 4662. In addition, the 

requirement that the complainant, 

agency administrators, staff, related 




been eliminated.” 

Commenter states, “The current 


proposed regulations and replaced by 

a requirement that the complainant be 

provided only an opportunity to 

present evidence (proposed section 

4663(b)). There is no indication that 

there has been abuse of the direct 

complaint process that would justify 

limiting access in this manner. If the 

Department determines that a 

violation has occurred, it must notify 

the district that it must take corrective 

actions. However the delay of another 

60 days to mail the report from the 

conclusion of the investigation is 

simply an unnecessary delay that will 

further defer needed corrective 

action. In all cases that CRLA has 

assisted parents in filing through the 

UCP, none have exhausted the 

existing 60 day limit for both 

completion and notification. The 60 

days are already a burden on the 

students’ educational benefit. 

Therefore, there is no reason to 

further delay the much needed 

corrective actions.” 

131 


Attachment 2 








4664(b) and (c) 


Protection and Advocacy, Inc; Laura 

Faer, Attorney, Public Counsel 

Commenter states, “PAI has reviewed 

the CDE’s response to PAI’s initial 

comments on these subsections on 

the website. It is true that nothing in 

these regulations prevents special 

education compliance complaints 

from being addressed within 60 days. 

The problem is that the proposed 

amendments to the regulations now 

authorize the CDE to address special 

education compliance complaints in 

120 days from the date of filing to 

receipt of the CDE’s decision. The 

Department cannot delete section 

4664(c) and add section 4664(b) and 

thereby, in combination with section 

4662(b), extend the timeline for 

resolution of direct state intervention 

special education complaints from 60 

days to 120 days. The Education 

Code identifies the UCP complaint 

procedure as California’s 

implementation of the federal law that 

requires a 60-day complaint 

resolution procedure from filing to 

receipt of the Department’s decision. 

See California Education Code 

section 56500.2 and Title 34 Code of 

Federal Regulations section 

300.661(a)(1)&(4). Please delete 

section 4664(b) and restore section 

4664(c) as they related to special 

education complaints.” 

132 


Attachment 2 






4664(b) 

Dorothy Herrera Settlage, Senior Commenter states, “Adjusted No response is required because the


Angeles 

4670 



Angeles 

timelines and shifting of 

responsibilities to investigate from 

CDE to the districts that will cause 

further delay in ameliorating 

problems.” 

Commenter states, “CDE would no 

longer be required to notify districts of 

the actions needed to come into 

compliance. Individual districts will 

unilaterally decide what corrective 

actions to take. This will delay or 

impede true correction.” 

Laura Faer, Attorney, Public Counsel Commenter states, “As it relates to 

section 4670, we reemphasize that 

the Department’s enforcement cannot 

be limited to ‘educational’ agencies 

and that the word ‘educational’ must 

be removed before agency 

throughout this section or a 

subsection added which preserves 

the Department’s authority to enforce 

complaint orders versus at least those 

agencies specified in Government 

Code section 7570 et. seq. California 

Education Code provisions requiring 

interagency coordination in the 

provision of a Free Appropriate Public 

Education to students with disabilities 

mandate that such language be 


Protection and Advocacy, Inc. 

stricken.” 

Commenter states, “Again, it was not 

‘interagency agreement’ violations 

that PAI was concerned about in its 

first set of comments. Interagency 

133 


Attachment 2 













Upon further review and discussion, CDE 

recommends deleting the word "educational" 

from the term “local educational agency” 

making the term "local agency” in the

agreements are not mentioned in 

PAI’s initial comments. PAI is 

concerned that by the Department 

limiting its UCP enforcement 

jurisdiction to local ‘educational’ 

agencies, CDE will strongly 

discourage parents and students from 

filing complaints against noneducational 

agencies for failures of 

those agencies to comply with the 

‘interagency regulations’ at Title 2 

Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 60000 through 

60610. The Department cannot limit 

its enforcement obligations to 

‘educational’ agencies. The 

Department clearly has jurisdiction to 

directly intervene to investigate and 

make findings of noncompliance 

against agencies other than local 

educational agencies. See section 

4650(a)(7)(A). It makes no sense to 

investigate these agencies but then to 

preclude enforcement of corrective 

actions against them. The word 

‘educational’ must be removed before 

‘agency’ throughout this section, or a 

subsection must be added which 


to enforce compliance orders against, 

at least, those local agencies 

specified in Government Code 

section 7570, et seq.” 

134 

following subdivisions: 

4670(a), 4670(a)(1), 4670(b). 


Attachment 2 



Attachment 2 


This document reflects the proposed regulations as of August 22, 2005



cib-pdd-sep05item05 

SUBJECT 

ITEM # 22 



Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program, 

Assembly Bill 466 (Chapter 737, Statutes of 2001): Approval of 

Training Providers and Training Curricula 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve the recommended providers and training curricula for the 

purposes of providing professional development under the provisions of the 

Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program, Assembly Bill (AB) 466 

(Chapter 737, Statutes of 2001). 


At the February 2002 meeting, the SBE approved criteria for the approval of training 

providers and training curricula. The SBE has approved AB 466 training providers and 

training curricula at previous meetings. The list of current SBE-approved AB 466 

providers is available online at 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/ma/mard03sbetrngprvdr.asp. 


AB 466 established the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program, 

which provides incentive funding to districts to train teachers, instructional aides, and 

paraprofessionals in mathematics and reading. Once the providers and their training 

curricula are determined to have satisfied the SBE-approved criteria and have been 

approved by the SBE, local educational agencies (LEAs) may contract with the 

approved providers for AB 466 professional development. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:18 PM




The AB 466 review panel recommends approval of the following provider and training 

curricula: 

Fresno, Los Angeles, Sacramento and Tehama County Offices of Education 

Sadlier-Oxford, Progress in Mathematics 

kindergarten through grades 3 

Etiwanda School District 

Houghton Mifflin, Houghton Mifflin Language Arts Program 

grade six 


Approval of additional AB 466 providers allows more choice for LEAs in selecting 

training providers, for which $31.7 million was allocated for Fiscal Year 2004-05. 

Approval of additional providers does not affect the total dollars available. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

None 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:18 PM

ifornia Department of Education 


cib-pdd-sep05item04 ITEM # 23 

SUBJECT 



Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program, 

Assembly Bill 466 (Chapter 737, Statutes of 2001): Approve 

Reimbursement Requests from Local Educational Agencies 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve reimbursement requests on the attached lists of local 

educational agencies (LEAs) that have complied with required assurances for the 

Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program, Assembly Bill (AB) 466 

(Chapter 737, Statutes of 2001). 


Education Code (EC) Section 99234(g), established by AB 466, stipulates that funding 

may not be provided to an LEA until the SBE approves the agency’s certified 

assurances. During 2002-03, the SBE approved AB 466 applications prior to a 

participating LEA commencing training. This process caused a time delay before an 

LEA could begin training. To avoid this delay in 2003-04 and subsequent years, the 

SBE Executive Director and the CDE Deputy Superintendent for Curriculum and 

Instruction agreed that LEA compliance with required assurances would be approved by 

the SBE when LEAs submit a Request for Reimbursement form, which occurs after 

training is completed. 


As a condition of the receipt of funds, EC Section 99237(a) requires that an LEA submit 

to the SBE a statement of assurance certified by the appropriate agency official and 

approved in a public session by the governing body of the agency. LEAs participating in 

the AB 466 program provide this proof of compliance with assurances by submitting a 

signed application. LEAs submitting a Request for Reimbursement Form additionally 

provide summary information regarding credentials held by each teacher who has 

successfully completed training. 

The specific amount for each LEA will be determined by the CDE staff in accordance 

with law, regulation, and the established practice for this program. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM




The Legislature appropriated $31.7 million (General Fund) for the AB 466 program for 

2004-05. To date the CDE has issued $5,930,000 in payments from 2004-05. Another 

$10 million is pending payment for claims that were approved at the July board meeting 

and at prior meetings; therefore sufficient funding remains to pay the 2004-05 claims 

shown on Attachment 1. Only one claim has been received to date for 2005-06, and it 

appears on Attachment 2. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: List of LEAs submitting certification of assurance via a Signed Request 

for Reimbursement Form: Fiscal Year 2004-05 (September 2005) 

(2 Pages) 

Attachment 2: List of LEAs submitting certification of assurance via a Signed Request 

for Reimbursement Form: Fiscal Year 2005-06 (September 2005) 

(1 Page) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 1 


List of LEAs submitting certification of assurance via a Signed Request for Reimbursement Form: 

Fiscal Year 2004-05 (September 2005) 

COUNTY LEA NAME 

Fresno 

Fresno 

Fresno 

Reading 

40 Hours 

Firebaugh- 

Las Deltas 

Unified 7 

Fresno 

COE 1 

West 

Fresno 

Elementary 6 

NUMBER OF TEACHERS 

Reading 

80 

Hours 

Mathematics 

40 

Hours 

Kern Kern COE 1 

Kern 

Kings 

Lake 

Lake 

Los 

Angeles 

Sacramento 

Rosedale 

Union 

Hanford 

Joint Union 

5 

High 18 

El Monte 

Union High 4 

Mathematics 

80 

Hours 

PROVIDER MATERIALS 

Sacramento 

COE 

(nonRIC) 

RIC-San 

Joaquin COE 

RIC-San 

Joaquin COE 

Sacramento 

COE 

Los Angeles 

USD 

Sacramento 

COE 

Sacramento 

COE 

(nonRIC) 

Lucerne 

Elementary 4 Butte COE 

Lancaster 

Elementary 6 Calabash 

Galt Joint 

Union High 15 

Sacramento 

COE 

Holt, 

Rhinehart, 

and Winston, 

Literature and 

Language 

Arts 

SRA/McGraw 

Hill, Open 

Court 2002 

SRA/McGraw 

Hill, Open 

Court 2002 

Prentice Hall, 

Algebra 1 

Houghton 

Mifflin, 

Lectura 


Algebra 1 

Holt, 

Rhinehart, 

and Winston, 

Literature and 

Language 

Arts 

Houghton 

Mifflin, A 

Legacy of 

Literacy 

Houghton 

Mifflin, A 


Literacy 


Algebra 1 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 1 



Reading Reading Mathematics Mathematics 

40 80 40 

80 

COUNTY LEA NAME Hours Hours Hours Hours PROVIDER MATERIALS 

North 

SRA/McGraw 

Sacramento 

Hill, Open 

Sacramento Elementary 15 District Court 2002 

Santa 

Houghton 

Maria- 

Mifflin, A 

Santa Bonita 


Barbara Elementary 43 District Literacy 

McDougal 

Littell, 

Concepts and 

Gateway 

Sacramento Skills, 

Shasta Unified 1 

COE Course 1 

Houghton 

RIC- Mifflin, A 

Waterford 

Sacramento Legacy of 

Stanislaus Unified 27 

COE Literacy 

Houghton 

Mifflin, A 

Meridian 


Sutter Elementary 2 Calabash Literacy 

McDougal 

Littell, 

Concepts and 

Corning 

Sacramento Skills, 

Tehama Elementary 

Flournoy 

5 

COE Course 1 

Union 

Sacramento Prentice Hall, 

Tehama Elementary 1 

COE Pre-Algebra 

TOTAL 58 62 41 0 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 2 


List of LEAs submitting certification of assurance via a Signed Request for Reimbursement Form: 

Fiscal Year 2005-06 (September 2005) 

COUNTY LEA NAME 

San 

Joaquin 

Reading 

40 

Hours 


Reading 

80 

Hours 

Mathematics 

40 

Hours 

Ripon 

Unified 2 

TOTAL 0 0 2 0 

Mathematics 

80 

Hours 

Sacramento 

COE 

PROVIDER MATERIALS 


Algebra 1 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM




SUBJECT 

ITEM 24 



The Principal Training Program, Assembly Bill 75 (Chapter 697, 

Statutes of 2001): Approval of applications for funding from Local 

Educational Agencies and Consortia 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve the attached lists of 12 local educational agencies (LEAs) that 

have submitted applications for funding under The Principal Training Program (PTP), 

Assembly Bill (AB) 75 (Chapter 697, Statutes of 2001). 


The SBE approved criteria and requirements for PTP applications at the February 2002 

meeting. 


The PTP requires the SBE to approve all LEA applicants for funding by name only. 

Initial funding is dispersed once the LEA enters the participant name into the 

Management System for Principal Training (MSPT). Subsequent payments are 

dispersed once the training provider records the completed hours into the MSPT. 


Actual LEA reimbursements are dependent upon further information to be provided by 

LEAs and training providers, such as names of administrator participants and number of 

hours in actual training. LEAs receive a payment of $1,200 per participant, once the 

participant name is entered into the MSPT. A second payment of $900 is dispersed 

once the first 80 hours of training is recorded into the MSPT. A final payment of $900 is 

dispersed once the participant completes 160 hours of training. It is feasible that initial 

award requests will be amended throughout the funding period. Estimated State 

expenditures resulting from this action: $153,000. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM

ATTACHMENT(S) 



Attachment 1: Local Educational Agencies Recommended for State Board of Education 

Approval (1 Page) 

Attachment 2: Program Summary (1 Page) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Local Educational Agencies Recommended 

For State Board of Education Approval 


Applications received during the months of June and July 2005 

LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES 

FRESNO 

Kingsburg Joint Union High 

KERN 

Lost Hills Union Elementary 

LOS ANGELES 

Desert Sands Charter High School 

MERCED 

Gustine Unified 

MODOC 

Modoc Joint Unified 

ORANGE 

Anaheim City School District 

RIVERSIDE 

Menifee Union Elementary 

SONOMA 

Roseland Elementary 

Sebastopol Independent Charter School 

Sonoma Valley Unified 

STANISLAUS 

Paradise Elementary 

TEHAMA 

Evergreen Union Elementary 

TOTAL 


Site Administrators 

3 

1 

5 

5 

1 

12 

1 

4 

1 

14 

1 

3 

51 


Attachment 1 


Total Amount of State 

Funding Requested 

$9,000 

$3,000 

$15,000 

$15,000 

$3,000 

$36,000 

$3,000 

$12,000 

$3,000 

$42,000 

$3,000 

$9,000 

$153,000 

(51 X $3,000) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM

CURRENT REQUEST SUMMARY 


Program Summary 


Applications received in June and July 2005 

Total number of LEAs recommended for September Approval ................ 12 

Total number of administrators ...................................................... 51 


Attachment 2 


Total state funds requested by Single LEAs for September approval: 

(51 x $3,000) ........................................................................................... $153,000 

Total number of new Consortia recommended for September approval.........None 

(New participants added: 0) (0 x $3,000)……………………………….…$0 

Total State Funds Requested .......................................................................... $153,000 

(51 LEAs x $3,000) 

SUMMARY TO DATE 

Total number of participating LEAs 

(435 Single LEAs plus 264 LEAs included in 20 SBE-approved Consortia) ................ 699 

Total number of administrators anticipated for program participation ..................... 11,047 

Note: The numbers in the SUMMARY TO DATE have changed due to LEAs withdrawing 

from the program. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM



cib-pdd-sep05item01 ITEM #25 

SUBJECT 



Gifted and Talented Education: Approval of Applications for 

Funding from Local Educational Agencies 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve 478 applications from local educational agencies (LEAs) for 

fiscal year (FY) 2005-06 Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) program funding. The 

lists of LEAs recommended for approval are provided in Attachments 2-4. 

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION AND 

The SBE annually approves LEA applications for GATE program funding in accordance 

with Education Code (EC) Section 52212. In addition to the 478 LEA applications being 

recommended for funding, there are 297 LEAs with continuing applications that were 

approved by the SBE in prior years. 


EC Section 52212 authorizes the SBE to approve LEA GATE applications for one, two, 

and three years based on the quality of the LEA GATE plans in accordance with the 

criteria in the SBE-approved Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and 

Talented Students (see Attachment 5). An application may be approved for a period of 

five years following a site validation of the application by the CDE. It is anticipated that 

the CDE will recommend an additional 21 LEAs for approval at the November SBE 

meeting, as well as recommend selected LEAs for five-year approval based upon site 

validation. 


The FY 2005-06 state budget appropriation for the GATE program is $46,197,000. An 

additional $4,294,000 has been deferred to FY 2006-07. Of the funds appropriated, 

$304,000 is for increases in average daily attendance (a.d.a.) at a rate of 0.69 percent. 

Additionally, $1,875,000 is for the purpose of providing a cost-of-living adjustment at a 

rate of 4.23 percent. The funding level is approximately $8 per a.d.a. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment #1: GATE Program Funding Summary (1 Page) 

Attachment #2: GATE 2005-06 1-Year Approvals (6 Pages) 





Attachment #5: Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented 

Students 

(9 Pages) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM

GATE PROGRAM FUNDING SUMMARY 


Attachment 1 


A total of 478 local educational agencies (LEAs) listed in Attachments 2-4 that 

submitted 2005-06 applications are recommended for one-, two-, and three-year Gifted 

and Talented Education (GATE) funding approval. In addition there are 297 LEAs with 

continuing applications that were approved by the State Board of Education (SBE) in 

prior years that will receive funding. It is anticipated that the California Department of 

Education (CDE) will seek approval for an additional 21 LEAs at the November SBE 

meeting for a total of 796 LEAs approved for 2005-06 GATE funding. 

GATE applications were reviewed by representatives from LEAs, the California 

Association for the Gifted, and CDE staff. Per Education Code (EC) Section 52212, LEA 

applications are approved for one, two, or three years based on the quality of the plan in 

accordance with the criteria in the SBE-approved Recommended Standards for 

Programs for Gifted and Talented Students which were adopted October 2001 and 

revised July 2005 (see Attachment 5). An application may be approved for a period of 

five years following a site validation of the application by CDE. The list of LEAs validated 

for five-year approval will be submitted to SBE following the completion of site validation 

visits. 

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-06 state budget appropriation for the GATE Program is 

$46,197,000. An additional $4,294,000 has been deferred to the 2006-07 fiscal year. 

Per EC Section 52211, LEA GATE apportionments are calculated through a funding 

formula that divides the total funding available for gifted and talented education by the 

statewide total units of average daily attendance (a.d.a.) in kindergarten through grade 

twelve reported at the second principal apportionment by all LEAs participating in the 

program in the current year. An additional deficit factor may be applied in order to align 

the GATE funding calculations with the available state funding. The LEA funding for the 

GATE program is approximately $8 per a.d.a. 

The table below provides summary information regarding 478 LEAs recommended for 

one-, two-, and three-year funding approval for FY 2005-06 listed in Attachments 2-4. 

LEA APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 

Attachment 

Number 

Number of Years 

Approved for 

Funding 

GATE Program 

Standards 

Number of 

LEAs 

2 One Year Minimum 143 

3 Two Years Commendable 151 

4 Three Years Exemplary 184 


LEAs 

478 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM

GATE 2005-06 1-Year Approvals 


Attachment 2 


District Identified Proposed Funding 

County 

Alpine 

District GATE Students for FY 2005-06 

Alpine County Unified School District 

Amador 

14 $2,445 

Amador County Unified School District 

Butte 

410 $36,129 

Bangor Union Elementary School District 8 $4,587 

Biggs Unified School District 52 $17,734 

Paradise Unified School District 168 $36,868 

Thermalito Elementary School District 

Calaveras 

50 $11,162 

Vallecito Union Elementary School District 

Colusa 

50 $17,734 

Colusa Unified School District 60 $14,335 

Pierce Joint Unified School District 

Contra Costa 

23 $10,364 

Acalanes Union High School District 664 $45,553 

Canyon Elementary School District 

El Dorado 

22 $9,623 

Black Oak Mine Unified School District 218 $15,738 

Camino Union School District 

Fresno 

55 $3,977 

Firebaugh-Las Deltas Unified School District 96 $18,906 

Laton Unified School District 60 $11,882 

Parlier Unified School District 111 $26,055 

Sierra Unified School District 337 $16,834 

West Fresno Elementary School District 50 $17,380 

Westside Elementary School District 

Glenn 

20 $8,368 

Hamilton Union Elementary School District 20 $10,460 

Humboldt 

Cuddeback Union Elementary School District 15 $6,276 

Fortuna Union Elementary School District 27 $17,734 

Hydesville Elementary School District 20 $7,112 

Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District 20 $7,546 

Mattole Unified School District 13 $3,670 

South Bay Union Elementary School District 25 $17,734 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 2 



County 

Inyo 


Big Pine Unified School District 21 $10,460 

Lone Pine Unified School District 50 $17,734 

Owens Valley Unified School District 6 $4,602 

Kern 

Edison Elementary School District 40 $16,847 

McFarland Unified School District 144 $21,910 

Mojave Unified School District 120 $20,366 

Rio Bravo-Greeley Elementary School District 54 $17,380 

Southern Kern Unified School District 213 $24,707 

Standard Elementary School District 129 $19,939 

Wasco Union High School District 214 $17,734 

Kings 

Kings River-Hardwick Union Elementary School 

District 

50 $17,734 

Lake 

Konocti Unified School District 127 $24,928 

Upper Lake Union School District 24 $13,116 

Lassen 

Richmond Elementary School District 31 $9,665 

Westwood Unified School District 

Los Angeles 

49 $13,124 

Inglewood Unified School District 954 $140,780 

Los Angeles County Office of Education 560 $8,719 

Wilsona School District 84 $16,113 

Wiseburn Elementary School District 125 $15,390 

Madera 

Chawanakee Unified School District 49 $17,734 

Madera Unified School District 

Mariposa 

1,074 $130,580 

Mariposa County Unified School District 

Mendocino 

231 $19,806 

Arena Union Elementary School District 

Merced 

35 $10,640 

Ballico-Cressey Elementary School District 38 $9,931 

Delhi Unified School District 150 $17,622 

Winton Elementary School District 

Modoc 

180 $15,559 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 2 


Modoc Joint Unified School District 50 $17,734 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 2 



County 

Monterey 


Alisal Union Elementary School District 386 $61,330 

Pacific Unified School District 14 $4,587 

Napa 

Pope Valley Union Elementary School District 

Nevada 

8 $2,445 

Union Hill Elementary School District 

Orange 

46 $17,380 

Fullerton Joint Union High School District 

Placer 

4,718 $113,103 

Colfax Elementary School District 48 $17,025 

Eureka Union Elementary School District 

Riverside 

651 $34,013 

Palo Verde Unified School District 

Sacramento 

210 $28,551 

Del Paso Heights Elementary School District 45 $16,587 

North Sacramento Elementary School District 68 $43,376 

River Delta Unified School District 

San Benito 

155 $16,851 

San Benito High School District 217 $23,098 

San Bernardino 

Morongo Unified School District 576 $72,094 

Rialto Unified School District 3,216 $229,835 

Victor Elementary School District 

San Diego 

268 $70,277 

Alpine Union Elementary School District 186 $19,004 

Dehesa Elementary School District 30 $12,049 

Del Mar Union Elementary School District 95 $26,657 

Fallbrook Union High School District 393 $23,491 

Julian Union Elementary School District 32 $11,350 

Julian Union High School District 30 $17,734 

National School District 468 $51,903 

Valley Center-Pauma Union School District 

San Joaquin 

150 $33,329 

Banta Elementary School District 19 $8,158 

Jefferson Elementary School District 334 $12,485 

New Hope Elementary School District 30 $14,897 

Oak View Union Elementary School District 23 $9,755 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 2 


Ripon Unified School District 112 $21,854 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 2 



County 

San Mateo 


Belmont-Redwood Shores School District 75 $20,009 

Cabrillo Unified School District 286 $28,776 

Millbrae Elementary School District 155 $17,144 

Pacifica School District 442 $25,273 

Ravenswood City Elementary School District 100 $26,526 

San Bruno Park Elementary School District 188 $22,149 

San Mateo Union High School District 1,215 $64,396 

Sequoia Union High School District 2,022 $58,428 

South San Francisco School District 

Santa Barbara 

1,194 $75,145 

Cold Spring School District 28 $13,739 

Hope School District 50 $17,734 

Santa Clara 

Fremont Union High School District 1,315 $72,934 

Loma Prieta Joint Union Elementary School District 73 $17,734 

Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union School District 323 $23,046 

Oak Grove Elementary School District 

Santa Cruz 

1,244 $92,414 

Pacific Elementary School District 

Shasta 

6 $2,747 

Black Butte Union Elementary School District 35 $10,640 

Castle Rock Union Elementary School District 20 $9,158 

Enterprise Elementary School District 167 $29,098 

Happy Valley Union School District 50 $13,124 

Oak Run Elementary School District 

Siskiyou 

11 $4,371 

Butte Valley Unified School District 41 $9,623 

Delphic Elementary School District 6 $2,445 

Dunsmuir Elementary School District 46 $13,833 

Dunsmuir Joint Union High School District 35 $12,414 

Etna Union High School District 50 $16,316 

Junction Elementary School District 1 $2,445 

McCloud Union Elementary School District 3 $5,439 

Montague Elementary School District 30 $10,460 

Weed Union Elementary School District 29 $10,460 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 2 



County 

Solano 


Benicia Unified School District 132 $43,134 

Sonoma 

Mark West Union Elementary School District 50 $17,734 

Twin Hills Union Elementary School District 51 $17,734 

West Sonoma County Unified School District 

Stanislaus 

178 $20,117 

Ceres Unified School District 264 $76,371 

Hickman Elementary School District 100 $7,994 

Sutter 

Franklin Elementary School District 42 $17,734 

Live Oak Unified School District 

Tehama 

80 $13,749 

Antelope Elementary School District 76 $17,734 

Los Molinos Unified School District 10 $17,734 

Mineral Elementary School District 2 $2,445 

Plum Valley Elementary School District 

Trinity 

6 $2,445 

Trinity Union High School District 

Tulare 

50 $17,380 

Buena Vista Elementary School District 16 $6,276 

Exeter Union Elementary School District 118 $13,880 

Exeter Union High School District 42 $11,704 

Farmersville Unified School District 57 $16,719 

Lindsay Unified School District 313 $27,831 

Monson-Sultana Joint Union Elementary School 

District 

45 $11,110 

Terra Bella Union Elementary School District 50 $17,734 

Tipton Elementary School District 5 $4,602 

Tulare Joint Union High School District 

Tuolumne 

776 $31,391 

Big Oak Flat-Groveland School District 104 $17,025 

Columbia Union School District 40 $17,380 

Jamestown Elementary School District 42 $11,575 

Sonora Union High School District 50 $14,244 

Summerville Union High School District 85 $9,931 

Twain Harte-Long Barn School District 39 $17,734 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 2 



County 

Ventura 


Briggs Elementary School District 16 $9,222 

Mesa Union Elementary School District 50 $13,845 

Somis Union School District 45 $9,166 

Yuba 

Plumas Elementary School District 50 $11,922 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM



Attachment 3 



County 

Alameda 


Berkeley Unified School District 1,114 $69,710 

Newark Unified School District 382 $58,558 

Butte 

Chico Unified School District 993 $106,249 

Durham Unified School District 86 $17,734 

Gridley Unified School District 150 $15,108 

Manzanita Elementary School District 28 $5,858 

Oroville City Elementary School District 54 $23,785 

Palermo Union Elementary School District 67 $17,734 

Pioneer Union Elementary School District 

Calaveras 

10 $4,587 

Mark Twain Union Elementary School District 

Colusa 

60 $14,897 

Williams Unified School District 

Contra Costa 

61 $17,734 

Antioch Unified School District 1,036 $162,162 

Brentwood Union School District 197 $42,862 

Byron Union School District 88 $17,734 

Lafayette Elementary School District 435 $27,560 

Martinez Unified School District 286 $33,885 

Orinda Union Elementary School District 

El Dorado 

280 $31,711 

El Dorado Union High School District 670 $52,704 

Placerville Union Elementary School District 89 $13,654 

Pollock Pines Elementary School District 57 $9,576 

Rescue Union Elementary School District 

Fresno 

355 $27,877 

Coalinga-Huron Unified School District 382 $32,683 

Kerman Unified School District 320 $28,855 

Pacific Union Elementary School District 

Glenn 

33 $12,414 

Orland Joint Unified School District 80 $18,285 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 3 



County 

Humboldt 


Cutten Elementary School District 50 $17,734 

Freshwater Elementary School District 25 $10,460 

Jacoby Creek Elementary School District 50 $17,734 

McKinleyville Union School District 66 $17,734 

Orick Elementary School District 4 $3,212 

Pacific Union Elementary School District 70 $17,734 

Peninsula Union Elementary School District 7 $3,670 

Rohnerville School District 

Imperial 

46 $17,025 

Calexico Unified School District 110 $13,830 

Westmorland Union Elementary School District 

Inyo 

50 $17,734 

Bishop Joint Union High School District 49 $17,734 

Bishop Union Elementary School District 164 $17,734 

Round Valley Joint Elementary School District 

Kern 

5 $4,128 

Arvin Union Elementary School District 80 $22,221 

Delano Joint Union High School District 520 $28,112 

Fairfax Elementary School District 140 $14,897 

Panama-Buena Vista Union School District 736 $106,375 

Richland-Lerdo Elementary School District 106 $20,242 

South Fork Union School District 

Kings 

65 $2,888 

Lemoore Union Elementary School District 

Lake 

99 $25,053 

Middletown Unified School District 

Los Angeles 

175 $15,488 

ABC Unified School District 2,866 $177,480 

Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District 164 $16,133 

Duarte Unified School District 269 $36,897 

Paramount Unified School District 1,403 $134,850 

San Marino Unified School District 876 $25,886 

William S. Hart School District 2,368 $145,776 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 3 



County 

Madera 


Golden Valley Unified School District 100 $20,583 

Marin 

Mill Valley Elementary School District 72 $16,753 

Shoreline Unified School District 59 $15,962 

Merced 

Atwater Elementary School District 468 $37,284 

Gustine Unified School District 48 $16,959 

Los Banos Unified School District 543 $60,379 

Mono 

Mammoth Unified School District 

Monterey 

57 $8,898 

Lagunita Elementary School District 8 $3,440 

Salinas Union High School District 1,420 $102,555 

Santa Rita Union School District 

Napa 

78 $21,437 

Napa Valley Unified School District 

Nevada 

1,213 $114,060 

Nevada City Elementary School District 

Orange 

534 $14,915 

Magnolia Elementary School District 124 $50,389 

Savanna Elementary School District 

Placer 

36 $18,098 

Alta-Dutch Flat Elementary School District 15 $7,531 

Auburn Union Elementary School District 216 $21,296 

Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District 331 $51,460 

Placer Union High School District 758 $35,842 

Roseville City Elementary School District 322 $56,854 

Western Placer Unified School District 

Plumas 

180 $41,552 

Plumas Unified School District 465 $23,654 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 3 



County 

Riverside 


Coachella Valley Unified School District 790 $109,732 

Nuview Union Elementary School District 37 $17,025 

Perris Elementary School District 79 $39,349 

Perris Union High School District 379 $46,744 

Romoland School District 47 $11,948 

Temecula Valley Unified School District 2,166 $169,944 

Val Verde Unified School District 

Sacramento 

1,178 $96,801 

Elverta Joint Elementary School District 


33 $9,222 

Chaffey Joint Union High School District 1,792 $168,221 

Fontana Unified School District 2,019 $309,635 

Needles Unified School District 48 $17,734 

Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District 

San Diego 

487 $72,043 

Coronado Unified School District 349 $22,211 

Encinitas Union Elementary School District 793 $44,867 

Grossmont Union High School District 5,537 $167,782 

Oceanside City Unified School District 1,386 $173,016 

Ramona City Unified School District 761 $56,848 

San Pasqual Union Elementary School District 64 $15,605 

San Ysidro School District 151 $39,684 

Santee Elementary School District 436 $58,102 

Solana Beach Elementary School District 487 $21,370 

Spencer Valley Elementary School District 6 $2,445 

Vista Unified School District 3,876 $198,054 

Warner Unified School District 

San Joaquin 

26 $17,025 

Tracy Joint Unified School District 

San Luis Obispo 

760 $117,762 

Cayucos Elementary School District 24 $14,010 

Lucia Mar Unified School District 1,168 $85,025 

San Luis Coastal Unified School District 657 $61,003 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 3 



County 

San Mateo 


Burlingame Elementary School District 1,941 $18,667 

Hillsborough City Elementary School District 175 $12,264 

Woodside Elementary School District 

Santa Barbara 

50 $17,734 

Buellton Union Elementary School District 42 $17,734 

Carpinteria Unified School District 

Santa Clara 

151 $23,889 

Cambrian Elementary School District 354 $18,794 

Evergreen Elementary School District 683 $101,544 

Gilroy Unified School District 586 $72,900 

Los Altos Elementary School District 278 $32,772 

Los Gatos Union Elementary School District 677 $21,282 

Union Elementary School District 

Santa Cruz 

345 $37,021 

Happy Valley Elementary School District 15 $5,858 

Pajaro Valley Unified School District 1,965 $141,407 

Santa Cruz City Elementary School District 125 $21,174 

Santa Cruz City High School District 550 $38,710 

Scotts Valley Unified School District 

Shasta 

246 $21,470 

Anderson Union High School District 287 $17,460 

Gateway Unified School District 65 $26,840 

Millville Elementary School District 21 $9,931 

Shasta Union High School District 2,100 $39,951 

Sierra 

Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified School District 

Siskiyou 

20 $17,734 

Hornbrook Elementary School District 10 $2,445 

Mt. Shasta Union Elementary School District 78 $17,734 

Quartz Valley Elementary School District 4 $2,445 

Yreka Union Elementary School District 64 $11,443 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 3 



County 

Sonoma 


Bellevue Union Elementary School District 60 $16,441 

Forestville Union Elementary School District 49 $15,252 

Fort Ross Elementary School District 9 $4,587 

Harmony Union Elementary School District 50 $17,734 

Kenwood Elementary School District 20 $10,460 

Sebastopol Union School District 50 $17,734 

Sonoma Valley Unified School District 448 $36,737 

Waugh Elementary School District 

Stanislaus 

50 $16,531 

Patterson Joint Unified School District 

Sutter 

252 $31,079 

Meridian Elementary School District 18 $2,753 

Pleasant Grove Elementary School District 

Tehama 

17 $8,133 

Lassen View Union Elementary School District 

Tulare 

27 $2,445 

Dinuba Unified School District 273 $41,600 

Sequoia Union Elementary School District 37 $2,447 

Sundale Union Elementary School District 

Tuolumne 

17 $5,744 

Belleview Elementary School District 24 $8,158 

Chinese Camp School District 3 $2,445 

Curtis Creek School District 84 $17,734 

Sonora School District 55 $17,734 

Soulsbyville School District 61 $17,380 

Summerville Elementary School District 

Ventura 

17 $6,695 

Conejo Valley Unified School District 3,097 $174,419 

Oxnard Elementary School District 

Yolo 

663 $130,219 

Washington Unified School District 351 $52,913 

Winters Joint Unified School District 90 $14,718 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM



Attachment 4 



County 

Alameda 


Dublin Unified School District 344 $34,313 

Fremont Unified School District 3,451 $248,872 

Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District 2,381 $111,739 

New Haven Unified School District 1,364 $107,502 

Piedmont Unified School District 346 $20,729 

Pleasanton Unified School District 2,113 $110,054 

Butte 

Oroville Union High School District 

Contra Costa 

107 $20,201 

Walnut Creek Elementary School District 132 $26,640 

West Contra Costa Unified School District 

El Dorado 

2,197 $266,528 

Buckeye Union Elementary School District 325 $33,556 

Gold Oak Union Elementary School District 74 $8,398 

Lake Tahoe Unified School District 214 $40,361 

Latrobe School District 

Fresno 

59 $16,672 

Caruthers Unified School District 72 $11,377 

Central Unified School District 963 $87,988 

Clovis Unified School District 2,500 $263,839 

Fresno Unified School District 9,790 $613,179 

Washington Colony Elementary School District 

Humboldt 

6 $10,041 

Arcata Elementary School District 81 $17,734 

Big Lagoon Union Elementary School District 3 $3,212 

Eureka City Unified School District 482 $40,035 

Ferndale Unified School District 29 $15,252 

Fieldbrook Elementary School District 21 $9,206 

Kneeland Elementary School District 4 $2,445 

Maple Creek Elementary School District 2 $2,445 

Northern Humboldt School District 156 $13,722 

Scotia Union Elementary School District 29 $12,414 

Southern Humboldt Joint Unified School District 50 $17,734 

Trinidad Union Elementary School District 14 $6,695 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 4 



County 

Imperial 


Brawley Union High School District 248 $13,867 

Central Union High School District 422 $29,923 

El Centro Elementary School District 298 $49,371 

Heber Elementary School District 32 $5,273 

Holtville Unified School District 60 $14,001 

Imperial Unified School District 212 $21,209 

McCabe Union Elementary School District 62 $10,250 

San Pasqual Valley Unified School District 18 $7,531 

Seeley Union Elementary School District 29 $9,931 

Kern 

Beardsley Elementary School District 50 $14,745 

Caliente Union School District 12 $3,787 

Delano Union Elementary School District 502 $56,578 

Greenfield Union High School District 317 $56,503 

Kern High School District 2,953 $228,334 

Rosedale Elementary School District 

Los Angeles 

350 $32,481 

Alhambra Unified School District 1,121 $155,705 

Arcadia Unified School District 1,854 $79,944 

Baldwin Park Unified School District 577 $139,713 

Bassett Unified School District 412 $47,876 

Bellflower Unified School District 1,701 $120,488 

Beverly Hills Unified School District 612 $41,822 

Bonita Unified School District 20 $80,241 

Castaic Union Elementary School District 298 $27,282 

Covina-Valley Unified School District 530 $117,306 

Downey Unified School District 941 $176,132 

East Whittier City Elementary School District 686 $74,027 

El Monte City Elementary School District 517 $95,230 

El Monte Union High School District 191 $75,505 

Glendale Unified School District 3,582 $237,279 

Hawthorne Elementary School District 546 $76,684 

La Canada Unified School District 479 $34,971 

Lawndale Elementary School District 342 $49,363 

Little Lake City Elementary School District 289 $41,209 

Lynwood Unified School District 1,250 $151,510 

Manhattan Beach Unified School District 619 $51,939 

Newhall Elementary School District 387 $52,381 

Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District 2,727 $188,975 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 4 



County District GATE Students for FY 2005-06 

Los Angeles (continued) 

Pasadena Unified School District 1,401 $183,556 

Pomona Unified School District 2,146 $277,442 

Redondo Beach Unified School District 475 $61,958 

Rosemead Elementary School District 153 $27,221 

Rowland Unified School District 1,260 $149,374 

Sulphur Springs Union Elementary School District 360 $43,567 

Walnut Valley Unified School District 1,638 $123,959 

West Covina Unified School District 1,290 $73,517 

Whittier Union High School District 

Madera 

767 $91,617 

Yosemite Union High School District 

Marin 

33 $17,734 

Novato Unified School District 529 $60,113 

San Rafael City Elementary School District 359 $28,451 

Tamalpais Union High School District 

Mendocino 

1,942 $29,271 

Anderson Valley Unified School District 34 $9,590 

Laytonville Unified School District 50 $17,380 

Ukiah Unified School District 

Merced 

362 $47,755 

McSwain Union Elementary School District 

Monterey 

118 $17,734 

Monterey Peninsula School District 615 $93,885 

Soledad Unified School District 

Nevada 

133 $27,840 

Grass Valley Elementary School District 49 $13,249 

Nevada Joint Union High School District 

Orange 

464 $32,884 

Anaheim Union High School District 7,578 $244,699 

Centralia Elementary School District 316 $42,941 

Huntington Beach Union High School District 2,750 $114,417 

Irvine Unified School District 3,592 $199,293 

Los Alamitos Unified School District 1,043 $72,409 

Orange Unified School District 3,116 $231,344 

Westminster School District 622 $80,714 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 4 



County 

Placer 


Loomis Union Elementary School District 150 $20,808 

Placer Hills Union Elementary School District 132 $13,736 

Roseville Joint Union High School District 

Riverside 

2,440 $60,205 

Desert Sands Unified School District 3,392 $190,074 

Moreno Valley Unified School District 2,945 $264,499 

Riverside Unified School District 

Sacramento 

3,256 $319,504 

Center Joint Unified School District 450 $44,623 

Galt Joint Union Elementary School District 374 $33,440 

Natomas Unified School District 889 $52,292 

Rio Linda Union Elementary School District 266 $78,024 

Robla Elementary School District 62 $18,240 

Sacramento City Unified School District 


2,305 $398,435 

Alta Loma Elementary School District 1,138 $60,437 

Apple Valley Unified School District 1,225 $106,987 

Central Elementary School District 502 $41,392 

Chino Valley Unified School District 2,317 $260,216 

Cucamonga Elementary School District 172 $22,779 

Etiwanda Elementary School District 763 $82,716 

Hesperia Unified School District 546 $124,024 

Redlands Unified School District 

San Diego 

1,829 $157,688 

Bonsall Union Elementary School District 121 $13,478 

Cajon Valley Union Elementary School District 1,244 $146,413 

Carlsbad Unified School District 1,796 $78,474 

Escondido Union Elementary School District 1,833 $153,055 

Escondido Union High School District 707 $56,592 

Lakeside Union Elementary School District 419 $36,400 

Lemon Grove School District 274 $32,678 

Poway Unified School District 4,000 $260,201 

San Dieguito Union High School District 4,837 $90,075 

San Marcos Unified School District 1,814 $109,343 

South Bay Union School District 139 $67,530 

Sweetwater Union High School District 4,002 $291,008 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 4 



County 

San Joaquin 


Linden Unified School District 195 $19,577 

Manteca Unified School District 1,266 $164,415 

Stockton City Unified School District 


1,743 $295,989 

Paso Robles Joint Unified School District 

San Mateo 

436 $52,298 

Las Lomitas Elementary School District 50 $16,847 

Portola Valley Elementary School District 49 $17,380 

San Carlos Elementary School District 

Santa Barbara 

112 $22,898 

Goleta Union Elementary School District 408 $32,659 

Montecito Union School District 41 $17,734 

Santa Barbara Elementary School District 243 $40,356 

Santa Barbara High School District 2,609 $80,447 

Santa Maria-Bonita School District 

Santa Clara 

757 $94,970 

Berryessa Union Elementary School District 1,161 $68,231 

Cupertino Union School District 1,799 $128,609 

East Side Union High School District 2,598 $185,572 

Morgan Hill Unified School District 1,525 $66,308 

Palo Alto Unified School District 872 $77,421 

San Jose Unified School District 4,543 $253,679 

Santa Clara Unified School District 867 $107,057 

Saratoga Unified School District 

Santa Cruz 

2,441 $19,559 

Live Oak Elementary School District 100 $15,583 

Mountain Elementary School District 

Shasta 

20 $6,695 

Cascade Union Elementary School District 125 $12,521 

Fall River Joint Unified School District 77 $15,044 

Grant Elementary School District 80 $14,596 

North Cow Creek Elementary School District 

Siskiyou 

88 $10,640 

Big Springs Union Elementary School District 24 $4,779 

Etna Union Elementary School District 14 $9,576 

Forks of Salmon Elementary School District 3 $2,445 

Fort Jones Union Elementary School District 14 $5,020 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 4 


Grenada Elementary School District 17 $5,020 


County 

Solano 


Dixon Unified School District 

Sonoma 

298 $30,334 

Bennett Valley Union Elementary School District 69 $17,734 

Cotati-Rohnert Park School District 520 $60,160 

Healdsburg Unified School District 209 $21,281 

Monte Rio Union Elementary School District 18 $7,531 

Rincon Valley Union School District 170 $21,769 

Santa Rosa Elementary School District 169 $35,241 

Santa Rosa High School District 2,307 $97,844 

Windsor Unified School District 

Stanislaus 

278 $28,660 

Modesto City Elementary School District 842 $148,171 

Modesto City High School District 1,838 $116,297 

Sylvan Union Elementary School District 

Sutter 

420 $57,930 

Yuba City Unified School District 

Tehama 

539 $87,682 

Corning Union Elementary School District 99 $15,399 

Reed's Creek Elementary School District 

Trinity 

20 $8,368 

Junction City School District 3 $3,670 

Southern Trinity Unified School District 17 $3,670 

Trinity Center Elementary School District 

Tulare 

3 $2,445 

Porterville Unified School District 648 $96,305 

Strathmore Union Elementary School District 

Ventura 

43 $17,025 

Ocean View Elementary School District 122 $20,665 

Ojai Unified School District 288 $30,121 

Pleasant Valley Elementary School District 820 $55,667 

Santa Paula Elementary School District 258 $32,822 

Ventura Unified School District 

Yolo 

2,076 $139,218 

Davis Joint Unified School District 1,824 $68,851 

Woodland Joint Unified School District 1,190 $80,221 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM

California State Board of 

Education 


Attachment 5 


Recommended Standards for 

Programs for Gifted and 

Talented Students 

Approved October 2001 

Revised July 2005 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM

Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented Students 


Attachment 5 


For a one-year approval, standards in the first column should be in place. For a two-year approval, standards in both column one and 

column two should be in place. When standards in all three columns are in place, districts may expect a three-year approval. Each level 

should show increasing quality. 

Section 1: Program Design Districts provide a comprehensive continuum of services and program options responsive to the needs, interests, 

and abilities of gifted students and based on philosophical, theoretical, and empirical support. (EC 52205[d] and 52206[a]) 

1:1 The plan for the district program has a written statement of philosophy, goals, and standards appropriate to the needs and abilities 

of gifted learners. 

Minimum Standards: One year approval 

a. The plan includes an intellectual component with objectives 

that meet or exceed state academic content standards. 

b. The plan incorporates expert knowledge, is approved by 

the local Board of Education and is available. 

c. The plan aligns with the available resources of the schools, 

staff, parents and community. 

d. A GATE advisory committee representing educators, 

community members and parents is formed to support the 

needs of the program. 

Commendable Standards: Two year approval 

a. The district plan is disseminated and easily 

accessible to parents and the community in 

pamphlet, website, or other forms. 

b. Participation in the program is not limited by 

other problems of logistics. 

c. A district GATE advisory committee 

representing all constituents meets on a regular 

basis to assist in program planning and 

assessment. 

Exemplary Standards: Three year approval 

a. The district plan includes identification and 

program options in one or more of the 

categories of creative ability, leadership, and 

visual and performing arts. 

1:2 The program provides administrative groupings and structures appropriate for gifted education and available to all gifted learners. 


a. Administrative groupings and structures appropriate for 

gifted education may include cluster grouping, part-time 

grouping, special day classes, and special schools. 

b. The program provides services that are an integral part of 

the school day. 

c. The program provides for continuous progress and 

intellectual peer interaction. 

d. The program provides for flexible grouping in the classroom 

to meet student needs and abilities. 

e. Children in grades K-2 are served even if not formally 

identified. 

1:3 The program is articulated with the general education programs. 


a. The program provides continuity within the gifted program 

and with the general education program. 

b. A coordinator is designated and responsible for all 

aspects of the program. 

c. The program involves the home and community. 


a. A range of appropriate administrative grouping 

options and structure is available. At the 

secondary level such groupings and structures 

are not limited to a single type at any grade 

level. 


a. The program is planned and organized to 

provide articulated learning experiences 

across subjects and grade levels. 


a. The program structure and delivery of 

services provide a balance between 

cognitive and affective learning. 


a. The program is comprehensive, structured, 

and sequenced between, within, and across 

grade levels, K-12. 

b. The program provides support services 

including counselors and consultants. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 5 


Section 2: Identification The district’s identification procedures are equitable, comprehensive, and ongoing. They reflect the district’s definition 

of giftedness and its relationship to current state criteria. (EC 52202: Title 5 Regulations, Section 3822) 

2:1 The nomination/referral process is ongoing and includes students K-12. 


a. All children are eligible for the nomination process 

regardless of socioeconomic, linguistic or cultural 

background, and/or disabilities. 

b. The district establishes and implements both traditional and 

nontraditional instruments and procedures for searching for 

gifted students. All data is used to ensure equal access to 

program services. 

c. Referrals are sought from classroom teachers and parents. 

District actively searches for referrals among 

underrepresented populations. 

d. Students may be nominated for participation more than 

once. 

e. All staff receive training and information about the 

nomination process, including the characteristics of gifted 

learners and have access to nomination forms. 


a. Training in the identification process is 

provided that is specifically appropriate for 

administrators, teachers and support 

personnel. 

b. The district maintains data on nominees and 

includes these data in reassessing students 

who are referred more than once. 


2:2 An assessment/identification process is in place to ensure that all potentially gifted students are appropriately assessed for 

identification as gifted students. 


a. A committee, including the GATE coordinator and 

certificated personnel, make final determinations on 

individual student eligibility for the program. 

b. Evidence from multiple sources is used to determine 

eligibility and a data record or file is established for each 

nominee. 

c. Parents and teachers are notified of a student’s eligibility for 

program placement and are informed of the appeal process. 

d. Transfer students are considered for identification and 

placement in a timely manner. 


a. The identification tools used are reflective of 

the district’s population. 

b. The district makes timely changes in 

identification tools and procedures based on 

the most current research. 


a. Personnel trained in gifted education meet at 

regular intervals to determine eligibility of 

individual candidates. 

b. The diversity of the district’s student 

population is increasingly reflected in the 

district GATE population. 

2:3 Multiple service options are available within the gifted education program and between other educational programs. Placement is 

based on the assessed needs of the student and is periodically reviewed. 


a. Students and parents are provided information and 

orientation regarding student placement and participation 

options. Signed parent permission for participation is on file. 

b. Upon parent request the district provides identification 

information the parent may take to a new school or district. 

c. Participation in the program is based on the criteria of 

identification and is not dependent on the perception of a 

single individual. Once identified, a student remains 

identified as a gifted student in the district, though services 

to individuals may vary from year to year. 


a. Before any student is considered for 

withdrawal from the program, interventions are 

implemented and a meeting is held with the 

parents and student. 


Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 5 


Section 3: Curriculum and Instruction Districts develop differentiated curriculum, instructional models and strategies that are aligned with and 

extend the state academic content standards and curriculum frameworks. The differentiated curriculum is related to theories, models, and 

practices from the recognized literature in the field. (EC 52206[a] and 52206[b]) 

3:1 A differentiated curriculum is in place, responsive to the needs, interests, and abilities of gifted students. 


a. The differentiated curriculum facilitates gifted students in 

their ability to meet or exceed state core curriculum and 

standards. 

b. The differentiated curriculum provides for the balanced 

development of critical, creative, problem solving and 

research skills, advanced content, and authentic and 

appropriate products. 

c. The differentiated curriculum focuses primarily on depth and 

complexity of content, advanced or accelerated pacing of 

content and novelty (unique and original expressions of 

student understanding). 

d. The differentiated curriculum facilitates development of 

ethical standards, positive self-concepts, sensitivity and 

responsibility to others, and contributions to society. 


a. The core curriculum is compacted for gifted 

students so that learning experiences are 

developmentally appropriate (not redundant) to 

their needs, interests, and abilities. 

b. There is alignment of the differentiated 

curriculum with instructional strategies that 

promote inquiry, self-directed learning, 

discussion, debate, metacognition, and other 

appropriate modes of learning. 

c. The differentiated curriculum includes learning 

theories that reinforce the needs, interests, and 

abilities of gifted students including abstract 

thinking and big ideas of the content area. 

3:2 The differentiated curriculum for gifted students is supported by appropriate structures and resources. 


a. The differentiated curriculum is scheduled on a regular 

basis and is integral to the school day. 

b. The differentiated curriculum is taught with appropriate 

instructional models. 

c. The differentiated curriculum is supported by appropriate 

materials and technology. 


a. The structure differentiated curriculum allows 

for continuity and comprehensiveness of 

learning experiences in units and courses of 

study. 

b. The differentiated curriculum utilizes a variety of 

teaching and learning patterns: large and small 

group instruction, homogeneous and 

heterogeneous grouping, teacher and student 

directed learning, and opportunities for 

independent study. 

c. An extensive range of resources (including out 

of grade level print and non print materials) is 

available to augment differentiated curriculum 

and to supplement independent study 

opportunities for individual students. 


a. A scope and sequence for the gifted program 

articulates the significant learning in content, 

skills, and products within and among grade 

levels K-12. 


a. The differentiated curriculum is planned 

both for groups of gifted learners within a 

grade level or class and for individual gifted 

learners. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 5 


Section 4: Social and Emotional Development Districts establish and implement plans to support the social and emotional development of 

gifted learners to increase responsibility, self-awareness, and other issues of affective development. (EC 52212[a][1]) 

4:1 Actions to meet the affective needs of gifted students are ongoing. 


a. Teachers, parents, administrators, and counselors are 

provided with information and training regarding the 

characteristics of gifted learners and their related social and 

emotional development. 

b. Gifted students are provided awareness opportunities of 

career and college options and guidance consistent with 

their unique strengths. At the secondary level this includes 

mentoring and pre college opportunities. 


a. Teachers are trained and knowledgeable 

regarding social and emotional development of 

gifted students, and incorporate techniques to 

support affective learning in their classrooms. 

b. Guidance and counseling services appropriate 

to the social and emotional needs of gifted 

students are provided by trained personnel. 

Referral services to community resources are 

made when appropriate. 


a. Ongoing counseling services by teachers, 

principals, and counselors are provided and 

documented as appropriate. 

b. Teachers and guidance personnel are trained 

to collaborate in implementing intervention 

strategies for at-risk gifted students. 

Intervention options can take place in school, 

at home or in the community. 

4:2 At risk gifted students are monitored and provided support (e.g. underachievement, symptoms of depression, suicide, substance 

abuse). 


a. Teachers are trained to recognize symptoms of at-risk 

behavior in gifted and talented students and to refer them to 

appropriate school personnel. 

b. Counselors and administrators are trained to make 

appropriate referrals to internal and external agencies when 

needed. 

c. Gifted students considered at-risk receive counseling and 

support services and are not dropped from gifted programs 

because of related problems. 

d. Information and support are made available to parents 

regarding at-risk gifted students. 


a. The district develops a plan for teachers to 

work in collaboration with guidance personnel 

regarding at-risk intervention strategies. 


a. At risk gifted students are provided with 

specific guidance and counseling services 

that address the related issues and 

problems, and include development of an 

intervention plan. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 5 


Section 5: Professional Development Districts provide professional development opportunities related to gifted education to administrators, 

teachers, and staff to support and improve educational opportunities for gifted students. (EC 52212[a][1]) 

5:1 The district provides professional development opportunities related to gifted learners on a regular basis. 


a. The professional development opportunities are correlated 

with defined competencies for teachers of the gifted and the 

standards for GATE programs. The focus each year is 

based on a yearly assessment of the needs of teachers and 

of the GATE program. 

b. An evaluation of outcomes obtained from professional 

development is conducted to determine effectiveness. 

Results are used to make improvements and for future 

planning. 

c. Individuals selected to conduct inservice for teachers of 

gifted learners have knowledge and expertise in the area of 

gifted education. 


a. The district encourages teachers to focus on 

gifted education as one of the areas of 

professional growth hours for credential 

renewal. 

b. A district process to qualify teachers to teach 

gifted students is in place. 


a. A district professional development plan to 

accommodate different levels of teacher 

competency is in place. 

5:2 District personnel with direct decision-making and/or instructional responsibilities for gifted students are provided with role specific 

training. 


a. Teachers in the program have education and/or experience 

in teaching gifted students or are ensured opportunities to 

gain or continue such knowledge and experience. 

b. A coordinator is in place with experience and knowledge of 

gifted education or is ensured the opportunity to gain such 

knowledge. 

c. Administrators, counselors, and support staff participate in 

professional development offerings related specifically to 

their roles and responsibilities in the GATE program. 

d. Administrators, counselors, and support staff are 

encouraged to participate with teachers in the ongoing 

professional development program related to gifted 

students. 


a. The district promotes the concept of teacher-toteacher 

professional development in addition to 

contracting experts to conduct an inservice. 


a. All teachers assigned to teach gifted 

students are certified through a variety of 

formal and informal certificate programs. 

b. The coordinator of the program is a specialist 

in gifted education with demonstrated 

experience and knowledge in the field. 

c. Follow-up classroom support for application 

of activities and strategies presented during 

inservice or professional development are 

planned. 

d. The district identifies support personnel both 

inside and outside the district with expertise 

in meeting the needs of gifted learners. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 5 


Section 6: Parent & Community Involvement Districts provide procedures to ensure consistent participation of parents and community 

members in the planning and evaluation of programs for gifted students. (EC 52205[2][f]) 

6:1 Open communication with parents and the community is maintained. 


a. Parents are informed of the district’s criteria and 

procedures for identifying gifted and talented students as 

well as the program options and learning opportunities 

available. Translations are provided. 

b. The district’s state application is available to parents and 

the community. 

c. GATE parents are involved in the ongoing planning and 

evaluation of the GATE program. 


a. The district and/or school provides parents of 

students identified as gifted and talented with 

orientation and regular updates regarding the 

program and its implementation. 

b. The products and achievements of gifted 

students are shared with parents in a variety of 

ways. 

6:2 An active GATE advisory committee with parent involvement is supported by the district. 


a. Parents participate in the district/site advisory committees. It 

is recommended that the committee meet at least three 

times a year. 

b. The district Gate coordinator collaborates with the GATE 

advisory committee to provide parent education 

opportunities related to gifted education. 

c. Efforts are made to ensure that representation of GATE 

parents on the GATE advisory committee reflect the 

demographics of the student population. 


a. A parent member of the GATE advisory 

committee cosigns the district’s state 

application. 

b. Parents participate in the GATE advisory 

committee which meets on a regular basis. 

c. GATE advisory committees and/or School Site 

Councils are regularly informed of current 

research and literature in gifted education. 

d. The district GATE coordinator collaborates with 

the district GATE advisory committee to offer 

professional development opportunities to staff, 

parents, and community members related to 

gifted education. 

e. The district GATE coordinator and the district 

GATE advisory committee solicit community 

support. 


a. Parents are involved in the development of 

the application and/or school site plans 

related to GATE programs. 

b. The talents of GATE parents and other 

community resources supplement the core 

and the differentiated curriculum. 

c. Partnerships between the GATE program and 

business and community organizations are 

established. 


a. The parents of special needs students, such 

as gifted English language learners and 

gifted disabled students, participate in the 

district’s GATE advisory committee. This may 

include special provisions such as changing 

meeting sites and times and providing 

transportation. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 5 


Section 7: Program Assessment Districts establish formal and informal evaluation methods and instruments that assess the gifted program and 

the performance of gifted students (which meets or exceeds state content standards). Results of data collected, including state standardized 

tests, are used to study the value and impact of the services provided and to improve gifted programs and gifted student performance. 

(EC 52212[a][1]) 

7:1 The district provides ongoing student and GATE program assessment that is consistent with the program’s philosophy, goals, and 

standards. 


a. All components of the program are periodically reviewed by 

individuals knowledgeable about gifted learners and who 

have competence in the evaluation process. The results are 

used for continuing program development. 

b. The program assessment process is structured to measure 

the goals and standards of the program; instruments used 

are valid and reliable for their intended purpose. 

c. The district uses multiple, traditional and nontraditional 

strategies to assess student performance. These include 

standardized and criterion referenced achievement tests, 

questionnaires, and performance-based measures. 


a. Individuals planning and conducting the 

assessment activities have expertise in gifted 

education program evaluation. 

b. The program contains a clear description of 

performance expectations of gifted students 

defined at each grade level. 

c. Criteria for levels of performance or rubrics are 

used as part of the assessment process. 

d. The assessment process includes strategies 

that parallel the instruction as a means to 

collect information about student knowledge 

and capability. Strategies include student 

inquiry, collaboration, and reflection. 

e. The results of the program assessment are 

presented to the local Board of Education and 

accessible to all constituencies of the program. 

f. Districts provide sufficient resources to fund 

program assessment. 


a. Criteria for levels of performance or rubrics 

are used for each assessment product, 

course, and/or grade level. 

b. The assessment report for all educational 

services involving gifted students includes 

both strengths and weaknesses of the 

program and is accompanied by a plan with 

implications for improvement and renewal 

over time. 

c. Districts allocate time, financial support, and 

personnel to conduct regular and systematic 

formative and summative program 

assessment. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 5 


Section 8: Budgets District budgets for gifted programs support and provide for all the components of the district’s GATE program and meet the 

related standards. (EC 52209, 52212[a][1], [2], [3]) 

8:1 The district GATE budget is directly related to the GATE program objectives with appropriate allocations. 


a. Gate funds and/or funding sources are used to address: 

• professional development 

• direct student services 

• district level coordination 

• GATE student identification process 

b. Expenditures of state GATE funds supplement, not 

supplant, district funds spent on gifted learners. 

c. There is a budget allocation for district GATE coordination 

by a single individual on a full or part time basis. When 

appropriate site coordinators should be included in the 

budget. 

d. Carry-over monies are minimal and maintained within the 

district GATE accounts. 

e. Indirect costs do not exceed state limitations. 


a. Allocation for the GATE coordinator, 

regardless of funding source, reflects the 

scope and complexities of the district’s size 

and GATE plan. 


a. The district encourages fiscal collaboration 

between categorical programs in order to 

make it possible for gifted students to 

benefit from more than one categorical 

program. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM



ftab-sfsd-sep05item01 

SUBJECT 

ITEM #26 



Instructional Materials Fund – Approve Tentative Encumbrances 

and Allocations for Fiscal Year 2005-06 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve the Instructional Materials Fund Tentative Encumbrances and 

Allocations for fiscal year 2005-06, as identified on the State Board of Education (SBE) 

Resolution (Attachment 2). 


This agenda item is annually submitted to and approved by the SBE. 


In accordance with Article 3, Chapter 2, Part 33, Division 4 of the California Education 

Code, the SBE must encumber and allocate funds from the State Instructional Materials 

Fund which is administered by the CDE. The information attached describes the 

allocation formulas and requirements and recommends a resolution for the tentative 

determination of encumbrances and allocations from the Instructional Materials Fund for 

fiscal year 2005-06. 


SBE approval of the 2005-06 Instructional Materials Fund encumbrances and 

allocations authorizes the apportionment of $360,966,000 to local educational agencies 

(LEAs) for instructional materials in September 2005. This amount represents an 8.40 

percent increase from the 2004-05 authorized amount of $333,000,000 that was 

allocated to LEAs at a rate of $54.22 per pupil. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: Tentative Determination of Encumbrances and Allocations of the State 

Instructional Materials Fund for Fiscal Year 2005-06 (2 pages) 

Revised 1/19/2012 1:19:36 PM

Attachment 2: State Board of Education Resolution for Fiscal Year 2005-06 (1 page) 

Revised 1/19/2012 1:19:36 PM

Tentative Determination of Encumbrances and Allocations 

of the State Instructional Materials Fund for Fiscal Year 2005-06 


Attachment 1 


Annual state funding for the acquisition of instructional materials is provided by an 

appropriation to the State Instructional Materials Fund. For fiscal year 2005-06, the 

Budget Act provides $360,966,000 which will be apportioned based on a per pupil rate 

of approximately $57.00 using the October 2004 California Basic Educational System 

enrollment. 

To allocate the instructional materials funds, the following is presented to the State 

Board of Education (SBE) for consideration and approval: 

I. Accessible Instructional Materials – California Education Code 

Section 60240(c)(1) 

The SBE shall set aside part of the Instructional Materials Fund to pay for the 

cost of accessible instructional materials (such as braille and large print) to 

accommodate pupils who are visually impaired or have other disabilities pursuant 

to California Education Code sections 60312 and 60313. For fiscal year 2005-06, 

the estimated cost is $550,000. 

II. Reserve to Pay Cost to Replace Materials Lost in Disasters – California 

Education Code Section 60240(c)(2) 

The SBE may set aside part of the Instructional Materials Fund, in an amount up 

to $200,000 each year to pay for the cost of replacing instructional materials that 

are lost or destroyed by reason of fire, theft, natural disaster, or vandalism. The 

SBE’s current policy is to keep a reserve of $50,000 in the disaster fund, and limit 

each school district’s claim to a maximum of $5,000 or a district’s insurance 

deductible amount, whichever is less. 

Since there were no claims filed for disaster in fiscal year 2004-05 to draw down 

on the $50,000, an augmentation to this fund is not required for fiscal year 

2005-06. 

III. Warehousing and Transporting Instructional Materials – California Education 

Code Section 60240(c)(3) 

The SBE may set aside part of the Instructional Materials Fund for the costs of 

warehousing and transporting instructional materials it has acquired. A separate 

appropriation (Item 6110-015-0001 of the Budget Act of 2005, Chapter 38, 

Statutes of 2005) is provided in the 2005-06 fiscal year for this purpose, 

therefore, no allocation is needed under this section. 

Revised 1/19/2012 1:19:36 PM

IV. Establishing a Per Pupil Allowance – California Education Code 

Section 60242(a) 


Attachment 1 


The SBE shall encumber the funds for the purpose of establishing an 

allowance for each school district, county office of education, state special 

school, and all-charter school district (meaning all schools within the district 

are charter schools) to purchase instructional materials pursuant to California 

Education Code sections 60420-60424, the Instructional Materials Funding 

Realignment Program. Note that an all-charter school district may choose not 

to receive charter school categorical block grant funds and would thus be 

eligible for the Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Program. The 

allowance will be apportioned in September 2005 and will represent 90 

percent of the total entitlement for each local educational agency. 

Revised 1/19/2012 1:19:36 PM

State Board of Education Resolution 

for Fiscal Year 2005-06 

Tentative Determination of Encumbrances and Allocations 

Of the State Instructional Materials Fund 


Attachment 2 


WHEREAS, California Education Code sections 60240 and 60242 require the State 

Board of Education (SBE) to encumber parts of the State Instructional Materials Fund 

for use in acquiring and distributing instructional materials, therefore, be it 

RESOLVED, the SBE hereby tentatively encumbers the following amounts of the State 

Instructional Materials Fund for fiscal year 2005-06: 

California 

Education Code To pay for the cost of accessible 

Section 60240(c)(1) instructional materials $550,000 

California 

Education Code To establish a base allowance 

Section 60242(a) per enrolled pupil of $57.00 for 

public schools and state special 

schools $360,416,000 

TOTAL $360,966,000 

Revised 1/19/2012 1:19:36 PM

Revised 1/19/2012 1:19:36 PM




SUBJECT 

ITEM #27 



Implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 1113, Chapter 208, Statutes 

of 2004, Item 6110-189-0001: Approve Release of Funds for 

Supplementary Materials for English Learners 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve the release of funds to a list of districts, so that they may 

purchase supplementary materials for English learner (EL) students as requested in 

their “intent to purchase forms” (IPF) submitted to the CDE. 


In June of 2005, the SBE received an information memorandum on the implementation 

of a provision in the Budget Act of 2004 (SB 1113, Chapter 208, Statutes of 2004), Item 

6110-189-0001, which provides one-time funding of $30,000,000 to purchase 

standards-aligned instructional materials for EL students in kindergarten and grades 

one through twelve. The purpose of the funds is for districts to purchase supplementary 

instructional materials to accelerate the pupils as rapidly as possible toward grade-level 

proficiency in reading, writing, and speaking English. The materials may only be used in 

addition to the standards-aligned materials adopted by the SBE. 

The SBE, in July of 2005, was also presented with a preliminary report based on data 

collected from the first four reviews of EL materials that had been requested by 

participating California school districts. The SBE approved the release of funds to 

certain districts for the purpose of purchasing supplementary materials. 


The provisional budget act language in SB 1113 contains the conditions under which a 

local educational agency (LEA) may receive funding; specifies a funding formula for 

LEAs participating in the program; prescribes a process for the CDE to review the 

supplementary materials requested for purchase by LEAs; and sets a timeline on 

districts to encumber the funds. 

Funding will be based on the number of LEAs that submit IPFs to participate in this onetime 

allocation. LEAs had until March 31, 2005, to submit their IPFs to the CDE. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19:44 PM




Depending on the number of LEAs participating in the program, the amount may be as 

high as $25 or as low as $17 per pupil. Also, LEAs may spend no more than $30 per 

pupil from the funds for the purchase of supplementary materials. Furthermore, the 

budget act language specifies that the allocation will be based on the most recently 

certified language census of EL students. Once the funds are released by the SBE, 

LEAs have until June 30, 2006, to encumber them. 

In addition to specifying the funding formula for this one-time allocation, the budget act 

also outlines several key conditions governing these funds: 

1. The requirement that the CDE develop an English language development (ELD) 

and English-Language Arts (ELA) matrix to determine if the instructional 

materials correlate to the state-adopted standards; 

2. Specification of a process for LEAs to file IPFs with the CDE prior to the State 

review of the supplementary materials; 

3. SBE release of funds to LEAs. 

Timeline of SB 1113 Implementation 

September 2004 

Letter from State Superintendent Jack O’Connell to County and District Superintendents 

and Governing Board Presidents outlining the SB 1113 provisions and the 

implementation timeline. 

November 2004 

The CDE constructed a set of matrices that included ELD standards and proficiency 

levels, and ELA standards that would be used in the review of supplementary materials 

requested by LEAs in their IPFs. The CDE held focus group discussions in the southern 

(San Diego) and northern (Sacramento) parts of the State on the matrices and received 

input from ELD and ELA experts on the format. 

On Wednesday, November 17, 2004, the CDE held a briefing with publishers interested 

in filling out the matrices and to review the specific requirements of SB 1113. 

December 2004 

The CDE posted on the Supplementary Materials for English Learners Web page 

(http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/englearnrs.asp) all 33 matrices in the domains of 

reading, writing, and speaking English corresponding to the ELD grade spans and the 

ELA grade level standards. 

December 2004 – March 2005 

Several Learning Resource Display Centers (LRDCs) and County Offices of Education 

held instructional materials fairs at which interested publishers showcased their EL 

supplementary materials. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19:44 PM




During this period (December to March), districts reviewed materials for their alignment 

to the ELD/ELA correlation matrices and decided which materials best addressed their 

student EL needs. 

February 8, 2005 

Letter from Deputy Superintendent Sue Stickel to County and District Superintendents 

and Governing Board Presidents outlining the intent to purchase process. 

March 31, 2005 

The deadline for LEAs to submit an IPF to be eligible for EL funding. Over 700 IPFs 

were submitted to the CDE. 

May, June, and August 2005 

Instructional materials are being reviewed for their alignment to ELD and ELA 

standards. Due to the large number of programs requested by the LEAs from over 60 

publishers, the CDE has contracted with four county offices of education to assist in 

conducting the review of supplementary materials. The counties are San Joaquin, Kern, 

Orange, and San Diego. They were chosen for their availability of space, staff, and 

reviewers. It is anticipated that half the reviewers have to be ELA experts and the other 

half ELD experts. Once the reviews are completed, publishers will have the opportunity 

to appeal to the CDE. An appeal panel of reviewers and CDE staff will listen to concerns 

and weigh the evidence presented. It is the goal of the CDE to ensure that materials 

receive an impartial review, but also that they meet the legislative intent and are 

substantially correlated to the ELD and ELA standards. 

July and September 2005 

The SBE will take action to approve the release of funds for the purchase of 

supplementary instructional materials. 

October – November 2005 

The CDE will allocate funds to LEAs to purchase supplementary instructional materials 

that they have requested in their IPFs, as either first choice or second choice. 

June 30, 2006 

Deadline for LEAs to encumber funds. Of the 700 IPFs, how many different 

supplemental materials were listed? How many, what percentage, have successfully 

made it through the review? 


The Legislature appropriated funds for the CDE to implement this provisional budget act 

language. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19:44 PM



A last minute memorandum will provide the CDE-recommend list of districts for SBE 

approval. Comment [A1]: We need this attachment 

ASAP. Karen has even suggested we get a list 

of approved districts and have the remainder 

provided as a blue. Let’s talk. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19:44 PM











SUBJECT: Implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 1113, Chapter 208, Statutes of 2004: 

Approve Release of Funds for Supplementary Instructional Materials for 

English Learners 


Education (SBE) approve the release of funds to the list of districts presented in 

Attachment 1 for the purpose of purchasing supplementary instructional materials for 

English learner (EL) students. The purchases by the districts will be contingent upon a 

few of the publishers completing revisions to their matrices, which were reviewed 

recently in Orange County in August, as noted in Attachment 2. 

Release of funds is not recommended for any supplementary instructional materials that 

did not meet the SB 1113 provisions, including the requirement that the materials 

support the teaching of English Language Development (ELD) standards and English- 

Language Arts (ELA) content standards. In each case where materials did not meet the 

SB 1113 provisions, the applying district either (1) had included an acceptable alternate 

choice or (2) was assisted in selecting an acceptable alternate choice. 

Attachment 1: List of the districts recommended for approval by the CDE at this 

meeting, which is an addition to the list submitted and approved at July 

SBE meeting (29 pages) 

Attachment 2: List of publishers reviewed in Orange County in August that need to 

revise their matrices (1 page) 

Attachment 3: Complete list of all of the districts that have submitted intent to purchase 

forms (IPFs) and their allocation amounts (70 pages) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14 PM

Publisher Program 

Lexia Learning 

Systems, Inc 

SB 1113 List of Publishers that need to Revise Matrices 

Orange County 2nd Review 

Office of Education 

Lexia Primary 

Reading 

Lit Conn English Now! A & 

B 

Pearson Digital 

Learning 

Pearson Digital 

Learning 

SRA/MCGRAW 

HILL 

Teacher Created 

Materials 

Teacher Created 

Materials 

Success Maker 

Reading 

Adventures 

Success Maker 

Discover English 

Language for 

Thinking 

Exploring 

Nonfiction: 

Reading in 

Content Areas 

Language 

Exploring 

Nonfiction 

Secondary 

ELD Proficiency Level 

Beginning 

Early Intermediate/ 

Intermediate 

Early Advanced/ 

Advanced 

Beginning 


Intermediate 


Intermediate 


Attachment 2 


Grade Domain 

Level 

Span 

K-5 Reading 

K-8 Listening/ 

Speaking 

Reading 

Writing 

K-2 Reading 

Early Intermediate 3-5 Listening/ 

Speaking 

Reading 

Beginning 


Intermediate 


Advanced 

Intermediate 


Advanced 

Writing 

3-5 Listening/ 

Speaking 

K-5 Reading 

Early Intermediate 6-8 Reading 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14 PM

SB1113 Intent to Purchase - Detailed 

County Name 

Kern 

District Name 

LAKESIDE UNION ELEMENTARY 

Publisher 

Fairfield Language 

ROSETTA STONE ENG LEVEL 1 


EL (R30 Enrollment) $19.76 X 188 

Total District Disbursement $3,714.88 

Los Angeles 

District Name 

MOUNTAIN VIEW ELEMENTARY 

Publisher 

Oxford University Press 

OXFORD PIC DICTIONARY BEG LVL PKG 



District Name 

TEMPLE CITY UNIFIED 

Publisher 

Hampton-Brown Company 

PICTURE IT! BIG BOOK OF GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS 

PICTURE IT ! BIG BOOK OF GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS (PACK 7) 

ELD LEVELED LIBRARIES 4.4 

ELD LEVELED LIBRARIES PACK 4.3A 

ELD LEVEL LIBRARIES 4.1 

PICTURE PERFECT DICTIONARY #2 GR K-8 

READING BASIC PHONICS KIT PACK 15.0 


READING BASIC PHONICS KIT 

CARLOS COMES TO LAKESIDE ELEM PACK 12.0 

Picture Perfect Dictionaries Pkgs 10.2 

VOCABULARY BUILDERS 

JUST THE RIGHT WORD PACK 8.0 

PICTURE PERFECT DICTIONARY ONE 10.1 

VOCAB BUILDERS KIT GR 1 

PICTURE PERFECT DICTIONARY WORD BOOK 

PICTURE PERFECT DICTIONARIES GR 4 


Tuesday, August 30, 2005 Page 1 of 29

County Name 

Los Angeles 

District Name 

VALLE LINDO ELEMENTARY 

Publisher 


Litcon Inc. 


ENGLISH NOW TEACHERS GUIDE 

ENGLISH NOW BINDER & TRANSPARENCIES 

ENGLISH NOW STUDENT BKLT B 

ENGLISH NOW BOOKLET B OLDER 

ENGLISH NOW A/B PICTURE FILE 

ENGLISH NOW A/B STUDENT BOOK A 



District Name 

WEST COVINA UNIFIED 

Publisher 





VOCAB BUILDERS KIT PACK 5.0 

ENGLISH TO A BEAT - PACK 6.0 

ENGLISH AT YOUR COMMAND 9.4 


AVENUES GRADE 2 LEVEL C PACK 1.2 

AVENUES GRADE 4 LEVEL E PACK 1.4 

AVENUES GRADE 5 LEVEL F PACK 1.5 


ENG AT YOUR COMMAND - PACK 9.1 

AVENUES GRADE 3 LEVEL D PACK 1.3 

English at Your Command (pkg 9.2) Gr 3 

Thomson-Heinle 

WEAVING IT TOGETHER BOOK 1 






District Name 

WESTSIDE UNION ELEMENTARY 

Publisher 

Benchmark Education Company 


County Name 

Los Angeles 

FLUENCY KITS FOR INDEPENDENT PRACTICE 

FLUENCY KITS 

Great Source Education Group 

Access for Newcomers (3 Kits) Gr 6-8 


JUST THE RIGHT WORD BIG BOOK OF BASIC VOCABULARY 

PICTURE PERFECT WORD BOOK 

PICTURE PERFECT DICTIONARY 1 

PICTURE PERFECT DICTIONARY 2 



District Name 

WHITTIER CITY 

Publisher 


Avenues to ELA & content (Pack 1.0 & 1.1) 

AVENUES GRADE 4 LEVEL E PACK 1.4 


AVENUES GRADE 3 LEVEL D PACK 1.3 

McGraw-Hill 

JAMESTOWN SIGNATURE READING 

JAMESTOWN SIGNATURE READING 



District Name 

WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH 

Publisher 

Great Books Foundation 

ACCESS MATH TEACHERS EDITION 


READING & WRITING SOURCEBOOKS GRADE 10 TEACHERS GUIDE 



READING & WRITING SOURCEBOOKS GRADE 10 STUDENT BOOKS 





ACCESS HISTORY 

ACCESS HISTORY TEACHERS EDITION 

ACCESS MATH 


ACCESS SCIENCE 

ACCESS SCIENCE TE 



County Name 

Los Angeles 

District Name 

WILSONA 

Publisher 

Jamestown Education 

READING FLUENCY CD LEVEL E 

READING FLUENCY LEVEL J GR 9-12 

READING FLUENCY I 

READING FLUENCY CD LEVEL H 

READING FLUENCY CD LEVEL G 

READING FLUENCY CD LEVEL F 

READING FLUENCY CD LEVEL D 







ENGLISH AT YOUR COMMAND 




District Name 

WISEBURN ELEMENTARY 

Publisher 


GR 1 BIG BOOK COLL 




ENGLISH AT YOUR COMMAND EARLY ELEM PACK 9.3 

AVENUES TO ELA AND CONTENT (PACK 1.2) 

English to a Beat 

BIG BOOKS FOR ELD 

Avenues To ELA & Content Gr K 

VOCAB BUILDERS KIT GR K 


AVENUES TO ELA & CONTENT PACK 1.1 



Madera 

District Name 

ALVIEW-DAIRYLAND UNION ELEMENTARY 

Publisher 


County Name 

Madera 


Marin 

District Name 

LINCOLN ELEMENTARY 

Publisher 

MORE GRAMMAR PRACTICE ANSWER KEY,BOOKS 



Holiday House 

Merced 

District Name 

EL NIDO ELEMENTARY 

Publisher 

PENGUINS 


Total District Disbursement $177.84 


Avenues To ELA & Content Gr K 

English at your command Grades 6,7,8 

ENGLISH TO A BEAT 

PHOTO FILE PICTURE CARDS 



Placer 

District Name 

WESTERN PLACER UNIFIED 

Publisher 

Harcourt School Publishers 

READING COMPREHENSION PKG 12 GR 5 

READING COMPREHENSION PACKAGE 5 

VOCAB DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE PKG 1 




READING COMPREHENSION PACKAGE 12 GR K 




Riverside 

District Name 

ALVORD UNIFIED 

Publisher 


County Name 

Riverside 

Benchmark Education Company 

JACKIE ROBINSON 

READERS THEATER LOST CITY OF THE INCA 

READERS THEATER THE PATTERN HIKE 

FLUENCY KITS 

FLUENCY KITS FOR INDEPENDENT PRACTICE 

READERS THEATER FOR FLUENCY & COMPREHENSION KIT 1 & 2 

DynEd International 

ENGLISH FOR SUCCESS 

NEW DYNAMIC ENGLISH 

FIRST ENGLISH 

Globe Fearon 

READING STRATEGIES LANGUAGE ARTS STUDENT 

READING STRATEGIES SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHER 

READING STRATEGIES SOCIAL STUDIES STUDENT 

READING STRATEGIES SCIENCE TEACHER 

READING STRATEGIES SCIENCE STUDENT 

READING STRATEGIES MATH TEACHER 

READING STRATEGIES MATH STUDENT 

READING STRATEGIES LANGUAGE ARTS TCHR 


ACCESS SCIENCE COMPLETE PKG 

ALL WRITE/INSIDE WRITING GR 6 BUNDLE 

NEWCOMER KIT 

ALL WRITE/INSIDE WRITING BUNDLE GR 8 

ALL WRITE/INSIDE WRITING BUNDLE GR 7 

ACCESS ENGLISH COMPLETE PRGM PKG 6-8 

ACCESS ENGLISH STUDENT BOOK & ACTIVITY JOURNAL BUNDLE 

ACCESS MATH STUDENT BOOK & ACTIVITY JOURNAL BUNDLE 

ACCESS AMERICAN HISTORY STUDENT BOOK & ACTIVITY JOURNAL BUND 

ACCESS MATH COMPLETE PKG 

ACCESS SCIENCE ACTIVITY BOOK 

ACCESS AMERICAN HISTORY COMPLETE PKG 


PICTURE CARDS 





LAKESIDE ELEMENTARY 

PICTURE IT GRAPHIC ORGANIZER 

VOCABULARY BUILDER KIT 

LANGUAGE CHARTS 

Houghton Mifflin 

LEVELED READERS CLASSROOM COLLECTIONS BELOW LEVEL SET 3 


EARLY START COMPLETE KIT LEVEL K 

LEVELED READERS/LANGUAGE SUPPORT KITS 1 



County Name 

Riverside 

LEVELED READERS GRADE 2 COLLECTION LANGUAGE SUPPORT 



LEVELED READERS LANG SUPPORT GR 3 

LEVELED READERS CLASSROOM COLLECTIONS BELOW LEVEL SET 1.1-1.5 





LEVELED READERS TCHNG RES GR 1 

LEVELED READERS TCHR RES GR 2 






LEVELED READING PACKAGE 


Leap Frog School House 

McDougal Little 

National Geographic 

LANGUAGE FIRST PROGRAM 

AMAZING STORIES LEVEL 2 



WINDOWS ON LITERACY FLUENT PLUS A 

CIVILIZATION PAST TO PRESENT 

RESPIRATION & CIRCULATION 

BONES & MUSCLES 

TWO CULTURES MEET: NATIVE AMERICAN & EUROPEAN 

ECOSYSTEMS 

JAMESTOWN & THE VIRGINIA COLONY 

VOYAGES TO THE INDIES 

EXPEDITION TO THE AMERICAS 

THE LAND AROUND US CLASSROOM SET GR 3-5 

WORLD REGIONS 

WORLD CULTURES 

EMERGENT SET A SOCIAL STUDIES 

Windows on Literacy Emergent Set B 

WINDOWS ON LITERACY EARLY SET A CLASSROOM SET 

WINDOWS ON LITERACY EARLY SET B CLASSROOM SET 

WINDOWS ON LITERACY FLUENT B 

WINDOWS ON LITERACY FLUENT PLUS B 

LIGHT 

CACTUSES 

WINDOWS ON LITERACY FLUENT A 

Early Set A & B Gr 2-3 

POTATOES 

LIFE IN THE OCEAN 


County Name 

Riverside 

WHAT MAKES A TIGER HARD TO SEE? 

A CAT'S WHISKERS 

USING ROCKS 

FROGS 

CAN YOU SEE AN INSECT 

PEANUTS 

EMERGENT BIG BOOK SET GR K 

EMERGENT SET A GR K 

EMERGENT SET A GR K 

STEP UP TO WINDOWS ON LITERACY SET A 

COMPLETE KINDERGARTEN COLLECTION 

PROTECTING THE PLANET 

SOIL 

GUIDE TO THE PLANETS 

TIME LINES 

INTRODUCTION TO ENERGY 

SEA AND LAND ANIMALS 

THE SUN 

ANIMALS WITH A BACKBONE 

SYMBOLS OF FREEDOM 

INSECTS 

DINOSAUR DETECTIVES 

CORN 

COTTON COMES FROM PLANTS 

WHY DID THEY COME? 

FINDING OUT ABOUT THE PAST 

ALL KINDS OF MAPS 

SEVEN CONTINENTS 

ANALYZING ANTS 


OXFORD PICTURE DICTIONARY INT WORKBOOKS 

OXFORD PICTURE DICTIONARY 

Pearson Longman 

Academic Dictionary Package 

SRA/McGraw-Hill 

LANGUAGE FOR THINKING MASTERY TEST PKG GR 1-6 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING GR K-5 WKBK A 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING WKBK B 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING WKBK C 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING WKBK D 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING PICTURE CARDS K-6 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING MASTER TEST PKG K-6 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING SKILLS FOLDER PKG K-6 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING GR K-5 

LANGUAGE FOR WRITING TCHR MATERIALS GR 4-5 

LANGUAGE FOR THINKING WKBK K-6 

LANGUAGE FOR WRITING TEXTBOOK 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING ACTIVITY BLM K-6 

LANGUAGE FOR WRITING K-5 TEXT 


County Name 

Riverside 

District Name 

BANNING UNIFIED 

LANGUAGE FOR THINKING SKILLS FOLDER K-6 

LANGUAGE FOR WRITING WORKBOOK 

LANGUAGE FOR THINKING GR K-5 PICTURE BOOK 

LANGUAGE FOR THINKING GR K-5 TCHR ED 


COMPOSITION PRACTICE BOOK 1 

GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT LEVEL 1 

Publisher 




GRAMMAR IN USE: BASIC WORKBOOK WITHOUT ANSWERS 



MORE GRAMMAR PRACTICE BOOK 1 

MORE GRAMMAR PRACTICE 3 

MORE GRAMMAR PRACTICE 2 




SANTILLANA INTENSIVE ENGLISH K-5 

SANTILLANA INTENSIVE ENGLISH CLASS LIBRARY 

SANTILLANA INTENSIVE ENGLISH VOCABULARY ENRICHMENT 

SANTILLANA INTENSIVE ENGLISH OPENING DOORS CLASSROOM KIT 

SANTILLANA INTENSIVE ENGLISH 6-8 


WEAVING IT TOGETHER 2 GR 9-12 

WEAVING IT TOGETHER 1 




District Name 

BEAUMONT UNIFIED 

Publisher 


READING AND WRITING SOURCEBOOKS GR 9 


READING AND WRITING SOURCE BOOKS GR 8 




READING AND WRITING SOURCE BOOK GR 12 

Harcourt Achieve 


County Name 

Riverside 

ON OUR WAY TO ENGLISH COMPLETE PKG GR K 

ON OUR WAY TO ENGLISH GR 1 

Leap Frog School House 

Language First Complete Learning Center Gr K-2 

Options Publishing Inc. 

BEST PRACTICE IN READING CLASSROOM LIBRARY C 

BEST PRACTICES IN READING - LEVEL B 

BEST PRACTICES IN READING - LEVEL D 



District Name 

COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED 

Publisher 



ELD LVLD LIBRARIES PACK 4.2 








ON OUR WAY TO ENGLISH SUPPLEMENTAL THEME PKG GR 1 




ON OUR WAY TO ENGLISH SUPPLEMENTAL THEME PKG GR K 


Litcon Inc. 

ENGLISH NOW BOOKLET A YOUNG 

COMPLETE ENGLISH NOW TEACHER SET GR K-5 

ENGLISH NOW BOOKLET A OLDER 


READING EXPEDITIONS THE BASICS 

READING EXPEDITIONS LEVEL A 

READING EXPEDITIONS LEVEL B 

READING EXPEDITIONS LEVEL C 



District Name 

TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED 

Publisher 


OUR CHANGING EARTH 


County Name 

Riverside 

TECHNOLOGY MATTERS 

PANDAS ARE COMING 

IN THE DEEP 

IN THE OCEAN 

BILLIONS OF BUGS 

GOING WEST 

WATER ALL AROUND THE EARTH 

BOUNDARIES WASHED AWAY 

ROAD TO FREEDOM 

QUIZ SHOW 

HOW'S THE WEATHER? 

EXPLORING THE WORLD 


ANNA ALLEN FACES THE WHITE DRAGON 

THE STORY OF BUNKER'S COVE 

THE POETRY OF BASKETBALL 

BUCK LEONARD BASEBALL HERO 

YO-YO MA MUSICAL SUPERSTAR 

FRIENDS OR ENEMIES? 

DANGEROUS WATERS 

AN AMERICAN DREAM 

ALONE IN THE STORM 

A WORLD OF SNOW 

DANGER - LANDSLIDES! 

THE UNBELIEVABLE JOHNNY APPLES 

DEBORAH SAMPSON SOLDIER OF THE 

ZACHARY AND THE PONY EXPRESS 

THE STORY OF MY LIFE 

THE HYRAX: AN INTERESTING PUZZLE 

PROTECTING SEA TURTLES 

ELOISE GREENFIELD THE MUSIC OF P 

MARK MCGWIRE HOME RUN KING 

DUKE ELLINGTON MAN OF MUSIC 

THANK YOU SANDRA CISNEROS 

THE TRADITION OF THE HARVEST 

JOURNEY TO KANSAS 


SOUTHWEST READING EXPEDITIONS 

OUR NEW LIFE IN AMERICA 

LOOKING AT CELLS 

Rosen Classroom Books & Materials 

CUSTOM CLASSROOM COLLECTION OF EARLY EMERGENT 

ROSEN GRAPHIC NONFICTION 

Saddleback 

Carter High Chronicles (Library Set) Gr 9-12 

Carter High Senior Year (Library Set) Gr 9-12 

Scholastic 

SMALL WILDCATS 

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN 


County Name 

Riverside 

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 

THE STORY OF THOMAS ALVA EDISON INVENTOR 

WE SHALL NOT BE MOVED 

A PICTURE BOOK OF MARTIN LUTHER KING 

A PICTURE BOOK OF ROSA PARKS 

ACROSS AMERICA ON THE EMIGRANT TRAIL 

COMING TO AMERICA 

PYTHONS AND BOAS 

TIGER ATTACKS 

TEN TRUE ANIMAL RESCUES 

BEING ACTIVE IS FUN 

FRIENDS AT SCHOOL 

TEN BLACK DOTS 

TWISTER TROUBLE 

IF YOUR NAME WAS CHANGED AT ELLIS ISLAND 

MY UNCLE OWNS A DELI 

ALL KINDS OF REPTILES 

GIVING THANKS 

GUNG HAY FAT CHOY 

EARTH DAY 

HOW KIDS GROW 

CIRCUS FUN 

WATCH ME BUILD A SANDCASTLE 

A RAINBOW ALL AROUND ME 

AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED PAUL REVERE? 

STARS 

WHY LAY EGGS? 

MY DAD WORKS ON A FARM 

BUDDY 

SNOW JOE 

THE NOODLE GAME 

ARMIES OF ANTS 

THIS IS WHERE I LIVE 

THE MAGIC SCHOOL BUS INSIDE A HURRICANE 

THE BEAR CAME OVER TO MY HOUSE 

THE MAGIC SCHOOL BUS INSIDE THE EARTH 

ELLEN OCHOA 

ALCATRAZ 

RAIN FOREST 

SNAKES ALIVE! 

OCEAN TIDE POOL 

TEAMMATES 

FIREFIGHTERS A TO Z 

WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE 

WHATS THE BIG IDEA, BEN FRANKLIN? 

BRIDGES 

THE NEW AMERICANS 

GIVE ME LIBERTY! 

WONDERFUL WORMS 

PROJECT APOLLO 


County Name 

Riverside 

STARS OF THE SEA 

BULLY FOR YOU TEDDY ROOSEVELT 

IF YOU TRAVED WEST IN A COVERED WAGON 

UNDER THE OCEAN 

THE WRIGHT BROTHERS 

THE MAGIC SCHOOL BUS LOST IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM 

SEA OF ICE 

SPACE STATIONS 

A MONARCH BUTTERFLY'S LIFE 

Sopris West 

STEP UP TO WRITING ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM SET 



District Name 

VAL VERDE UNIFIED 

Publisher 


PICTURE CARDS PACK 11.2 






PICTURE CARDS (PACK 11.1) 



SOAR TO SUCCESS LEVEL 3 COMPLETE KIT 

SOAR TO SUCCESS, LEVEL 4 STUDENT LIBRARY 

Teacher Created Materials 

NONFICTION READER KITS SETS K-3 

WRITE TIME FOR KIDS - LEVEL 6 

WRITE TIME FOR KIDS LEVEL 7 

Write Time for Kids Level 8 



San Benito 

District Name 

SAN BENITO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 

Publisher 


SHAPING EARTHS SURFACE 





County Name 


District Name 

ADELANTO ELEMENTARY 

Publisher 






ON OUR WAY TO ENG COMPLETE 

ON OUR WAY TO ENGLISH ORAL LANGUAGE 

On Our Way to English Interactive Language and Phonics Kit 



District Name 

ALTA LOMA ELEMENTARY 

Publisher 






District Name 

APPLE VALLEY UNIFIED 

Publisher 


ENGLISH AT YOUR COMMAND (PACK 9.1) 




ENGLISH AT YOUR COMMAND GR 8 






District Name 

BARSTOW UNIFIED 

Publisher 


ROSETTA STONE ENGLISH LEVEL 1 , 2 




County Name 


District Name 

BEAR VALLEY UNIFIED 

Publisher 


OXFORD PICTURE DICTIONARY FOR CONTENT AREA PKG 

OXFORD PICTURE DICTIONARY BEGINNING LEVEL 

OXFORD PICTURE DICTIONARY INTERMEDIATE LEVEL 

OXFORD PICTURE DICTIONARY FOR KIDS PKG 



District Name 

CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 

Publisher 




EARLY START COMPLETE KIT LEVEL K 

LEVELED READERS LANG SUPPORT SET GR 1 


LEVELED READERS LANG SUPP LVL 2 



District Name 

CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HIGH 

Publisher 


ACCESS ENGLISH CA SB 1113 PKG 

ACCESS NEWCOMERS GR 6-12 

INSIDE WRITING GR 9-10 PKG 

READERS HANDBOOK 9-12 

Heinle & Heinle 

VISIONS BOOK B 

VISIONS BOOK A 


VISIONS LEVEL C 

VISIONS: CA CLASS SET 

VISION BASIC 


GRAMMAR SENSE 3 

GRAMMAR SENSE 1 PKG 

GRAMMAR SENSE 2 


NONFICTION READERS READINESS ALPHABET KIT 

EXPLORING NONFICTION SECONDARY LEVEL 


County Name 


District Name 

COLTON JOINT UNIFIED 

Publisher 

TIME FOR KIDS 2 SETS NON FICTION READERS EMERGENT 




Reading Expeditions Social Studies Single Copy Set Gr 9-12 

READING EXPEDITIONS SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM BOOK SETS 

Reading Expeditions Science Single Copy Set Gr 9-12 

READING EXPEDITIONS SCIENCE CLASSROOM BOOK SETS 

COMPLETE NONFICTION READING AND WRITING WKSHPS CLASS SET 

COMPLETE NONFICTION READING AND WRITING WORKSHOPS 9-12 



District Name 

ETIWANDA ELEMENTARY 

Publisher 

Ballard & Tighe 

CAROUSEL OF IDEAS K-5 TEACHER'S EDITION 

CAROUSEL OF IDEAS K-5 ACTIVITY BOOK 

CAROUSEL OF IDEAS K-5 PICTURE & WORD CARDS 

CAROUSEL OF IDEAS K-5 THEME PICTURES 



District Name 

FONTANA UNIFIED 

Publisher 


ROSETTA STONE ENGLISH 3 

ROSETTA STONE ENGLISH LEVEL 2 






ENGLISH AT YOUR COMMAND PACK 9.4 

PICTURE PERFECT WORD BOOK AND DICTIONARIES (PACK 10.0) 

Big Books for ELD 2.1 Gr 1 






County Name 


Big Books for ELD 2.2 Gr 2 




Big Books for ELD 2.0 Gr K 



LONGMAN DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH SB1113 PKG 





DEVELOPING VOCABULARY SKILLS GR 9-12 




District Name 

HESPERIA UNIFIED 

Publisher 

Achievement Technologies 

I OPENERS BIG BOOK COLLECTION 



PICTURE PERFECT DICTIONARIES 


ELD LEVELED LIBRARIES 





AVENUES 

AVENUES 

AVENUES 

AVENUES 

AVENUES 

AVENUES 



READING EXPEDITIONS 




Pearson Digital Learning 

QUICK READ SET 3 



QUICK READS LEVEL E 


County Name 




BE A BETTER READER 





Pearson Learning Group 


PACEMAKER BASIC ENGLISH 

PACEMAKER BASIC ENGLISH 

PACEMAKER ENGLISH COMPOSITION 

PACEMAKER ENGLISH COMPOSITION 

I OPENERS CLASSROOM LIBRARY 


I OPENERS BIG BOOK COLLECTION 

QUICK READS LEVEL A 

READING STRATEGIES SOCIAL STUDIES 


I OPENERS CLASSROOM LIBRARY 

QUICK READS LEVEL B 






QUICK READS LEVEL C 



PACEMAKER MYSTERY SET 

PACEMAKER CHARLES DICKENS SET 

PACEMAKER CLASSIC PLAY SETS 

READING STRATEGIES MATH 


MEETING CA CHALLENGE 

Reading Strategies Language Arts Gr 12 

Quick Reads D & E Complete Print Gr 10 

PACEMAKER ADVENTURE SET 

Quick Reads B & C Complete Print Gr 9 



District Name 


Publisher 

ETA Cuisenaire 

SUNSPROUTS: LEMON LEVEL ADD-ON-KIT 



County Name 


District Name 

ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR 

Publisher 

ACCESS SCIENCE 

ACCESS AMERICAN HISTORY 

ACCESS AMERICAN HISTORY 

ACCESS FOR NEWCOMERS PKG 


CARLOS COMES TO LAKE SIDE ELEMENTARY (PACK 10.0) 


PICTURE CARDS 

PICTURE PERFECT BIG WORD BOOK 

PICTURE PERFECT DICTIONARIES 

PHONIC STREET RHYME CARDS 

ALPHACHANTS PHONICS KIT 


JUST THE RIGHT WORD 


REPRODUCIBLE COLLECTION 

Rigby 

SUNSPROUTS: BERRY LEVEL ADD-ON-KIT (2) 

SUNSPROUTS: PEACH LEVEL ADD-ON KIT (2) 

New Comer Kits, Levels 1-3 

New Comer Kits, Levels 1-3 




OPENING DOORS WORKBOOK GR. 7 

OPENING DOORS TEACHER'S RESOURCE KIT 

OPENING DOORS CLASSROOM KIT LEVEL 6 


OPENING DOORS WORKBOOKS CLASSROOM KIT LEVEL 6 

OPENING DOORS CLASSROOM KIT 

OPENING DOORS TEACHER'S RESOURCE KIT 


SRA/McGraw-Hill 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING WKBK C 

LANGUAGE FOR THINKING TEACHER MATERIALS K-6 

LANGUAGE FOR THINKING STUDENT BK GR 1-6 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING WKBK D 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING WKBK B 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING WKBK A 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING MASTER TEST PKG K-6 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING ACTIVITY BLM K-6 

LANGUAGE FOR WRITING TCHR GD GR 4-5 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING PICTURE CARDS K-6 

LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING TCHR GD GR K-3 


County Name 


District Name 

REDLANDS UNIFIED 

Publisher 

LANGUAGE FOR THINKING GR K-5 TCHR ED 

LANGUAGE FOR WRITING WKBK 2-6 

LANGUAGE FOR WRITING TEXTBOOK 



DynEd International 

LETS GO 

FIRST ENGLISH 


CA STANDARDS ASSESSMENT WKBK 

SKILL SHARPENERS BK 2 GR 6-9 

SKILL SHARPENERS, BOOK 1 


ENGLISH IN A FLASH 

ENGLISH IN A FLASH CONTENT LIBRARY 



District Name 

RIALTO UNIFIED 

Publisher 


VISIONS BASIC GR 6-8 

INSIDE WRITING RESPONSES TO LITERATURE 

ACCESS AM HIS COMP PROG 

All Write skills book Gr 6-8 

ALL WRITE TEACHERS GUIDE TO THE HANDBOOK 

ALL WRITE SKILLS BOOK 6-8 

All write handbook Gr 6-8 



VISION BASIC 

Heinle & Heinle 





WEAVING IT TOGETHER 


VISIONS BASIC 

WEAVING IT TOGETHER #3 


PHONICS BOOKSHELF LIBRARY 2 


County Name 


LEVELED READERS COMPLETE SET GR 4 

LEVELED READERS GR 5 

LITTLE READERS FOR AN EARLY START 

LITTLE BOOKS FOR GUIDED READING 

LEVELED READERS 1 GR K-5 

PHONICS BOOKSHELF LIBRARY 1 

Leveled Reader (1.1 - 1.5) 3 sets Gr 1 

WATCH ME READ 3 

HM LEVELED READERS LANGUAGE SUPPORT 

GUIDED READING BOOKS EARLY EMERGENT COLLECTION K 

Leveled Reader (1.1 - 1.5) 3 sets Gr 1 

LEVEL 2 GUIDED READING BOOKS COLLECTION 2 


Watch Me Read Books (Library Set) 5 sets Gr K 

LITTLE READERS FOR AN EARLY START GR K 

GUIDED READING BOOKS EARLY EMERGENT COLLECTION K 

LEVELED READERS LANG SUPPORT 

SOCIAL STUDIES LEVLED READERS 1 



Leveled Reader - Complete Set Gr 3 


LITTLE READERS FOR GUIDED READING 



PRE-K KINDER LITTLE READERS 


LEVELED READERS LANG SUPP LVL 2 

LEVELED READERS 2 GR K-5 


LEVEL 1 GUIDED READING BOOKS 



LANGUAGE SUPPORT LEVELED READERS, GRADE 2 


LANGUAGE SUPPORT 5 




ELL TEACHERS GUIDE LEVEL 2 

EXPLORING NON-FICTION LANG ARTS 





ELL STUDENT ACTIVITY BOOK 

EXPLORING NON-FICTION SCIENCE 

EXPLORING NON-FICTION MATH 

EXPLORING NON-FICTION SOCIAL STUDIES 


County Name 


District Name 

SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED 

Publisher 

Exploring Nonfiction/Language Arts Secondary Level Gr 6-8 








Harcourt School Publishers 

LISTENING/SPEAKING PACKAGE 4 

GRAMMAR/WRITING PACKAGE 11 

LANGUAGE HANDBOOK 

READING COMPREHENSION PKG 6 


CELLS AT WORK 

EXTREME WEATHER 

INVENTIONS BRING CHANGE THEME SET 

CULTURE & CELEBRATION THEME SET 

IMMIGRATION THEME SET GR 1-5 

ENERGY 


OXFORD PICTURE DICITONARY CONTENT AREAS 


READING STRATEGIES LANGUAGE ARTS STUDENT 

READING IN THE CONTENT AREAS (LEVEL D) 

WORLD MYTHS & LEGENDS I & II 

READING STRATEGIES SOCIAL STUDIES 

READING IN THE CONTENT AREAS C 

READING STRATEGIES MATH 

QUICK READS LEVEL D 

PACEMAKER CLASSIC PLAY SETS 

PACEMAKER CHARLES DICKENS SET 

PACEMAKER MYSTERY SET 

ADAPTED CLASSICS 

IOPENERS GR 4 CLASSROOM LIBRARY 


Quick Reads D & E Complete Print Gr 10 


READING IN THE CONTENT AREAS B 


THE COMPLETE ADAPTED CLASSICS SET 


Quick Reads B & C Complete Print Gr 9 

Reading in the Content Areas A Gr 4 


County Name 




PACEMAKER ADVENTURE SET 

IOPENERS GRADE 3 CLASROOM LIBRARY 



VERY EASY TRUE STORIES 

ALL NEW EASY TRUE STORIES 

WHAT A LIFE BOOK 2 

MORE TRUE STORIES 

TRUE STORIES IN THE NEWS 

WHAT A LIFE BOOK 1 

EASY TRUE STORIES 

EVEN MORE TRUE STORIES 



District Name 

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 

Publisher 




JUST THE RIGHT WORD 8.0 


FRESH START 


VISIONS BASIC 

HEINLE PICTURE DICTIONARY 

HEINLE PICTURE DICTIONARY ENGLISH/SPANISH 



District Name 

SILVER VALLEY UNIFIED 

Publisher 


JUST THE RIGHT WORD BIG BOOK OF BASIC VOCABULARY 

VOCAB BUILDERS KIT GR K 


JUST THE RIGHT WORD BIG BOOK OF BASIC VOCABULARY GR 1-6 






County Name 


District Name 

SNOWLINE JOINT UNIFIED 

Publisher 


ROSETTA STONE AMERICAN ENGLISH LEVELS I & II 


OXFORD PICTURE DICITONARY CONTENT AREAS 

Picture Dictionaries Gr 6-8 Spanish/English 

PICTURE DICT FOR CONTENT AREAS 

OXFORD PICTURE DICTIONARY 

Pearson Digital Learning 

PACEMAKER CLASSICS THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO STUDY GUIDE 

PACEMAKER CLASSICS THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO 


PACEMAKER CLASSICS HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME STUDY GUIDE 

PACEMAKER CLASSICS A TALE OF TWO CITIES STUDY GUIDE 

PACEMAKER CLASSICS GREAT EXPECTATIONS 

PACEMAKER CLASSICS THE THREE MUSKETEERS 

PACEMAKER CLASSICS THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS STUDY GUIDE 

PACEMAKER CLASSSICS OTHELLO 

PACEMAKER CLASSICS HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME 

PACEMAKER CLASSICS OTHELLO STUDY GUIDE 

PACEMAKER CLASSICS A TALE OF TWO CITIES 

PACEMAKER CLASSICS STUDY GUIDE 

PACEMAKER CLASSICS THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS 

PACEMAKER CLASSICS TALES OF EDGAR ALLAN POE STUDY GUIDE 

PACEMAKER CLASSICS TALES OF EDGAR ALLAN POE 

PACEMAKER CLASSICS GREAT EXPECTATIONS STUDY GUIDE 


OPENING DOORS GR K-5 VOCABULARY ENRICHMENT KIT 

OPENING DOORS CLASSROOM KIT GR 5 



OPENING DOORS CLASSROOM KIT GR K 





District Name 

UPLAND UNIFIED 

Publisher 


EXPLORING NON FICTION LEVEL 1 

EXPLORING NONFICTION LEVEL SECOND. LANG ARTS 

EXPLORING NONFICTION LEVEL 5 

EXPLORING NONFICTION LEVEL 4 


County Name 


District Name 

VICTOR ELEMENTARY 

Publisher 

EXPLORING NON FICTION LEVEL 3 

EXPLORING NON FICTIONLEVEL 2 

EXPLORING NONFICTION LEVEL K 

EXPLORING NON FICTIONLEVEL 2 




INTENSIVE ENGLISH 4 


Intensive English 5 



INTENSIVE ENGLISH CLASS SET K 

INTENSIVE ENGLISH 6TH 



District Name 

VICTOR VALLEY UNION HIGH 

Publisher 




DEVELOPING VOCABULARY SKILLS 

DEVELOPING VOCABULARY SKILLS GR 9-12 



District Name 

YUCAIPA-CALIMESA JOINT UNIFIED 

Publisher 



ROSETTA STONE ENGLISH LEVEL 2 


Access Transparencies Gr 7-8 


ACCESS AMERICAN HISTORY CA SB1113 PACKAGE 

ACCESS MATH COMPLETE PKG 

ACCESS ENGLISH CA SB 1113 PKG 

WRITE AHEAD/ INSIDE WRITING BUNDLE 

ACCESS FOR NEWCOMERS PKG 


County Name 


ACCESS ENGLISH TEACHER ED 


ACCESS SCIENCE CA SB 1113 PKG 



READING AND WRITING SOURCE BOOKS 

READING & WRITING SOURCEBOOK GR 3 

READING & WRITING SOURCEBOOKS GR 2 

ACCESS ENGLISH STUDENT BOOK & ACTIVITY JOURNAL BUNDLE 



Oxford Picture Dictionary for Content Areas: Gr 5 English/Spanish 

Oxford Dictionary of American English Gr 7-8 

OXFORD PICTURE DICT ENG/SPN 



San Joaquin 

District Name 

LINCOLN UNIFIED 

Publisher 



TEACHER GUIDE AND ACTIVITY CARDS 


TEACHER GUIDE AND ACTIVITY CARD 


ENGLISH @ YOUR COMMAND 

SMALL WORD BOOK 


SING ALONG PHONIC SONG BIG BOOKS 


MY LITTLE WORD BOOK 

TEACHERS GUIDE 

JUST THE RIGHT WORD 

SING ALONG PHONICS SONG CD 

PHONIC STREET RHYME CARDS 

Read Along Set 



Alpha chant Phonics 

Harcourt Brace 

PAPER, PAPER EVERYWHERE 

SUN UP, SUN DOWN 

THE SEASONS OF ARNOLDS APPLE TREE 

CAVES & CAVERNS 

Harper Collins Publisher 

LIGHTS! CAMERA! ACTION! 


County Name 

San Joaquin 

THE HONEY MAKERS 

MY BASEBALL BOOK 

MY BASKET BALL BOOK 

MY FOOTBALL BOOK 

CLOCKS AND HOW THEY GO 

NATURES GREEN UMBRELLA 

SOARING WITH THE WIND 

FIRE FIRE 

DEADLINE FROM NEWS TO NEWSPAPER 

MY SOCCER BOOK 

BEACONS OF LIGHT! LIGHT HOUSES 

Holiday House 

GULLS GULLS GULLS 

HALLOWEEN 

MARSHES & SWAMPS 

MONARCH BUTTERFILES 

PLAYGROUNDS 

POLAR BEARS 

FROM SEED TO PLANT 

DESERTS 

PIGS 

APPLES 

BATS 

BICYCLE BOOK 

BOAT BOOK 

PREHISTORIC ANIMALS 

CHICKS & CHICKENS 

DINOSAURS 

DOGS 

DUCKS 

EMERGENCY 

FARMING 

FLYING 

CATS 

THE MOON BOOK 

THE ART BOX 

WOLVES 

THE BERRY BOOK 

TOOL BOOK 

TRAINS 

SPIDERS 

SHARKS 

SEA TURTLES 

TUNNELS 

WHALES 

PUMPKIN BOOK 

THE PLANETS 

THE REASONS FOR SEASONS 

STRANGERS 


County Name 

San Joaquin 

FROGS 

RABBITS, RABBITS & MORE RABBITS 

WEATHER WORDS & WHAT THEY MEAN 

Longman 

LONGMAN AMERICAN 

LONGMAN PHOTO DICTIONARY 

WORD BY WORD 

American Idioms Dictionary 

Pearson Education 

OPENERS GR 1 CLASSROOM LIBRARY 




QUICK READS LEVEL D 






FIRST DICTIONARY 

BEGINNING WRITERS THESAURUS 

WRITERS THESAURUS LEVEL 


THEME BOOKS 

THEME BOOKS 

THEME BOOKS 

Scholastic 

THE LITTLE RED HEN 

THIS IS THE WAY WE GO TO SCHOOL 

A CHAIR FOR MY MOTHER 

I LIKE ME 


NONFICTION READER KITS SETS K-3 

PRIMARY SOURCES 5-12 SET 

MY COMMUNITY THEN AND NOW SET 

EARLY AMERICA KIT SET 

PRIMARY SOURCE READERS 4-8 

PRIMARY SOURCE READERS 4-8 

NONFICTION READERS EARLY FLUENT 

Wright Group 

BEAR FACTS 

AFTER SCHOOL 

HOT AND COLD WEATHER 

CLOUDS RAIN AND FOG 

MRS. WISHY WASHY 

I LOVE MY FAMILY 

FAMILIES 

DAY AT SCHOOL 

GOING TO SCHOOL 


County Name 

San Joaquin 

GINGERBREAD MAN 

POLAR BEARS 

PLANTS AND SEEDS 




SB1113 Intent to Purchase by District - Summary 

County Name 

Alameda 

District Name 

ALAMEDA CITY UNIFIED 



District Name 

ALAMEDA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 

District Name 

ALBANY UNIFIED 

District Name 

BERKELEY UNIFIED 







District Name 

CASTRO VALLEY UNIFIED 

District Name 

DUBLIN UNIFIED 

District Name 

EMERY UNIFIED 

District Name 

FREMONT UNIFIED 

District Name 

HAYWARD UNIFIED 












County Name 

Alameda 

District Name 

LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED 

EL (R30 Enrollment) $19.76 X 

Total District Disbursement 

District Name 

NEW HAVEN UNIFIED 

District Name 

NEWARK UNIFIED 

District Name 

OAKLAND UNIFIED 







District Name 

PIEDMONT CITY UNIFIED 



District Name 

PLEASANTON UNIFIED 



District Name 

SAN LEANDRO UNIFIED 



District Name 

SAN LORENZO UNIFIED 



Amador 

District Name 

AMADOR COUNTY UNIFIED 

Butte 

District Name 

BIGGS UNIFIED 



1656 

$32,722.56 

3072 

$60,702.72 

1522 

$30,074.72 

14254 

$281,659.04 

71 

$1,402.96 

705 

$13,930.80 

2145 

$42,385.20 

2948 

$58,252.48 

116 

$2,292.16 


County Name 

Butte 

District Name 

CHICO UNIFIED 

District Name 

GRIDLEY UNIFIED 







District Name 

OROVILLE CITY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

OROVILLE UNION HIGH 

District Name 

PALERMO UNION 

District Name 

PARADISE UNIFIED 

District Name 

THERMALITO UNION 









Calaveras 

District Name 

MARK TWAIN UNION ELEMENTARY 

Colusa 

District Name 

COLUSA UNIFIED 




County Name 

Colusa 

District Name 

MAXWELL UNIFIED 





District Name 

PIERCE JOINT UNIFIED 

District Name 

WILLIAMS UNIFIED 





Contra Costa 

District Name 

ACALANES UNION HIGH 

District Name 

ANTIOCH UNIFIED 

District Name 

BRENTWOOD UNION 







District Name 

BYRON UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

JOHN SWETT UNIFIED 



District Name 

KNIGHTSEN ELEMENTARY 




County Name 

Contra Costa 

District Name 

LIBERTY UNION HIGH 

District Name 

MARTINEZ UNIFIED 

District Name 

MT. DIABLO UNIFIED 







District Name 

OAKLEY UNION ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

PITTSBURG UNIFIED 





District Name 

SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED 



District Name 

WALNUT CREEK ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED 



Del Norte 

District Name 

DEL NORTE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 



El Dorado 

District Name 

BLACK OAK MINE UNIFIED 

427 

$8,437.52 

215 

$4,248.40 

6552 

$129,467.52 

556 

$10,986.56 

2792 

$55,169.92 

467 

$9,227.92 

242 

$4,781.92 

9925 

$196,118.00 

21 

$414.96 


County Name 

El Dorado 



District Name 

BUCKEYE UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CAMINO UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

EL DORADO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 



District Name 

EL DORADO UNION HIGH 

District Name 

GOLD OAK UNION 

District Name 

GOLD TRAIL UNION 







District Name 

LAKE TAHOE UNIFIED 



District Name 

MOTHER LODE UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

PIONEER UNION ELEMENTARY 




County Name 

El Dorado 

District Name 

PLACERVILLE UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

POLLOCK PINES ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

RESCUE UNION 





Fresno 

District Name 

AMERICAN UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CARUTHERS UNIFIED 

District Name 

CENTRAL UNIFIED 

District Name 

CLOVIS UNIFIED 







District Name 

COALINGA-HURON JOINT UNIFIED 



District Name 

FIREBAUGH-LAS DELTAS UNIFIED 

District Name 

FOWLER UNIFIED 




County Name 

Fresno 

District Name 

FRESNO UNIFIED 





District Name 

GOLDEN PLAINS UNIFIED 

District Name 

KERMAN UNIFIED 





District Name 

KINGS CANYON JOINT UNIFIED 



District Name 

KINGSBURG JOINT UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

LATON JOINT UNIFIED 

District Name 

MENDOTA UNIFIED 





District Name 

PACIFIC UNION ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

PARLIER UNIFIED 






County Name 

Fresno 

District Name 

RAISIN CITY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

RIVERDALE JOINT UNIFIED 

District Name 

SANGER UNIFIED 

District Name 

SELMA UNIFIED 







District Name 

WEST FRESNO ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

WEST PARK ELEMENTARY 



Glenn 

District Name 

CAPAY JOINT UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

GLENN COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 



District Name 

HAMILTON UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

HAMILTON UNION HIGH 


County Name 

Glenn 



District Name 

ORLAND JOINT UNIFIED 



Humboldt 

District Name 

ARCATA ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

EUREKA CITY 

District Name 

FERNDALE UNIFIED 







District Name 

FORTUNA UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

PACIFIC UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

RIO DELL ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

ROHNERVILLE ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SCOTIA UNION ELEMENTARY 




County Name 

Humboldt 

District Name 

SOUTH BAY UNION ELEMENTARY 



Imperial 

District Name 

BRAWLEY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

BRAWLEY UNION HIGH 

District Name 

CALEXICO UNIFIED 

District Name 

CALIPATRIA UNIFIED 







District Name 

EL CENTRO ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

HEBER ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

HOLTVILLE UNIFIED 







District Name 

IMPERIAL COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 

District Name 

IMPERIAL UNIFIED 



47 

$928.72 

1100 

$21,736.00 

530 

$10,472.80 

6539 

$129,210.64 

452 

$8,931.52 

2738 

$54,102.88 

540 

$10,670.40 

772 

$15,254.72 

311 

$6,145.36 


County Name 

Imperial 



District Name 

McCABE UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

MEADOWS UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

MULBERRY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SAN PASQUAL VALLEY UNIFIED 



District Name 

SEELEY UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

WESTMORLAND UNION ELEMENTARY 



Inyo 

District Name 

BISHOP JOINT UNION HIGH 



District Name 

BISHOP UNION ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

LONE PINE UNIFIED 






County Name 

Kern 

District Name 

ARVIN UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

BAKERSFIELD CITY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

BUTTONWILLOW UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

DELANO JOINT UNION HIGH 



District Name 

DELANO UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

DI GIORGIO ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

EDISON ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

ELK HILLS ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

FAIRFAX ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

FRUITVALE ELEMENTARY 

2170 

$42,879.20 

7406 

$146,342.56 

225 

$4,446.00 

1932 

$38,176.32 

3841 

$75,898.16 

80 

$1,580.80 

311 

$6,145.36 

17 

$335.92 

658 

$13,002.08 


County Name 

Kern 



District Name 

KERN COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 

District Name 

KERN UNION HIGH 





District Name 




District Name 

LAMONT ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

LOST HILLS UNION 





District Name 

McFARLAND UNIFIED 

District Name 

MOJAVE UNIFIED 

District Name 

NORRIS 







District Name 

PANAMA-BUENA VISTA UNION 




County Name 

Kern 

District Name 

POND UNION ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

RICHLAND 





District Name 

RIO BRAVO-GREELEY UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SIERRA SANDS UNIFIED 



District Name 

SOUTHERN KERN UNIFIED 



District Name 

TAFT CITY ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

TAFT UNION HIGH 

District Name 

TEHACHAPI UNIFIED 







District Name 

VINELAND ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

WASCO UNION ELEMENTARY 


County Name 

Kern 

District Name 

WASCO UNION HIGH 





Kings 

District Name 

ARMONA UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CENTRAL UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CORCORAN JOINT UNIFIED 



District Name 

DELTA VIEW JOINT UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

HANFORD ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

HANFORD JOINT UNION HIGH 



District Name 

ISLAND UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

KIT CARSON UNION ELEMENTARY 




County Name 

Kings 

District Name 




District Name 

LEMOORE UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

REEF-SUNSET UNIFIED 



Lake 

District Name 

KELSEYVILLE UNIFIED 

District Name 

KONOCTI UNIFIED 

District Name 

LAKEPORT UNIFIED 







District Name 

MIDDLETOWN UNIFIED 

Los Angeles 

District Name 

ABC UNIFIED 





District Name 

ALHAMBRA CITY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH 


County Name 

Los Angeles 

District Name 

ARCADIA UNIFIED 

District Name 

AZUSA UNIFIED 







District Name 

BALDWIN PARK UNIFIED 

District Name 

BASSETT UNIFIED 





District Name 

BELLFLOWER UNIFIED 



District Name 

BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED 

District Name 

BONITA UNIFIED 

District Name 

BURBANK UNIFIED 

District Name 

CASTAIC UNION 










County Name 

Los Angeles 

District Name 

CENTINELA VALLEY UNION HIGH 



District Name 

CHARTER OAK UNIFIED 



District Name 

CLAREMONT UNIFIED 

District Name 

COMPTON UNIFIED 





District Name 

COVINA-VALLEY UNIFIED 



District Name 

CULVER CITY UNIFIED 

District Name 

DOWNEY UNIFIED 

District Name 

DUARTE UNIFIED 







District Name 

EAST WHITTIER CITY ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

EASTSIDE UNION 



2226 

$43,985.76 

506 

$9,998.56 

458 

$9,050.08 

17496 

$345,720.96 

1866 

$36,872.16 

1065 

$21,044.40 

4944 

$97,693.44 

841 

$16,618.16 

1685 

$33,295.60 


County Name 

Los Angeles 

District Name 

EL MONTE CITY 





District Name 

EL MONTE UNION HIGH 

District Name 

EL RANCHO UNIFIED 





District Name 

EL SEGUNDO UNIFIED 



District Name 

GARVEY ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

GLENDALE UNIFIED 

District Name 

GLENDORA UNIFIED 







District Name 

HACIENDA LA PUENTE UNIFIED 



District Name 

HUGHES-ELIZABETH LAKES UNION ELEMENTARY 




County Name 

Los Angeles 

District Name 

INGLEWOOD UNIFIED 



District Name 

KEPPEL UNION ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

LA CANADA UNIFIED 





District Name 

LANCASTER ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

LAS VIRGENES UNIFIED 



District Name 

LAWNDALE ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

LENNOX ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

LITTLE LAKE CITY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

LONG BEACH UNIFIED 



District Name 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 

5524 

$109,154.24 

931 

$18,396.56 

115 

$2,272.40 

2568 

$50,743.68 

512 

$10,117.12 

2890 

$57,106.40 

5166 

$102,080.16 

1205 

$23,810.80 

24601 

$486,115.76 


County Name 

Los Angeles 



District Name 

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 


Total District Disbursement $6,233,627.92 

District Name 

LOWELL JOINT ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

LYNWOOD UNIFIED 

District Name 

MONROVIA UNIFIED 







District Name 

MONTEBELLO UNIFIED 



District Name 




District Name 

NEWHALL ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

NORWALK-LA MIRADA UNIFIED 



District Name 

PALMDALE ELEMENTARY 




County Name 

Los Angeles 

District Name 

PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED 



District Name 

PARAMOUNT UNIFIED 

District Name 

PASADENA UNIFIED 

District Name 

POMONA UNIFIED 







District Name 

REDONDO BEACH UNIFIED 



District Name 

ROSEMEAD ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

ROWLAND UNIFIED 





District Name 

SAN GABRIEL UNIFIED 



District Name 

SAN MARINO UNIFIED 



District Name 

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED 

696 

$13,752.96 

7259 

$143,437.84 

5233 

$103,404.08 

15826 

$312,721.76 

802 

$15,847.52 

1021 

$20,174.96 

5631 

$111,268.56 

2147 

$42,424.72 

169 

$3,339.44 


County Name 

Los Angeles 



District Name 

SAUGUS UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED 



District Name 

SOUTH WHITTIER ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SULPHUR SPRINGS UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

TEMPLE CITY UNIFIED 

District Name 

TORRANCE UNIFIED 





District Name 

VALLE LINDO ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED 



District Name 

WEST COVINA UNIFIED 




County Name 

Los Angeles 

District Name 

WESTSIDE UNION ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

WHITTIER CITY 





District Name 

WHITTIER UNION HIGH 



District Name 

WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH 

District Name 

WILSONA 





District Name 

WISEBURN ELEMENTARY 



Madera 

District Name 

ALVIEW-DAIRYLAND UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CHOWCHILLA ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CHOWCHILLA UNION HIGH 



District Name 

GOLDEN VALLEY UNIFIED 


County Name 

Madera 



District Name 

MADERA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 

District Name 

MADERA UNIFIED 

Marin 

District Name 

DIXIE ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

LAGUNITAS 









District Name 

LARKSPUR ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

LINCOLN ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

MARIN COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 



District Name 

MILL VALLEY ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

NOVATO UNIFIED 






County Name 

Marin 

District Name 

ROSS VALLEY 



District Name 

SAN RAFAEL CITY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SAN RAFAEL CITY HIGH 



District Name 

TAMALPAIS UNION HIGH 



Mendocino 

District Name 

ANDERSON VALLEY UNIFIED 



District Name 

ARENA UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

FORT BRAGG UNIFIED 



District Name 

POTTER VALLEY COMMUNITY UNIFIED 

District Name 

UKIAH UNIFIED 

District Name 

WILLITS UNIFIED 






County Name 

Mendocino 



Merced 

District Name 

ATWATER ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

BALLICO-CRESSEY ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

DELHI UNIFIED 





District Name 

DOS PALOS ORO-LOMA JOINT UNIFIED 



District Name 

EL NIDO ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

GUSTINE UNIFIED 

District Name 

HILMAR UNIFIED 

District Name 

LIVINGSTON UNION 

District Name 

LOS BANOS UNIFIED 












County Name 

Merced 

District Name 

McSWAIN UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

MERCED CITY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

MERCED COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 



District Name 

MERCED RIVER UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

MERCED UNION HIGH 



District Name 

PLANADA ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SNELLING-MERCED FALLS UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

WINTON ELEMENTARY 



Modoc 

District Name 

MODOC JOINT UNIFIED 



District Name 

SURPRISE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED 


County Name 

Modoc 



District Name 

TULELAKE BASIN JOINT UNIFIED 



Mono 

District Name 

EASTERN SIERRA UNIFIED 

District Name 

MAMMOTH UNIFIED 





District Name 

MONO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 



Monterey 

District Name 

ALISAL UNION ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

CARMEL UNIFIED 





District Name 

CHUALAR UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

GRAVES ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

GREENFIELD UNION 




County Name 

Monterey 

Napa 



District Name 

KING CITY JOINT UNION HIGH 



District Name 

KING CITY UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

MONTEREY PENINSULA UNIFIED 



District Name 

NORTH MONTEREY COUNTY UNIFIED 



District Name 

PACIFIC GROVE UNIFIED 



District Name 

SALINAS CITY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SAN ARDO UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SANTA RITA UNION ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

SOLEDAD UNIFIED 






County Name 

Napa 

District Name 

CALISTOGA JOINT UNIFIED 



District Name 

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED 



Nevada 

District Name 

GRASS VALLEY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

TWIN RIDGES ELEMENTARY 

Orange 

District Name 

ANAHEIM CITY 





District Name 

ANAHEIM UNION HIGH 



District Name 

BREA-OLINDA UNIFIED 



District Name 

BUENA PARK ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CAPISTRANO UNIFIED 



District Name 

CENTRALIA ELEMENTARY 

446 

$8,812.96 

4016 

$79,356.16 

51 

$1,007.76 

9 

$177.84 

13024 

$257,354.24 

8859 

$175,053.84 

564 

$11,144.64 

2846 

$56,236.96 

5820 

$115,003.20 


County Name 

Orange 



District Name 

CYPRESS ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

FOUNTAIN VALLEY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

FULLERTON ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

FULLERTON JOINT UNION HIGH 



District Name 

GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED 



District Name 

HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH 

District Name 

IRVINE UNIFIED 





District Name 

LA HABRA CITY ELEMENTARY 




County Name 

Orange 

District Name 

LAGUNA BEACH UNIFIED 



District Name 

LOS ALAMITOS UNIFIED 



District Name 

MAGNOLIA ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

NEWPORT-MESA UNIFIED 



District Name 

OCEAN VIEW ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 

District Name 

ORANGE UNIFIED 





District Name 

PLACENTIA-YORBA LINDA UNIFIED 



District Name 

SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIFIED 

District Name 

SANTA ANA UNIFIED 



101 

$1,995.76 

199 

$3,932.24 

3775 

$74,594.00 

5815 

$114,904.40 

2211 

$43,689.36 

1647 

$32,544.72 

6828 

$134,921.28 

4043 

$79,889.68 

3219 

$63,607.44 


County Name 

Orange 

District Name 

TUSTIN UNIFIED 





District Name 

WESTMINSTER ELEMENTARY 



Placer 

District Name 

AUBURN UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

DRY CREEK JOINT ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

EUREKA UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

PLACER COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 

District Name 

ROCKLIN UNIFIED 





District Name 

ROSEVILLE CITY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH 




County Name 

Placer 

District Name 

TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED 



District Name 

WESTERN PLACER UNIFIED 

Riverside 

District Name 

ALVORD UNIFIED 

District Name 

BANNING UNIFIED 

District Name 

BEAUMONT UNIFIED 









District Name 

COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED 



District Name 

CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED 



District Name 

DESERT SANDS UNIFIED 

District Name 

HEMET UNIFIED 

District Name 

JURUPA UNIFIED 





871 

$17,210.96 

552 

$10,907.52 

7950 

$157,092.00 

1231 

$24,324.56 

784 

$15,491.84 

10165 

$200,860.40 

7236 

$142,983.36 

7682 

$151,796.32 

3010 

$59,477.60 


County Name 

Riverside 



District Name 

LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED 



District Name 

MENIFEE UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

MORENO VALLEY UNIFIED 



District Name 

MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED 

District Name 

NUVIEW UNION 





District Name 

PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED 



District Name 

PALO VERDE UNIFIED 

District Name 

PERRIS UNION HIGH 





District Name 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 




County Name 

Riverside 

District Name 

RIVERSIDE UNIFIED 



District Name 

ROMOLAND ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SAN JACINTO UNIFIED 



District Name 

TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED 

District Name 

VAL VERDE UNIFIED 

Sacramento 

District Name 

CENTER UNIFIED 







District Name 

DEL PASO HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

ELK GROVE UNIFIED 





District Name 

ELVERTA JOINT ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

FOLSOM-CORDOVA UNIFIED 

6928 

$136,897.28 

800 

$15,808.00 

2496 

$49,320.96 

1642 

$32,445.92 

4245 

$83,881.20 

787 

$15,551.12 

930 

$18,376.80 

10367 

$204,851.92 

26 

$513.76 


County Name 

Sacramento 



District Name 

GALT JOINT UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

GALT JOINT UNION HIGH 



District Name 

GRANT JOINT UNION HIGH 

District Name 

NATOMAS UNIFIED 





District Name 

NORTH SACRAMENTO ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

RIO LINDA UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

RIVER DELTA UNIFIED 

District Name 

ROBLA ELEMENTARY 





District Name 

SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED 




County Name 

Sacramento 

District Name 

SAN JUAN UNIFIED 



San Benito 

District Name 

AROMAS/SAN JUAN UNIFIED 



District Name 

HOLLISTER ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

NORTH COUNTY JOINT UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SAN BENITO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 

District Name 

SAN BENITO HIGH 





District Name 

SOUTHSIDE ELEMENTARY 




District Name 

ADELANTO ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

ALTA LOMA ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

APPLE VALLEY UNIFIED 


County Name 


District Name 

BARSTOW UNIFIED 





District Name 

BEAR VALLEY UNIFIED 



District Name 

CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HIGH 



District Name 

CHINO VALLEY UNIFIED 



District Name 

COLTON JOINT UNIFIED 



District Name 

CUCAMONGA ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

ETIWANDA ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

FONTANA UNIFIED 






County Name 


District Name 

HESPERIA UNIFIED 



District Name 


District Name 

ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR 

District Name 

REDLANDS UNIFIED 

District Name 

RIALTO UNIFIED 









District Name 

SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED 



District Name 

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 



District Name 

SILVER VALLEY UNIFIED 



District Name 

SNOWLINE JOINT UNIFIED 

District Name 

UPLAND UNIFIED 



3314 

$65,484.64 

606 

$11,974.56 

12693 

$250,813.68 

2140 

$42,286.40 

7329 

$144,821.04 

17913 

$353,960.88 

390 

$7,706.40 

48 

$948.48 

648 

$12,804.48 


County Name 




District Name 

VICTOR ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

VICTOR VALLEY UNION HIGH 



District Name 

YUCAIPA-CALIMESA JOINT UNIFIED 

San Diego 

District Name 

ALPINE UNION 





District Name 

BONSALL UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

BORREGO SPRINGS UNIFIED 



District Name 

CAJON VALLEY UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CARDIFF ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

CARLSBAD UNIFIED 






County Name 

San Diego 

District Name 

CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

CORONADO UNIFIED 

District Name 

DEL MAR UNION 







District Name 

ENCINITAS UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

ESCONDIDO UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

ESCONDIDO UNION HIGH 



District Name 

FALLBROOK UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

FALLBROOK UNION HIGH 



District Name 

GROSSMONT UNION HIGH 



District Name 

JAMUL-DULZURA UNION ELEMENTARY 

8747 

$172,840.72 

39 

$770.64 

175 

$3,458.00 

727 

$14,365.52 

8625 

$170,430.00 

1569 

$31,003.44 

1664 

$32,880.64 

664 

$13,120.64 

1954 

$38,611.04 


County Name 

San Diego 



District Name 

JULIAN UNION ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

JULIAN UNION HIGH 





District Name 

LA MESA-SPRING VALLEY 



District Name 




District Name 

LEMON GROVE ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

MOUNTAIN EMPIRE UNIFIED 

District Name 

NATIONAL 

District Name 

OCEANSIDE UNIFIED 

District Name 

POWAY UNIFIED 










County Name 

San Diego 

District Name 

RAMONA UNIFIED 



District Name 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 

District Name 

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 





District Name 

SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH 



District Name 

SAN MARCOS UNIFIED 

District Name 

SAN PASQUAL UNION 





District Name 

SAN YSIDRO ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SANTEE ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SOLANA BEACH ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SOUTH BAY UNION ELEMENTARY 

987 

$19,503.12 

503 

$9,939.28 

37076 

$732,621.76 

549 

$10,848.24 

4076 

$80,541.76 

85 

$1,679.60 

3411 

$67,401.36 

496 

$9,800.96 

254 

$5,019.04 


County Name 

San Diego 



District Name 

SWEETWATER UNION HIGH 



District Name 

VALLEY CENTER-PAUMA UNIFIED 

District Name 

VISTA UNIFIED 





San Francisco 

District Name 

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED 

San Joaquin 

District Name 

ESCALON UNIFIED 





District Name 

JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

LAMMERSVILLE ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

LINCOLN UNIFIED 

District Name 

LINDEN UNIFIED 






County Name 

San Joaquin 

District Name 

LODI UNIFIED 

District Name 

MANTECA UNIFIED 







District Name 

NEW HOPE ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

OAK VIEW UNION ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

RIPON UNIFIED 





District Name 

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 



District Name 

STOCKTON CITY UNIFIED 



District Name 

TRACY JOINT UNIFIED 




District Name 

ATASCADERO UNIFIED 




County Name 


District Name 

COAST UNIFIED 

District Name 

LUCIA MAR UNIFIED 





District Name 

PASO ROBLES JOINT UNIFIED 



District Name 

PLEASANT VALLEY JOINT UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED 



District Name 

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 



District Name 

SAN MIGUEL JOINT UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SHANDON JOINT UNIFIED 



District Name 

TEMPLETON UNIFIED 



San Mateo 

District Name 

BAYSHORE ELEMENTARY 


County Name 

San Mateo 



District Name 

BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

BRISBANE ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

CABRILLO UNIFIED 





District Name 

JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

JEFFERSON UNION HIGH 



District Name 

LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED 



District Name 

MILLBRAE ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

PACIFICA 






County Name 

San Mateo 

District Name 

RAVENSWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

SAN BRUNO PARK 





District Name 

SAN MATEO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 



District Name 

SAN MATEO UNION HIGH 



District Name 

SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY 



District Name 

SEQUOIA UNION HIGH 



District Name 

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED 



Santa Barbara 

District Name 

BUELLTON UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CARPINTERIA UNIFIED 


County Name 

Santa Barbara 



District Name 

COLLEGE ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CUYAMA JOINT UNIFIED 



District Name 

GOLETA UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

GUADALUPE UNION ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

HOPE ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

LOMPOC UNIFIED 







District Name 

LOS ALAMOS ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

LOS OLIVOS ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

MONTECITO UNION ELEMENTARY 




County Name 

Santa Barbara 

District Name 

ORCUTT UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 



District Name 

SANTA BARBARA ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SANTA BARBARA HIGH 



District Name 

SANTA MARIA JOINT UNION HIGH 



District Name 

SANTA MARIA-BONITA 



District Name 

SANTA YNEZ VALLEY UNION HIGH 



District Name 

SOLVANG ELEMENTARY 



Santa Clara 

District Name 

ALUM ROCK UNION ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

BERRYESSA UNION 



257 

$5,078.32 

357 

$7,054.32 

2452 

$48,451.52 

1905 

$37,642.80 

1602 

$31,655.52 

6349 

$125,456.24 

75 

$1,482.00 

215 

$4,248.40 

8115 

$160,352.40 


County Name 

Santa Clara 



District Name 

CAMBRIAN ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CAMPBELL UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CAMPBELL UNION HIGH 

District Name 

CUPERTINO UNION 





District Name 

EAST SIDE UNION HIGH 



District Name 

EVERGREEN ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

FRANKLIN-McKINLEY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

FREMONT UNION HIGH 

District Name 

GILROY UNIFIED 






County Name 

Santa Clara 

District Name 

LOS ALTOS ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

LUTHER BURBANK 

District Name 

MILPITAS UNIFIED 







District Name 

MORELAND ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

MORGAN HILL UNIFIED 



District Name 

MOUNTAIN VIEW-LOS ALTOS UNION HIGH 



District Name 

MOUNTAIN VIEW-WHISMAN ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

MT. PLEASANT ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

OAK GROVE ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

ORCHARD 




County Name 

Santa Clara 

District Name 

PALO ALTO UNIFIED 

District Name 

SAN JOSE UNIFIED 







District Name 

SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 



District Name 

SARATOGA UNION ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

SUNNYVALE 

District Name 

UNION ELEMENTARY 

Santa Cruz 

District Name 

LIVE OAK 









District Name 

PAJARO VALLEY UNIFIED 



District Name 

SANTA CRUZ CITY ELEMENTARY 




County Name 

Santa Cruz 

District Name 

SANTA CRUZ CITY HIGH 



District Name 

SOQUEL UNION ELEMENTARY 



Shasta 

District Name 

CASCADE UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

COLUMBIA ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

ENTERPRISE 

District Name 

GATEWAY UNIFIED 







District Name 

REDDING ELEMENTARY 



Siskiyou 

District Name 

BUTTE VALLEY UNIFIED 



District Name 

WEED UNION ELEMENTARY 

Solano 




County Name 

Solano 

District Name 

BENICIA UNIFIED 

District Name 

DIXON UNIFIED 





District Name 

FAIRFIELD-SUISUN UNIFIED 

District Name 

TRAVIS UNIFIED 

District Name 

VACAVILLE UNIFIED 







District Name 

VALLEJO CITY UNIFIED 



Sonoma 

District Name 

ALEXANDER VALLEY UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

BELLEVUE UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CINNABAR ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CLOVERDALE UNIFIED 


County Name 

Sonoma 



District Name 

COTATI-ROHNERT PARK UNIFIED 

District Name 

DUNHAM 





District Name 

FORESTVILLE UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

GEYSERVILLE UNIFIED 



District Name 

GUERNEVILLE ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

HEALDSBURG UNIFIED 



District Name 

HORICON ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

LIBERTY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

OAK GROVE UNION ELEMENTARY 




County Name 

Sonoma 

District Name 

OLD ADOBE UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

PETALUMA CITY ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

PETALUMA JOINT UNION HIGH 



District Name 

PINER-OLIVET UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

RINCON VALLEY UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

ROSELAND ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SANTA ROSA ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SEBASTOPOL UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SONOMA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 



District Name 

SONOMA VALLEY UNIFIED 


County Name 

Sonoma 



District Name 

TWIN HILLS UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

TWO ROCK UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

WAUGH ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

WEST SONOMA COUNTY UNION HIGH 

District Name 

WILMAR UNION 

District Name 

WINDSOR UNIFIED 







District Name 

WRIGHT ELEMENTARY 

Stanislaus 

District Name 

CERES UNIFIED 





District Name 

CHATOM UNION ELEMENTARY 




County Name 

Stanislaus 

District Name 

DENAIR UNIFIED 

District Name 

EMPIRE UNION 





District Name 

HICKMAN COMMUNITY CHARTER 

District Name 

HUGHSON UNIFIED 





District Name 

KEYES UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

MODESTO CITY ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

MODESTO CITY HIGH 





District Name 

NEWMAN-CROWS LANDING UNIFIED 



District Name 

OAKDALE JOINT UNIFIED 



District Name 

PATTERSON JOINT UNIFIED 

192 

$3,793.92 

1080 

$21,340.80 

44 

$869.44 

436 

$8,615.36 

343 

$6,777.68 

6173 

$121,978.48 

2207 

$43,610.32 

841 

$16,618.16 

508 

$10,038.08 


County Name 

Stanislaus 

District Name 

RIVERBANK UNIFIED 

District Name 

SALIDA UNION 







District Name 

STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 



District Name 

STANISLAUS UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SYLVAN UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

TURLOCK JOINT ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

WATERFORD UNIFIED 

Sutter 

District Name 

LIVE OAK UNIFIED 

District Name 

YUBA CITY UNIFIED 








County Name 

Tehama 

District Name 

ANTELOPE ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CORNING UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

GERBER UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

LOS MOLINOS UNIFIED 



District Name 

RED BLUFF UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

RICHFIELD ELEMENTARY 



Tulare 

District Name 

ALTA VISTA ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

BURTON ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CUTLER-OROSI UNIFIED 

District Name 

DINUBA UNIFIED 




County Name 

Tulare 



District Name 

EARLIMART ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

EXETER UNION HIGH 





District Name 

FARMERSVILLE UNIFIED 

District Name 

HOPE ELEMENTARY 





District Name 

KINGS RIVER UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

LIBERTY ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

LINDSAY UNIFIED 





District Name 

MONSON-SULTANA JOINT UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

OAK VALLEY UNION ELEMENTARY 




County Name 

Tulare 

District Name 

PALO VERDE UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

PIXLEY UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

PLEASANT VIEW ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

PORTERVILLE UNIFIED 



District Name 

STRATHMORE UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

SUNDALE UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

TERRA BELLA UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

TIPTON ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

TRAVER JOINT ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

TULARE CITY ELEMENTARY 


County Name 

Tulare 



District Name 

TULARE JOINT UNION HIGH 

District Name 

VISALIA UNIFIED 





District Name 

WAUKENA JOINT UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

WOODLAKE UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

WOODLAKE UNION HIGH 



Ventura 

District Name 

BRIGGS ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED 

District Name 

FILLMORE UNIFIED 





District Name 

HUENEME ELEMENTARY 




County Name 

Ventura 

District Name 

MESA UNION ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

MOORPARK UNIFIED 

District Name 

MUPU ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

OAK PARK UNIFIED 









District Name 

OCEAN VIEW ELEMENTARY 

District Name 

OJAI UNIFIED 





District Name 

OXNARD ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

PLEASANT VALLEY SCHOOL 

District Name 

RIO ELEMENTARY 





District Name 

SANTA PAULA ELEMENTARY 

116 

$2,292.16 

1381 

$27,288.56 

24 

$474.24 

84 

$1,659.84 

1304 

$25,767.04 

491 

$9,702.16 

7230 

$142,864.80 

658 

$13,002.08 

1561 

$30,845.36 


County Name 

Ventura 



District Name 

SANTA PAULA UNION HIGH 



District Name 

SIMI VALLEY UNIFIED 



District Name 

SOMIS UNION ELEMENTARY 



District Name 

VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION 

District Name 

VENTURA UNIFIED 





Yolo 

District Name 

DAVIS JOINT UNIFIED 



District Name 

WASHINGTON UNIFIED 



District Name 

WINTERS JOINT UNIFIED 



District Name 

WOODLAND JOINT UNIFIED 




County Name 

Yuba 

District Name 

MARYSVILLE JOINT UNIFIED 



District Name 

WHEATLAND ELEMENTARY 






gab-sep05item01 ITEM #28 



SUBJECT 

Legislative update, including, but not limited to information on 

legislation introduced in the 2005-06 session 

Action 

Information 



This item is presented to the State Board of Education (SBE) for information and action 

as deemed necessary and appropriate. 


The July 2005 legislative update provided to the SBE included a summary and status of 

legislative measures from the first half of the 2005-2006 legislative session. 


The legislative measures presented include bills that fall under the seven principles 

adopted by the SBE at the September 2004 Board meeting, as well as legislation that 

may be of interest to the SBE. 

The legislature returned from a month long summer recess on August 15, 2005, and will 

hold floor session only August 29, 2005, through September 9, 2005. September 9, 

2005, is the last day for the legislature to pass bills out of each house and interim 

recess will begin upon adjournment. A last minute memorandum will be submitted to 

ensure a timely and complete summary as the measures move through the legislative 

process. 


The fiscal impact will be noted as appropriate in the legislative summary of each 

measure. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: Legislative update (7 pages). A last minute memorandum will be 

submitted with an update on the status of this legislation and the budget bills. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM

Legislative Update 

Bills Related to State Board (SBE) of Education Principles 

blue-gab-sep05item01 

Attachment 1 


1. Safeguard the State Board of Education adopted academic content standards 

as the foundation of California's K-12 educational system; the same standards for 

all children. 

AB 726 (Goldberg) 

This bill would require the Superintendent prioritize the California content standards in 

each grade and to provide a report to the Legislature by September 6, 2006. The 

Superintendent shall also ensure that the Academic Performance Index for each school 

is based only on those items on the California Standards Tests for which each school 

has adequate funds to provide instruction, as determined by either the California Quality 

Education Commission or the Governor's Advisory Committee on Education Excellence. 

This bill passed Senate Education Committee 7-3 on June 29, 2005, and is 

scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 15, 

2005. 

AB 1246 (Wolk) 

This bill would authorize the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop preschool 

learning standards and develop curriculum guides in preliteracy, prenumeracy, 

history/social science and science. This bill is sponsored by the Superintendent of 

Public Instruction. This bill passed Senate Education Committee 8-2 on June 29, 

2005, and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on 

August 15, 2005. 

SB 684 (Alquist) 

This bill would encourage social science educators to include in their instruction the 

accurate portrayal of affected populations in the continent and subcontinent of Asia 

during World War II. This bill passed the Assembly Education Committee 10-0 on 

June 22, 2005, and is awaiting a vote on the Assembly floor. 

2. Insure that curriculum is rigorous, standards-aligned, and research-based 

utilizing State Board adopted materials or standards-aligned textbooks in grades 

9 to 12, to prepare children for college or the workforce. 

SB 657 (Escutia) 

This bill would require the SBE to annually solicit recommendations from school districts 

of instructional materials for adoption in any subject area in which the Board adopts 

instructional materials and in English language development. The district 

recommendations must include a narrative of the evaluation or piloting process of the 

district and explanation for the recommendation and a resolution of the local governing 

board that approves the use of the instructional materials. This bill authorizes a school 

district that recommends instructional materials for adoption to use those instructional 

materials as if the materials were adopted by the SBE for a maximum of four years, 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM

lue-gab-sep05item01 

Attachment 1 


unless the SBE, within 120 calendar days, makes written factual findings specific to the 

particular instructional materials. In addition, the SBE must decide within one year of 

the receipt of a school district recommendation whether to adopt the recommended 

instructional materials. A failure of the State Board to act on the recommendation 

deems the instructional materials adopted for four years, or until the next regular 

adoption of materials in that category, whichever comes later. This bill passed the 

Assembly Education Committee 7-4 on June 30, 2005, and is awaiting a hearing in 

the Assembly Appropriations Committee. 

3. Insure the availability of State Board of Education adopted instructional 

materials for Kindergarten and grades 1 to 8 and locally adopted standardsaligned 

instructional materials in grades 9 to 12. 

AB 388 (Canciamilla) 

This bill would prohibit SBE from adopting basic instructional materials for 

reading/language arts and mathematics in successive years and requires the 

Superintendent of Public Instruction to submit a report recommending strategies to 

reduce the cost of K-12 instructional materials. In addition, it requires the SBE to 

extend the authorization to use specified instructional materials beyond the regular 

6-year adoption and also requires the SBE to consider the cost of the materials. 

This bill passed Senate Education Committee 9-2 on June 30, 2005, and is 

scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on 


AB 401 (De la Torre) 

This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to allocate funding to school 

districts in order to provide supplementary instructional materials specifically for English 

language learners in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, for the purpose of 

accelerating those pupils as rapidly as possibly toward grade level proficiency. School 

districts are eligible for funding of up to $25 per pupil to purchase materials verified by 

the State Department of Education. The supplementary instructional materials must be 

designed to help English language learners become proficient in reading, writing, and 

speaking English and would authorize their use only in addition to the standards-aligned 

materials adopted by the State Board of Education. This bill is a vehicle to implement 

an appropriation proposed in the State Budget of $20 million for English language 

learner supplementary instructional materials. The Governor vetoed this appropriation. 

This bill passed the Senate Education Committee 9-2 on June 30, 2005, and is 

scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 15, 


AB 564 (Karnette) 

This bill authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction to work with county offices 

of education, local education agencies, or other educational entities to form panels to 

develop reports on high school basic instructional materials in the core courses in 

grades 9-12. The reports would provide information on the extent to which the 

instructional materials are aligned to the content standards adopted by the State Board 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 1 


of Education. This bill is sponsored by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. This bill 

passed the Senate Education Committee 8-3 on June 30, 2005, and is scheduled 

to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 15, 2005. 

AB 689 (Nava) 

This bill requires the State Board of Education, based on recommendations from the 

Superintendent of Public Instruction, to adopt model content standards for health 

education by December 1, 2007. This bill is co-sponsored by the Superintendent of 

Public Instruction. This bill passed the Senate Education Committee 11-0 on 

June 30, 2005, and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations 

Committee on August 15, 2005. 


This bill prohibits the state board or the governing board of a local school from adopting 

instructional materials that exceed 200 pages in length. This bill passed the Assembly 

floor 42-33 and is awaiting a hearing in the Senate Education Committee. This is 

a two year bill. 

AB 1548 (Pavley) 

This bill would require, by January 1, 2008, that publishers or manufacturers make 

adopted instructional materials available in an electronic file format for use by a pupil 

who is blind or who has a print disability. Additionally, this bill establishes a pilot 

program that will allow 12 schools to use instructional materials funding to purchase 

electronic equipment bundled with standards-based, state-adopted instructional 

materials. This bill passed the Senate Education Committee 8-1 on June 30, 2005, 

and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on 


4. Support professional development for teachers on the adopted instructional 

materials that are used in the classroom. 

AB 430 (Nava) 

This measure extends the sunset date for the Principal Training Program from 

July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2012, and renames the program, “the Administrator Training 

Program.” The bill expands eligibility for the program to include other curriculum and 

instructional leaders who support principals, maintaining the priority for funding with 

principals and vice principals. AB 430 specifies that training is to include special 

emphasis on providing additional support to pupils identified as English Language 

Learners and individuals with exceptional needs. This bill is sponsored by the 

Superintendent of Public Instruction. This bill passed the Senate Education 

Committee 11-0 on June 30, 2005, and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate 

Appropriations Committee on August 15, 2005. 


Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 1 


This measure would extend the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development 

Program for teachers from July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2012, and renames the program, the 

Science, Mathematics, and Reading Teacher Development (SMART) Program. This 

measure would add science instruction to the subject matter of the existing program. 

This bill is sponsored by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. This bill passed the 

Assembly Education Committee 11-0 on June 22, 2005, and was heard in the 

Assembly Appropriations Committee on July 13, 2005 and was placed in the 

Appropriations Suspense File. 

SB 428 (Scott) 

This bill would repeal the CBEST and would charge the California Commission on 

Teacher Credentialing with establishing standards and procedures for the issuance and 

renewal of teaching credentials in California. This bill was previously a professional 

development bill but was amended on July 1, 2005, and July 13, 2005. This bill is 

scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Education Committee on August 17, 2005. 

5. Maintain the assessment and accountability system (including STAR, EAP, 

CAHSEE, and CELDT). 

AB 482 (Hancock) 

This bill would require school districts to administer a second achievement test to pupils 

with limited English proficiency who are enrolled in any of grades 3 to 11, in their 

primary language, and would require these tests to be administered only to limited- 

English-proficient pupils who either receive instruction in their primary language or have 

been enrolled in a school in the United States (rather than California) for less than 12 

months. This bill passed the Senate Education Committee 9-3 on June 29, 2005, 

and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on 


AB 1531 (Bass) 

As amended on June 27, 2005, this bill allows a student to satisfy the English Language 

Arts (ELA) and/or Math portions of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) 

requirement by the successful passage of an Alternative Performance Assessment 

(APA) in ELA or Math. If an APA is offered, all students must also take the CAHSEE. 

The APA will not be considered valid or be able to be used unless the Superintendent of 

Public Instruction (SPI) certifies that this APA is valid, reliable, free from bias, is field 

tested, is at least the level of proficiency as the CAHSEE, and is aligned to (adopted) 

state content standards. This bill passed the Senate Education Committee 7-3 on 

June 29, 2005, and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations 


AB 1057 (De La Torre) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 1 


This bill allows the high school exit exam to be administered on Saturdays and requires 

the California Department of Education (CDE) to evaluate the Community-Based 

English Tutoring (CBET) program. This bill passed the Senate Education Committee 

11-0 on June 30, 2005, and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations 


SB 385 (Ducheny) 

As amended on July 7, 2005, this measure requires the development and administration 

of primary language achievement tests for pupils literate in or receiving instruction in 

their primary language and who have attended school in the United States for less than 

three years and specifies that scores produced by these tests be used for the 

calculation of AYP for NCLB and the Academic Performance Index (API) for the State 

accountability system. This bill passed Assembly Education Committee 8-3 on June 

29, 2005, and will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 

17, 2005. 

SB 517 (Romero) 

As amended on July 11, 2005, the SPI shall certify that, for high schools ranked in 

deciles 1 to 3 of the API and identified for review by a county Superintendent of schools, 

the high school offers full and equal access for all pupils to all of the following minimum 

conditions for successfully passing the CAHSEE: Fully certified teachers, instructional 

materials, rigorous supplemental instruction and counselor to pupil ratios of at least 

1:476. By Sept. 1, of each year the SPI is required to prepare a report to the Legislature 

identifying the high schools failing to meet certification and their deficient conditions as 

compared with those high schools that have a 10% or less failure rate on CAHSEE. A 

school district or charter that fails certification must prepare a report to the SBE by July 

1, of each year on the barriers to providing minimum conditions. The governing board 

must present this report at a regularly scheduled school board meeting. School districts 

must prepare an action plan. By January 31, 2006, the SPI with the approval of SBE 

shall request proposals for an independent consultant to study the barriers to success 

on the CAHSEE. The SPI shall also establish a 15 member advisory panel to advise 

the independent evaluator. This bill passed the Assembly Education Committee 8-3 

on July 7, 2005, and will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on 



This measure delays the CAHSEE for special education students until July 1, 2008, 

unless an alternative to the high school exit examination is implemented. This bill was 

formerly a measure by Senator Scott on pupil assessment. This bill passed the 

Assembly Education Committee 8-0 on July 6, 2005, and will be heard in the 

Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 17, 2005. 

SB 755 (Poochigian) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 1 


As amended, SB 755 makes needed clean-up corrections to the STAR reauthorization 

bill, SB 1448 (Chapter 233, Statutes of 2004). The provisions would do the following: 

Prohibit educators from conducting test preparation for students; Authorize the 

California Department of Education to release 25 percent of test items in the section 

that sunsets in 2011; Make clarifying changes to the use of the augmented California 

Standardized Tests by institutions of higher education. SB 755 also clarifies that 

English-learners who receive instruction in their primary language, or who have been 

enrolled in a United States school for less than 12 months, shall be tested in their 

primary language. These students must also be assessed with the English California 

Standards Tests. This bill passed the Assembly Education Committee 11-0 on 

June 29, 2005, and will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on 


6. Insure that the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) and all 

teacher training institutes use State Board adopted standards as the basis for 

determining the subject matter competency of teacher candidates. 


This bill has been amended to require the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to 

conduct a study regarding the manner in which any or all components of skills identified 

by the Secretary of Labor's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) report 

can be included in teacher training programs. The intent is to better prepare students 

for the workforce. The report would be due to the Legislature on or before January 1, 

2007. This bill passed the Senate Education Committee 8-3 on June 29, 2005, and 

is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 15, 


7. Strengthen coordination between K-12 and higher education. 


This bill has been gutted and amended and is no longer a measure related to 

education. 

Other Bills of Interest to the State Board 

AB 172 (Chan) Universal Preschool 

States the intent of the Legislature to establish and provide a voluntary preschool-for-all 

system. In addition, AB 172 would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to 

prepare a report and submit it to the Legislature before January 1, 2007, regarding the 

types of preschool programs that receive funding, including data relating to the 

geographic and income distribution of participants in these programs. In addition, the 

Superintendent shall convene a committee to develop a plan to coordinate the capacity 

and efficiency of the state system of postsecondary education for the purpose of 

preparing and training high quality staff in preschool programs. This bill would become 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM


Attachment 1 


operative only if funding is provided for purposes of the bill in a statewide initiative that 

authorizes universal preschool and is approved by the voters at a statewide election. 

This bill passed the Assembly floor 47-31 and is awaiting a hearing in the Senate 

Education Committee. This measure has become a two-year bill. 

AB 1609 (Liu) 

The bill adds an assessment of career-technical education data measures to the school 

accountability report card. This bill is sponsored by the Governor. This bill passed the 

Senate Education Committee 11-0 on June 22, 2005, and is scheduled to be 

heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 15, 2005. 

AB 1662 (Lieber) 

This bill would conform state law to the new federal Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) Reauthorization 2004 provisions, which consist of moving from 

strictly procedural compliance to improved outcomes, monitoring through the use of 

data and other processes, child find, free appropriate public education in the least 

restrictive environment, transition, disproportionate identification, and outcomes in 

reading, math, and science, improving opportunities for resolution through less litigious 

means, including Alternative Dispute Resolution, mediation, and local dispute 

resolution, more choice for parents, major changes in the Individualized Education Plan 

(IEP) and two waiver opportunities for paperwork reduction and three-year IEP options. 

This bill passed the Senate Education Committee 10-0 on June 30, 2005, and is 

scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on 


SB 166 (Soto) 

This bill provides that a charter school may have a renewal period of two to four years, 

as specified, as an alternative to the current fixed period of five years. This bill was 

vetoed by the Governor on July 19, 2005. 


Requires that members of the State Board of Education (SBE) be appointed by the 

Governor with advice and consent of two-thirds of the membership of the Senate. The 

members must be comprised of the following: a public school teacher who works or has 

worked with English language learners, a classified employee of a school district, a 

professor of education employed by a postsecondary educational institution, an onsite 

school administrator, a school district superintendent or an associate school district 

superintendent, three elected members of school district governing board, and two 

members of the general public. At least one member shall be selected from a school 

district that represents one of seven regions of the state. This bill passed the 

Assembly Education Committee on June 30, 2005, and is awaiting a hearing in the 

Assembly Appropriations Committee. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:19 PM



blue-gabsep05item01 





FROM: Andrea Ball, Director 

Government Affairs 


SUBJECT: Legislative Update: Including, but not limited to information on legislation 

introduced in the 2005-06 legislative session. 

Attached is a summary of legislative measures which fall under the seven principles 

adopted by the State Board of Education in September of 2004. Also included in this 

update is a budget summary prepared by the School Fiscal Services Division. 

September 9, 2005, is the last day for the Legislature to pass bills out of each house 

and interim recess will begin upon adjournment. The Governor has until 

October 9, 2005, to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14 PM

Legislative Update 

Bills Related to State Board (SBE) of Education Principles 

blue-gab-sep05item01 

Attachment 1 


1. Safeguard the State Board of Education adopted academic content standards 

as the foundation of California's K-12 educational system; the same standards for 

all children. 


This bill would require the Superintendent prioritize the California content standards in 

each grade and to provide a report to the Legislature by September 6, 2006. The 

Superintendent shall also ensure that the Academic Performance Index for each school 

is based only on those items on the California Standards Tests for which each school 

has adequate funds to provide instruction, as determined by either the California Quality 

Education Commission or the Governor's Advisory Committee on Education Excellence. 

This bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee 8-5 on 

August 25, 2005, and is awaiting a vote on the Senate floor. 

AB 1246 (Wolk) 

This bill would authorize the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop preschool 

learning standards and develop curriculum guides in preliteracy, prenumeracy, 

history/social science and science. This bill is sponsored by the Superintendent of 

Public Instruction. This measure has become a two-year bill. 


This bill would encourage social science educators to include in their instruction the 

accurate portrayal of affected populations in the continent and subcontinent of Asia 

during World War II. This bill passed the Assembly floor 68-3 on August 25, 2005, 

and is awaiting concurrence on the Senate floor. 

2. Insure that curriculum is rigorous, standards-aligned, and research-based 

utilizing State Board adopted materials or standards-aligned textbooks in grades 

9 to 12, to prepare children for college or the workforce. 

SB 657 (Escutia) 

This bill would require the SBE to annually solicit recommendations from school districts 

of instructional materials for adoption in any subject area in which the Board adopts 

instructional materials and in English language development. The district 

recommendations must include a narrative of the evaluation or piloting process of the 

district and explanation for the recommendation and a resolution of the local governing 

board that approves the use of the instructional materials. This bill permits a school 

district that recommends instructional materials for adoption to use those instructional 

materials as if the materials were adopted by the SBE, unless the SBE, within 180 

calendar days, makes written factual findings specific to the particular instructional 

materials. In addition, the SBE must decide within one year of the receipt of a school 

district recommendation whether to adopt the recommended instructional materials. A 

failure of the State Board to act on the recommendation deems the instructional 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14 PM


Attachment 1 


materials adopted for four years, or until the next regular adoption of materials in that 

category, whichever comes later. This bill passed the Assembly Appropriations 

Committee 13-4 on August 25, 2005, and is awaiting a vote on the Senate Floor. 

3. Insure the availability of State Board of Education adopted instructional 

materials for Kindergarten and grades 1 to 8 and locally adopted standardsaligned 

instructional materials in grades 9 to 12. 

AB 388 (Canciamilla) 

This bill would prohibit SBE from adopting basic instructional materials for 

reading/language arts and mathematics in successive years and requires the 

Superintendent of Public Instruction to submit a report recommending strategies to 

address textbook and instructional materials costs and price efficiency in grades K-12. 

In addition, it requires the SBE to extend the authorization to use specified instructional 

materials beyond the regular 6-year adoption and also requires the SBE to consider the 

cost of the materials and alternatives to traditional textbooks. This bill passed Senate 

Appropriations Committee 7-5 on August 25, 2005, and is awaiting a vote on the 

Senate floor. 

AB 401 (Levine) 

This bill, formerly a measure by Assembly member De La Torre relating to 

instructional materials has been gutted and amended and is no longer a bill 

relating to education. 

AB 564 (Karnette) 

This bill authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction to work with county offices 

of education, local education agencies, or other educational entities to form panels to 

develop reports for high school basic instructional materials in the core courses in 

grades 9-12. The reports would provide information on the extent to which the 

instructional materials are aligned to the content standards adopted by the State Board 

of Education. This bill gives CDE the authority to charge any publisher or manufacturer 

who want to submit materials for review a fee to cover the cost of the review. This is the 

same procedure as used to fund follow-up adoptions. This bill is sponsored by the 

Superintendent of Public Instruction. This bill passed the Assembly with 

concurrence on August 29, 2005, and is in the process of being enrolled to the 

Governor. 

AB 689 (Nava) 

This bill requires the State Board of Education, based on recommendations from the 

Superintendent of Public Instruction, to adopt model content standards for health 

education by December 1, 2007. This bill is co-sponsored by the Superintendent of 

Public Instruction. This bill passed the Senate floor 28-8 on September 1, 2005. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14 PM


Attachment 1 


AB 1548 (Pavley) 

This bill would require, by January 1, 2008, that publishers or manufactures make 

adopted instructional materials available in an electronic file format for use by a pupil 

who is blind or who has a print disability. Additionally, this bill establishes a pilot 

program that will allow 12 schools to use instructional materials funding to purchase 

electronic equipment bundled with standards-based, state-adopted instructional 

materials. This bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee 9-1 on 


4. Support professional development for teachers on the adopted instructional 

materials that are used in the classroom. 

AB 430 (Nava) 

This measure extends the sunset date for the Principal Training Program from 

July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2012, and renames the program, “the Administrator Training 

Program.” AB 430 specifies that training is to include special emphasis on providing 

additional support to pupils identified as English Language Learners and individuals with 

exceptional needs. This bill is sponsored by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. 

This bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee 12-1 on 



This measure would extend the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development 

Program for teachers from July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2012. This bill is sponsored by the 

Superintendent of Public Instruction. Amendments taken in the Assembly 

Appropriations Committee deleted science instruction from this measure. This 

bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee 17-0 on August 25, 2005, 

and is awaiting a vote on the Senate floor. 

SB 428 (Scott) 

This bill would repeal the CBEST and would charge the California Commission on 

Teacher Credentialing with establishing standards and procedures for the issuance and 

renewal of teaching credentials in California. This measure has become a two-year 

bill. 

5. Maintain the assessment and accountability system (including STAR, EAP, 

CAHSEE, and CELDT). 


This bill would require school districts to administer a second achievement test to pupils 

with limited English proficiency who are enrolled in any of grades 3 to 11, in their 

primary language, and would require these tests to be administered only to limited- 

English-proficient pupils who either receive instruction in their primary language or have 

been enrolled in a school in the United States (rather than California) for less than 12 

months. This bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee 8-4 on 


Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14 PM


Attachment 1 


AB 1531 (Bass) 

This bill would permit a student to satisfy the English language arts or mathematics 

portion of the high school exit examination by passing an alternative performance 

assessment offered by his or her school district or charter school if the Superintendent 

of Public Instruction certifies that the alternative performance assessment meets certain 

requirements and is aligned to state adopted content standards. This bill passed the 

Senate Appropriations Committee 8-5 on August 25, 2005, and is awaiting a vote 

on the Senate floor. 

AB 1057 (De La Torre) 

This bill allows the high school exit exam to be administered on Saturdays and requires 

the California Department of Education (CDE) to evaluate the Community-Based 

English Tutoring (CBET) program. This bill passed the Senate Appropriations 

Committee 12-1 on August 25, 2005, and is awaiting a vote on the Senate floor. 


As amended on August 25, 2005, this measure requires the development and 

administration of primary language achievement tests for pupils literate in or receiving 

instruction in their primary language and who have attended school in the United States 

for less than three years and specifies that scores produced by these tests be used for 

the calculation of AYP for NCLB and the Academic Performance Index (API) for the 

State accountability system. In addition, this bill requires CDE to eliminate unnecessary 

linguistic complexity from the test to the extent possible. This bill passed Assembly 


Senate floor. 


As amended on July 11, 2005, the SPI shall certify that for high schools ranked in 

deciles 1 to 3 of the API and identified for review by a county Superintendent of schools, 

that the high school offers full and equal access for all pupils to all of the following 

minimum conditions for successfully passing the CAHSEE: Fully certified teachers, 

instructional materials, rigorous supplemental instruction and counselor to pupil ratios of 

at least 1:476. By Sept. 1, of each year the SPI is required to prepare a report to the 

Legislature identifying the high schools failing to meet certification and their deficient 

conditions as compared with those high schools that have a 10% or less failure rate on 

CAHSEE. A school district or charter that fails certification must prepare a report to the 

SBE by July 1, of each year on the barriers to providing minimum conditions. The 

governing board must present this report at a regularly scheduled school board 

meeting. School districts must prepare an action plan. By January 31, 2006, the SPI 

with the approval of SBE shall request proposals for an independent consultant to study 

the barriers to success on the CAHSEE. The SPI shall also establish a 15 member 

advisory panel to advise the independent evaluator. This bill was held on suspense in 

the Assembly Appropriations Committee on 


Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14 PM


Attachment 1 



This measure delays the CAHSEE for special education students until an alternative to 

the high school exit examination is implemented. This bill was formerly a measure by 

Senator Scott on pupil assessment. This bill passed the Assembly Appropriations 

Committee 13-4 on August 27, 2005. 

SB 755 (Poochigian) 

As amended, SB 755 makes needed clean-up corrections to the STAR reauthorization 

bill, SB 1448 (Chapter 233, Statutes of 2004). The provisions would do the following: 

Prohibit educators from conducting test preparation for students; Authorize the 

California Department of Education to release 25 percent of test items in the section 

that sunsets in 2011; Make clarifying changes to the use of the augmented California 

Standardized Tests by institutions of higher education. SB 755 also clarifies that 

English-learners who receive instruction in their primary language, or who have been 

enrolled in a United States school for less than 12 months, shall be tested in their 

primary language. These students must also be assessed with the English California 

Standards Tests. This bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee 

17-0 on August 17, 2005, and is awaiting a vote on the Assembly floor. 

6. Insure that the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) and all 

teacher training institutes use State Board adopted standards as the basis for 

determining the subject matter competency of teacher candidates. 


This bill has been amended to require the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to 

conduct a study regarding the manner in which any or all components of skills identified 

by the Secretary of Labor's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) report 

can be included in teacher training programs. The intent is to better prepare students 

for the workforce. The report would be due to the Legislature on or before 

January 1, 2007. This bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee 8-5 on 


7. Strengthen coordination between K-12 and higher education. 


This bill has been gutted and amended and is no longer a measure related to 

education. 

Other Bills of Interest to the State Board 

AB 172 (Chan) Universal Preschool 

States the intent of the Legislature to establish and provide a voluntary preschool-for-all 

system. In addition, AB 172 would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to 

prepare a report and submit it to the Legislature before January 1, 2007, regarding the 

types of preschool programs that receive funding, including data relating to the 

geographic and income distribution of participants in these programs. In addition, the 

Superintendent shall convene a committee to develop a plan to coordinate the capacity 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14 PM


Attachment 1 


and efficiency of the state system of postsecondary education for the purpose of 

preparing and training high quality staff in preschool programs. This bill would become 

operative only if funding is provided for purposes of the bill in a statewide initiative that 

authorizes universal preschool and is approved by the voters at a statewide election. 

This bill passed the Assembly floor 47-31 and is awaiting a hearing in the Senate 

Education Committee. This measure has become a two-year bill. 

AB 1609 (Liu) 

The bill adds an assessment of career-technical education data measures to the school 

accountability report card. This bill is sponsored by the Governor. This bill passed the 

Senate Appropriations Committee 13-0 on August 25, 2005, and is awaiting a 

vote on the Senate floor. 

AB 1662 (Lieber) 

This bill would conform state law to the new federal Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) Reauthorization 2004 provisions, which consist of moving from 

strictly procedural compliance to improved outcomes, monitoring through the use of 

data and other processes, child find, free appropriate public education in the least 

restrictive environment, transition, disproportionate identification, and outcomes in 

reading, math, and science, improving opportunities for resolution through less litigious 

means, including Alternative Dispute Resolution, mediation, and local dispute 

resolution, more choice for parents, major changes in the Individualized Education Plan 

(IEP) and two waiver opportunities for paperwork reduction and three-year IEP options. 

This bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 

28.8 on August 16, 2005, and is awaiting a vote on the Senate floor. 


Requires that members of the State Board of Education (SBE) be appointed by the 

Governor with advice and consent of two-thirds of the membership of the Senate. The 

members must be comprised of the following: a public school teacher who works or has 

worked with English language learners, a classified employee of a school district, a 

professor of education employed by a postsecondary educational institution, an onsite 

school administrator, a school district superintendent or an associate school district 

superintendent, three elected members of school district governing board, and two 

members of the general public. At least one member shall be selected from a school 

district is located in specific counties listed in the bill. This bill passed the Assembly 


Assembly floor. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14 PM


Attachment 1 


BUDGET SUMMARY 

Prepared by CDE Fiscal & Administrative Services Division 

SB 77, (Chapter 38, Statutes of 2005) is the Budget Act of 2005. 

SB 80, (Chapter 39, Statutes of 2005) is the bill that implemented many of the pieces of 

the Big 5 agreement. 

SB 63, (Chapter 73, Statutes of 2005) is the main education budget trailer bill. 

AB 128 is an education budget trailer bill currently awaiting a vote on the Senate floor. 

High Level Issues 

• Provides $44.6 billion in Proposition 98 funding for K-12 schools in 2005-06. This 

provides roughly the same level of Proposition 98 funding for K-12 education programs 

as proposed by the Governor in the May Revision. 

• Provides $1.8 billion in revenue limit and categorical program enrollment growth and 

COLA adjustments in 2005-06. This reflects a 0.69 percent ADA growth rate and a 4.23 

percent COLA. 

• Provides over $400 million in funding to reduce the revenue limit deficit factor for 

school districts and county offices of education. This provides more than $70 million 

above the level proposed by the Governor. Deficit factor funding provides ongoing, 

discretionary funding for schools. 

• Appropriates $60.6 million in funding to pay for a portion of the $1.4 billion in unpaid 

mandate claims owed to K-12 education. SB 77 appropriated $241.8 million in 

Proposition 98 settle-up funds for this purpose; however a Big 5 agreement reduces this 

by $235 million in SB 63, leaving only $6.8 million in settle-up funding to go towards 

prior year mandate claims. SB 80 also reappropriates the additional $53.8 million to pay 

for prior year mandates. 

• Does not include the Governor’s proposal to eliminate state general fund support - 

estimated at $469 million in 2005-06 -- for the CalSTRS Defined Benefit Program. 

• Adopts the Governor’s Budget proposal to defer payment of all ongoing education 

mandate payments in 2005-06 for a current-year savings of approximately $300 million 

to the state. 

• Continues to defer payments of approximately $1.3 billion in Proposition 98 

apportionment programs from one fiscal year to the next. This practice commenced with 

the 2002-03 budget as a method of meeting the state’s budget shortfall without reducing 

schools programs and services. 

Special Education 

• Provides over $2.8 billion in state funds and $1.1 billion in federal funds in total for 

special education. 

• Continues $100 million in funding for mental health related services proposed by the 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14 PM


Attachment 1 


Governor. This continues $69 million for “AB 3632” services provided by county mental 

health agencies and $31 million for pre-referral services for children and youth with 

exceptional needs. Governor’s proposal to permanently shift the state AB 3632 

mandate back to schools was rejected. 

• Maintains the same level of funding for special education services as proposed by the 

Governor, but reallocates funds as follows: 

- Passes through $58.7 million in additional federal IDEA funds to SELPAs on a per 

ADA basis as discretionary funds to be used for any special education purpose. 

- Provides General Fund growth and COLA on the state special education program only 

-- not on the federal program base – for a savings of $47 million. These savings are 

redirected to SELPAs on a per ADA basis for any one-time special education 

purposes, with priority to assist students with disabilities to pass the High School 

Exit Exam (See AB 128). 

- Provides an additional $18.2 million in new program funding for the out-of-home 

care formula for students with disabilities who reside in licensed children’s 

institutions and other out-of-home placements. This program increase moves the 

formula closer to full funding and provides $3.2 million to cover group homes 

inadvertently left out of the formula. 

- Reappropriates approximately $22 million in one-time special education savings as 

per ADA grants to SELPAs for special education discretionary purposes. 

- Increases federal funding for Family Empowerment Centers by $420,000 to fund 

additional centers serving students with disabilities and their families in new 

regions of the state. 

Accountability 

• Appropriates $228.7 million for the High Priority Schools Grant Program. This includes 

$168.7 million for fourth year funding for existing grantees and $60 million noted below 

under the Williams Settlement. 

• Provides $53 million, including $13 million in Prop 98 General Fund and $40 million in 

federal funds, to assist schools subject to sanctions under state or federal programs. 

• Authorizes $30 million in federal funds, after a $13.8 million reduction through veto, for 

Comprehensive School Reform grants. 

• Provides $7.5 million in Prop 98 General Fund deferred from 2004-05 for schools 

participating in II/USP. 

• Authorizes $29.2 million in Title I School Improvement funds for Title I District 

Accountability. 

Williams Legal Settlement 

• Provides $183.5 million in Proposition 98 Reversion Account funding in SB 80 for 

emergency facility repairs in low-performing schools pursuant to the Williams lawsuit 

settlement in 2004. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14 PM


Attachment 1 


• Provides $60 million to fund a new cohort of low-performing schools eligible for the 

High Priority Schools program, pursuant to the Williams lawsuit settlement agreement. 

This funding is contingent upon legislation. AB 1758 (Umberg) is the vehicle. 

Standards and Assessment 

• Appropriates or authorizes $118.9 million for various statewide exams. 

• Reappropriates $2.2 million to cover transition costs for the new California English 

Language Development Test. 

• Provides $20 million to districts to assist students who are required to pass the 

California High School Exit Exam in 2006. Funding will be allocated pursuant to cleanup 

legislation. (AB 128) 

• Redirects special education savings of $47 million to SELPAs on a per ADA basis for 

assistance to students with disabilities to pass the High School Exit Exam and 

instructional materials. (AB 128) 

Instructional Materials 

• Appropriates $361 million to the Instructional Materials Block Grant to provide ongoing 

funding for instructional materials. An additional $20 million to provide supplemental 

materials for English learners was vetoed by the Governor. 

Reading First 

• Provides approximately $115 million in federal Reading First funds to provide a fourth 

year of funding to school districts in the first cohort of the program. An additional $6.5 

million in carryover funding is provided for new grants to unfunded districts. Budget bill 

language requires legislative approval for a fifth year of funding and specifies the 

creation of an advisory committee to assist the Department of Education in supporting 

classrooms that provide bilingual education. 

Charter Schools 

• Approves $68 million for the Charter School Categorical Block grant, as proposed by 

the Governor, and specifies that changes to the formula be made pursuant to legislation 

that specifies the categorical programs that are in and out of the block grant. (AB 740 

(Huff)) 

• Adopts the May Revision to restore $9 million in one-time funds for Charter Schools 

Facilities Grant program for charter schools serving low-income students or located in 

low-income areas. The Governor’s January budget proposed to eliminate funding for the 

program. 

• Provides an additional $19.5 million in federal funds through the California School 

Financing Authority for facilities costs incurred in 04-05 and 05-06. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14 PM


Attachment 1 


Other Programs 

• Deletes by veto $13.8 million in CSRD carryover funds, $19.2 million in Migrant 

carryover funds, and $41.5 million in Title I carryover funds to be set aside while the 

Governor pursues legislation to implement his NCLB Flexibility Proposal to address 

issues in low performing schools and districts. The Legislature rejected the Governor's 

initial proposal and redirected these funds back into the programs that generated the 

carryover. The Governor's veto eliminates that redirection. 

• Eliminates $21 million in new funding for the K-12 High Speed Network and authorizes 

funding at the same level from unused funds previously appropriated for Internet 

connectivity and network infrastructure for grades K-12 schools and county offices of 

education. Prior to expenditure of these funds, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee 

(JLAC) shall conduct an audit of the K-12 network. 

• Restores $10 million in funding for the Early Mental Health Initiative, that the Governor 

proposed to eliminate. 

• Approves $1 million in SB 80 to provide training for school district financial officers, as 

proposed by the Governor. Funding will be allocated pursuant to legislation. 

• Approves $450,000 in one-time federal funds for the Department of Education to 

contract for the translation of required school related documents for non-English 

speaking parents and families. Translated documents will be added to a statewide 

clearinghouse so that they can be shared by other school districts. 

• Adopts the May Revision proposal to restore $840,000 for the Advancement Via 

Individual Determination (AVID) program, which the Governor originally proposed to 

reduce in January. 

• Appropriates $18.2 million in one-time funds in SB 80 to increase the amount of fruits 

and vegetables served in the school breakfast program subject to additional legislation 

(SB 281 (Maldonado)) 

• Appropriates up to $49.5 million in one-time funds in SB 80 to provide enrichment 

activities in low performing schools. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14 PM



sdob-csd-sep05item02 

SUBJECT 

ITEM #29 


State Board-Approved Charter Schools: Update 



Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) receive the regular update on the State Board-Approved Charter 

Schools and take action as deemed necessary and appropriate. 


Since January 1999, the SBE has approved eleven charter school petitions that had 

been denied at the local level. Of these, six are currently operating. 

Charter Schools Date Renewal 

Approved Date 

Oakland Military Institute, Alameda County* Dec 2000 

Ridgecrest Charter School, Kern County Dec 2000 Mar 2009 

Edison Charter Academy, San Francisco County July 2001 July 2006 

New West Charter Middle School, Los Angeles County Dec 2001 Sep 2006 

Amino Inglewood Charter High School, Los Angeles County Dec 2001 Jun 2010 

School of Arts and Enterprise, Los Angeles County Sep 2002 Sep 2006 

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP), Alameda County Feb 2003 Jun 2006 

Academy of Culture and Technology, Los Angeles County** Nov 2003 Nov 2006 

Leadership Public Schools – San Rafael, Marin County*** Nov 2003 

Livermore Valley Charter School – Livermore, Alameda County** Nov 2004 Jun 2008 

Leadership Public Schools – Hayward, Alameda County** Mar 2005 Mar 2008 

*Subsequently renewed by the Oakland Unified School District 

**Scheduled to open fall 2005 

***Charter voluntarily surrendered in June 2005; school will not open 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM




Since January 1994, the SBE has approved eight all-charter districts, representing 

fifteen schools. 

All Charter Districts Date Renewal 

Approved Date 

Pioneer Union Elementary, Kings County Jan 1994 May 2009 

Kingsburg Union Elementary, Fresno County May 1996 May 2006 

Delta View Joint Union Elementary, Kings County Jun 1999 May 2009 

Hickman Community Charter District, Stanislaus County July 1994 Jan 2010 

Alvina Elementary Charter School District, Fresno County July 2000 May 2010 

Island Union Elementary, Kings County Oct 2000 May 2010 

Kings River-Hardwick School District, Kings County May 2001 May 2009 

Jacoby Creek Charter School District, Humboldt County Jun 2002 Jan 2009 


Pursuant to Education Code (EC) Section 47605(j), as of January 1, 1999, a charter 

school petition that has been denied approval by a local chartering authority may 

petition the SBE to approve the charter. As of January 1, 2003, a charter school must 

be denied by both a local school district and county office of education before it may 

petition the SBE to approve the charter. 

In addition, EC Section 47605.8 allows a charter school petitioner to submit a petition 

directly to the SBE for the operation of a statewide benefit charter school that may 

operate at multiple sites throughout the state. The SBE may not approve the petition for 

a statewide benefit charter school unless it finds that the charter school will provide 

instructional services of statewide benefit that cannot be provided by a charter school 

operating in only one school district or only one county. 

As the charter authorizer, the SBE has monitoring responsibilities for its charter schools. 

CDE Charter Schools Division staff monitors the charter schools on the SBE’s behalf 

and provides periodic reports on the charter schools. As a result of the passage of AB 

1137, the oversight responsibilities of authorizing entities, including the SBE, have been 

more clearly defined (EC Section 47604.32). All authorizing entities are required to 

identify a contact person, visit the charter school annually, ensure compliance with all 

reporting requirements, monitor the fiscal condition, and provide notification regarding 

renewal, revocation, or ceasing of operations. AB 1137 also amended EC Section 

47607 pertaining to the renewal or revocation of charters including the addition of 

performance criteria to be met prior to receiving a charter renewal. The law provides 

that the cost of performing these duties shall be funded with supervisory oversight fees 

collected pursuant to EC Section 47613 (1 percent) 

There are currently two staff in the Charter Schools Division assigned to oversee eleven 

SBE-approved charter schools and eight all-charter districts. Assigned staff has made 

five site visits to the charter schools since July 1, 2005. These visits were targeted to 

those schools that are new and opening this fall and to those schools that have added 

new facilities. CDE facilities division staff joined the Charter Schools Division visitation 

team. The remaining six schools will be visited later this fall. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM



For charter schools on appeal, EC Section 47605(k)(1) currently provides that the SBE 

may, by mutual agreement, designate its supervisory and oversight responsibilities to 

any local educational agency in the county in which the charter school is located or to 

the governing board of the school district that first denied the petition (although this has 

never been done) and similarly, for statewide benefit charters, EC Section 47605.8(c) 

provides, as a condition of approval, that the SBE may enter into an agreement with a 

third party, at the expense of the charter school, to oversee, monitor, and report on the 

operations of the charter school. 

With regard to all-charter districts, the local county offices of education currently provide 

a significant amount of assistance and oversight under AB 1200. Unlike the other two 

types of state approved charters, there is no specific provision for contracting or 

designating by agreement the oversight responsibility for all-charter districts. 

As a regular part of its oversight responsibilities, CDE staff annually visits the all-charter 

districts and provides general support and oversight. 


There is no action requested under this item, so there is no fiscal impact. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

None 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM




SUBJECT 

ITEM #30 


September 2005 AGENDA 

Assignment of Numbers for Charter School Petitions 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) assign charter numbers to the two charter schools identified on the 

attached list. 


The SBE is responsible for assigning a number to each approved charter petition. Since 

the charter school law was enacted in 1992, the SBE has assigned numbers to 749 

charter schools and eight all charter districts, including nine approved by the SBE after 

denial by the local agencies. Of these 749 schools, approximately 575 are estimated to 

be operating in the 2005-06 school year. 


The law allows for the establishment of charter schools. A charter school typically is 

approved by a local school district or county office of education. The entity that 

approves a charter is also responsible for ongoing oversight. A charter school must 

comply with all the contents of its charter, but is otherwise exempt from most other laws 

governing school districts. 

Education Code Section 47602 requires the SBE to assign a number to each charter 

school that has been approved by a local entity in the chronological order in which it 

was received. This numbering ensures that the state is within the cap on the total 

number of charter schools authorized to operate. As of July 1, 2005, the number of 

charter schools that may be authorized to operate in the state is 950. This cap may not 

be waived. This item will assign numbers to an additional two charter schools. These 

charter schools were recently approved by their local boards of education. Copies of the 

charter petitions are on file in the Charter Schools Division. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM


There is no fiscal impact resulting from the assignment of numbers to recently 

authorized charter schools. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: Assignment of Numbers for Charter School Petitions (1 Page) 



Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM

JULY 2005 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING 



Attachment 1 


Number Charter Name Charter School Authorizing Charter School 

County Entity 

Contact 

750 City Arts Academy San Diego San Diego Dr. Julia Becker 


USD 2959 Imperial Ave. 

San Diego, CA 

92102 

(619) 338-8327 

751 Achieve Charter School Butte Paradise USD Casey Taylor 

of Paradise, Inc. 

771 Elliott Rd. 

Paradise, CA 95969 

(530)877-5461 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM








FROM: William Ellerbee, Deputy Superintendent 

School and District Operations Branch 


SUBJECT: Assignment of Numbers for Charter School Petitions 

This is a correction to Attachment 1 for Item No. 30. The original heading for Attachment 

1 read “JULY 2005 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING.” The heading for 

Attachment 1 has been changed to “SEPTEMBER 2005 STATE BOARD OF 

EDUCATION MEETING.” 

Attachment 1: Assignment of Numbers for Charter School Petitions (1 Page) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14 PM


Attachment 1 


SEPTEMBER 2005 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING 


Number Charter Name 

750 City Arts Academy 


751 Achieve Charter School 

of Paradise, Inc. 

Charter School Authorizing Charter School 

County Entity 

Contact 

San Diego San Diego Dr. Julia Becker 

USD 2959 Imperial Ave. 

San Diego, CA 

92102 

(619) 338-8327 

Butte Paradise USD Casey Taylor 

771 Elliott Rd. 

Paradise, CA 95969 

(530)877-5461 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:14 PM




SUBJECT 

ITEM #31 



Charter Schools: Determination of Funding Requests for 2004- 

05 and 2005-06 for Nonclassroom-based Charter Schools 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve various 2004-05 and 2005-06 funding requests from charter 

schools pursuant to California Education Code sections 47612.5 and 47634.2, and 

California Code of Regulations, Title 5, sections 11963 to 11963.6, inclusive, based 

upon the recommendations of the Advisory Commission on Charter Schools (ACCS). 


Senate Bill (SB) 740 enacted provisions in law that result in potential funding reductions 

for charter schools that offer nonclassroom-based instruction. Nonclassroom-based 

instruction occurs when a charter school does not require attendance of its pupils at the 

school site under the direct supervision and control of a qualified teaching employee of 

the school for at least 80 percent of the required instructional time. For 2003-04 and 

each fiscal year thereafter, the law states that funding reductions of 30 percent of 

qualifying charter schools’ nonclassroom-based average daily attendance (ADA) shall 

be made unless the SBE determines that a greater or lesser percentage is appropriate 

for a particular charter school, e.g. the default funding level is 70 percent which can be 

adjusted upwards or downwards depending on mitigating circumstances. Furthermore, 

pursuant to SB 740, a charter school is prohibited from receiving any funding for 

nonclassroom-based instruction unless the SBE determines its eligibility for funding. 

SB 740 also established the ACCS to develop the criteria for the SBE to use in making 

funding determinations. The ACCS also provides recommendations to the SBE on 

appropriate funding determinations for nonclassroom-based charter schools and on 

other aspects of the SBE’s duties under the Charter Schools Act. 

The SBE adopted permanent regulations that became operative in November 2003 that 

specified the criteria that a nonclassroom-based charter school must meet in order for 

the SBE to determine that the school shall receive 100 percent funding. For 2003-04 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM



and each fiscal year thereafter, the full funding criteria are that at least 50 percent of the 

school’s public revenues must be spent on certificated employee salaries and benefits, 

at least 80 percent of all revenues must be spent on instruction and instruction-related 

costs, and the student-to-teacher ratio may not exceed the student-to-teacher ratio of 

the largest unified school district in the county in which the charter school is located. 

Schools must spend a minimum of 40 percent on certificated employee salaries and 

benefits and 60 percent on instruction and instruction-related costs or the funding 

percentage is zero. Pursuant to the regulations, the SBE may approve a higher or lower 

funding level than the criteria would prescribe based upon mitigating circumstances of 

the school that indicate that a higher or lower funding level is appropriate. 


Pursuant to the SB 740 regulations, all funding determination requests are required to 

be submitted to the CDE by February 1. The ACCS made recommendations on six 

funding determination requests for 2004-05 and three funding determination requests 

for 2005-06 at an ACCS meeting on July 25, 2005. 

The six schools submitting funding determination requests for 2004-05 missed the 

February 1, 2005, deadline for various reasons. 

The SBE adopted new Title 5, SB 740 regulations on July 7, 2005, and these 

regulations are currently in the rulemaking process. They are expected to go into effect 

in the fall of 2005. Funding determinations received by the Charter Schools Division 

prior to the effective date of the new regulations will be reviewed and evaluated based 

on existing SB 740 regulations. Funding determinations received by the Charter 

Schools Division after the effective date of the new regulations will be reviewed and 

evaluated based on the new regulations. The proposed regulations establish an 

alternative to the existing method for determining the pupil-teacher ratio for 

nonclassroom-based charter schools by allowing charter schools the option of using a 

statewide average pupil-teacher ratio; clarify the multi-year funding determination 

option; make clarifying changes to the determination of funding request forms and 

calculations for the 2005-06 fiscal year and beyond; incorporate facilities mitigation 

within "instructional costs" and the base calculation; clarify certificated instructional 

support staff and treatment of contracted staff used by the charter school for the 

calculations; make technical changes that includes removal of language no longer in 

effect; and establish policy for determination of funding requests for nonclassroombased 

virtual or on-line charter schools. 


A determination of funding request approved at less than the 100 percent level may 

result in reduced apportionment claims to the state. The reductions in claims would 

result in a proportionate reduction in expenditure demands for Proposition 98 funds. All 

Proposition 98 funds, by law, must be expended each fiscal year. Thus, a reduction in 

apportionment claims may be more accurately characterized as an expenditure shift 

than as absolute savings under typical circumstances. In 2002-03, funding 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM



determination requests approved by the SBE at less than 100 percent resulted in over 

$30 million in reduced apportionment claims. The reductions in 2003-04 and 2004-05 

were approximately $25 million each year in reduced apportionment claims. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: 2004-05 and 2005-06 Funding Determination Requests (3 Pages) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM

2004-05 and 2005-06 Funding Determination Requests 


2004-05 (AND BEYOND) 


Attachment 1 


The following determination of funding request is recommended for approval by 

the State Board of Education (SBE) for two years only (2004-05 and 2005-06) at 

the 100 percent level. The reasons justifying a level higher than 70 percent in 2004-05 

and beyond are that (1) the school met the minimum criteria specified in regulation for 

the 100 percent level, and (2) the school presented sufficient evidence (taking the 

totality of the request into account along with any other credible information that may 

have been available) that the 100 percent funding determination level is necessary for 

the school to maintain nonclassroom-based instruction that is conducted for the 

instructional benefit of the student and is substantially dedicated to that function. This 

two-year recommendation by the Advisory Commission on Charter Schools (ACCS) 

reflects the Commission’s desire to provide greater fiscal stability to continuing 

nonclassroom-based schools that meet the criteria for full funding. 

Charter 

Number CDS Code Charter Name 2004-05 

#179 42-69286-6116297 Santa Barbara Middle Charter School 100% 

The following determination of funding requests are recommended for approval 

by the SBE for one year only (2004-05) at the 100 percent level. The reasons 

justifying a level higher than 70 percent in 2004-05 and beyond are that (1) the schools 

met the minimum criteria specified in regulation for the 100 percent level, and (2) the 

schools presented sufficient evidence (taking the totality of the request into account 

along with any other credible information that may have been available) that the 100 

percent funding determination level is necessary for the schools to maintain 

nonclassroom-based instruction that is conducted for the instructional benefit of the 

student and is substantially dedicated to that function. Note that these are newly 

established charter schools. The California Department of Education traditionally 

recommends 100 percent funding for one year for newly established schools that meet 

the minimum criteria specified in regulation for the 100 percent level. The reason for 

funding newly established schools for one year only is because estimated financial 

information is used in first year funding determinations; in subsequent years, actual prior 

year financial information is reported. 

Charter 


#631 24-10249-0106518 Merced Community Scholars Charter School 100% 

#677 36-67876-0107730 ASA Charter School 100% 


by the SBE for one year only (2004-05) at the 70 percent level. The reasons 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM


Attachment 1 


justifying this level in 2004-05 revolve around the school only having met the criteria 

specified in regulation for the 70 percent funding level. Title 5, CCR 11963.4(b)(1) 

specifies that “If the percentage calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) 

of Section 11963.3 equals at least 40 percent but less than 50 percent, and the 

percentage calculated pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 11963.3 

equals at least 60 percent but less than 70 percent, the Advisory Commission on 

Charter Schools shall recommend to the State Board of Education approval of the 

request at 70 percent, unless there is a reasonable basis to recommend otherwise.” 

Westwood Charter School of Lassen County for the first time exceeded the 20 percent 

independent study program threshold that resulted in the school submitting a required 

SB 740 funding determination. With certificated staff costs less than 40 percent, the 

school would be entitled to receive no funding. Westwood Charter School presented a 

strong mitigating argument related to the costs of transition from a site-based to a 

nonclassroom-based charter school as a result of AB 1994 geographic restrictions. This 

resulted in a 70 percent funding determination recommendation from the ACCS for one 

year. High Desert Academy of Applied Arts & Sciences and Valley Preparatory 

Academy are both newly established charter schools. With both schools, certificated 

staff costs were less than 40 percent. Therefore, these schools would be entitled to 

receive no funding per California Education Code (EC) Section 11963.3. Both schools 

presented mitigating arguments related to their status as new schools. The ACCS voted 

to recommend all three schools for 70 percent funding for 2004-05 to the SBE. All 

schools listed below could address this problem in future funding determinations by 

increasing the schools’ total expenditures on certificated staff costs to 50 percent or 

more and by increasing the schools’ total expenditures on instruction and related 

services to 80 percent or more. 

Charter 


#399 18-64204-1830132 Westwood Charter School 70% 

#614 36-67934-0105833 

High Desert Academy of Applied Arts & 

Sciences 

70% 

#662 10-62166-0106740 Valley Preparatory Academy 70% 


by the SBE for one year only (2005-06) at the 70 percent level. The reason justifying 

a level of 70 percent in 2005-06 is that these schools continue to have discrepancies in 

their pupil-teacher ratio calculations used for their funding determination requests in 

2005-06. While these charter schools meet the percentage requirements for full funding, 

CDE questions whether these schools comply with pupil-teacher ratio calculations as 

prescribed in EC Section 51745.6 and CCR 11704. CCR 11963.4 requires that as a 

condition of full funding through SB 740, the charter school's pupil-teacher ratio is equal 

to or less than the largest unified school district in the county or counties in which the 

charter school operates. Pupil-teacher ratio calculations for full-time, twelve-month 

employees are generally counted at 1.92 FTEs at Options for Youth/Opportunities for 

Learning (OFY/OFL) schools. The current Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM


Attachment 1 


Team audit is examining pupil-teacher ratio calculations as well as other areas of 

independent study compliance and should be completed in the fall of 2005. The ACCS 

recommends that the current funding level of these schools (70 percent) be continued 

until the audit results are available. 

Charter 

Number CDS Code Charter Name 2005-06 

#117 

19-75291-1996016 

Options for Youth-San Gabriel 

70% 

conditional 

#217 

34-67447-3430691 

Options for Youth-San Juan 

70% 

#463 

30-66464-6120356 Opportunities for Learning-Capistrano 

conditional 

70% 

conditional 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM




SUBJECT 

ITEM #32 



Request by High Tech High Learning to become a Statewide 

Benefit Charter School under oversight of the State Board of 

Education 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) conditionally approve the High Tech High Learning (HTHL) petition to 

become a statewide benefit charter for five full school years if the first schools open 

within one year of the charter petition’s approval by the SBE. The term of the charter 

shall be from July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2011. 


AB 1994 (Chapter 1058, Statutes of 2002) added Education Code (EC) Section 47605.8 

which provides for the authorization of charter schools of statewide benefit that propose 

to operate on multiple sites throughout the state. The law also requires the SBE to 

adopt regulations to implement EC Section 47605.8. The charter petitioners may submit 

petitions directly to the SBE without being reviewed by a school district or county office. 

At its November 2004 meeting, the SBE considered and adopted proposed Title 5 

regulations to implement EC Section 47605.8. The proposed regulations were approved 

by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on June 22, 2005. 


HTHL is the nonprofit public benefit corporation established to support the development 

of High Tech High schools throughout California. Incorporated in 2001, HTHL currently 

operates two high schools and one middle school. HTHL also provides program support 

and technical assistance to a network of nine additional High Tech High-inspired 

schools located in communities across the United States. HTHL is known for its strong 

academic program and Academic Performance Index (API) scores. 

HTHL formally submitted its statewide benefit petition (and the first one of this type of 

charter) on May 16, 2005. It was reviewed by the Advisory Commission on Charter 

Schools (ACCS) on May 23, 2005. Because the length of time available for review of 

the petition before the ACCS meeting was limited, the CDE staff review was limited to 

reviewing the petition with a focus on compliance with minimum requirements for 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM



submission of a statewide benefit charter petition and a preliminary evaluation of the 

content for each of the required petition elements. CDE staff has since had an 

opportunity to review the revised petition submitted by HTHL and the findings are 

included as Attachment 1. 

The ACCS, at its May 2005 meeting, raised a number of questions about the petition 

related to the CDE preliminary findings, curriculum and instruction, diversity issues, and 

the ability of HTHL to parlay its current success into working with low socioeconomic 

status students. The ACCS agreed to recommend the charter school to the SBE for 

approval of this petition, opening in the fall of 2005 if the two sites listed were not 

deemed to be existing charter schools, which is prohibited by the SBE’s regulations, 

and all other conditions and concerns raised by the ACCS were satisfactorily 

addressed. 

However, the CDE and SBE legal staff reviewed the status of the two charter schools 

proposed to open in 2005, and determined that since both had received local approval, 

they were existing schools and therefore could not be a part of the initial statewide 

benefit petition. Subsequently, HTHL made the necessary revisions to exclude the two 

schools from their initial statewide benefit petition. The CDE recommends approval, 

pending the satisfactory resolution of all findings and conditions, for a fall 2006 opening 

of the first two HTHL schools (to be located in Escondido and Chula Vista) as listed in 

the petition. 

Recommended Conditions 

The following are the conditions recommended by the ACCS if the SBE approves the 

petition: 

1. All HTHL existing statewide sites approved as part of the statewide benefit 

petition must demonstrate student academic achievement annually as evidenced 

by a statewide Academic Performance Index (API) ranking of seven or better or a 

similar schools ranking of six or better before additional schools may be added 

under the statewide benefit charter. 

2. Any proposed changes to the school sites reflected in the petition, including the 

addition, deletion, or substitution of sites are to be considered material 

amendments to the charter and must receive prior approval by the SBE. 

3. The charter must be amended to include specific dispute resolution language 

that recognizes that the SBE is not an LEA and may choose to resolve disputes 

directly (this has been done in the current petition). 

4. The current language in the charter that requires the SBE to ensure that HTHL 

secures Regional Occupational Program (ROP) funding should be deleted, and 

HTHL must have ROP programmatic and fiscal details resolved before the 

schools open. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM



5. Verify that, as per CDE and SBE legal review, the proposed two HTHL schools 

currently authorized by a school district or County Office of Education (Bayshore 

and Media Arts) have not been included as part of the initial statewide benefit 

petition (this has been resolved and the two schools are not included in petition). 

6. All CDE final findings and recommendations must be addressed in the specified 

time lines and to the satisfaction of the CDE and SBE before the schools open in 

2006. 

In addition to these conditions, CDE staff recommends that all the standard conditions 

of approval for charter appeals be applied to statewide benefit charters also. 


There are currently two CDE staff assigned to oversee eleven SBE-approved charter 

schools and eight all charter districts as well as provide many of the business functions 

supporting them, such as certifying attendance, and reviewing fiscal, budget, and audit 

reports. The statewide benefit charter schools will require CDE staff support to oversee 

the multiple school sites included in the single petition. The SBE, as the authorizing 

entity, may charge the one percent oversight fee; however, those fees do not totally 

support the oversight workload. 

ATTACHMENT(S) 

Attachment 1: Statewide Benefit Charter School Petition Review Form (18 pages) 

Attachment 2: HTHL Model Application to Operate a Statewide Benefit Charter School 

(75 Pages) 

Attachment 3: Title 5 Regulations for Submission of Statewide Benefit Charter 

School Petitions to the State Board of Education (4 pages) 

Attachment 4: Recommended Conditions of Operation for Statewide Benefit of Charter 

Schools (3 pages) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM

Title 5. EDUCATION 


Chapter 11. Special Programs 

Subchapter 19. Charter Schools 


Attachment 3 


§ 11967.6. Submission of Statewide Benefit Charter School Petitions to the State 

Board of Education. 

(a) A petition to establish a statewide benefit charter school pursuant to Education 

Code Section 47605.8 shall: 

(1) Comply with all statutory requirements otherwise applicable to charter schools, 

except those relating to geographic and site limitations (See Education Code Section 

47605.8) 

(2) If applicable, comply with all requirements of law relative to the provision of 

independent study. 

(A) A charter that does not expressly provide for independent study shall not be 

interpreted as allowing independent study beyond that which is incidental and required to 

address the temporary needs of particular students. 

(B) If the independent study (nonclassroom-based instruction) exceeds the percentage 

specified in Education Code Section 47612.5, it shall be funded only in keeping with a 

determination of funding approved pursuant to Education Code Section 47634.2. 

(3) Describe how an annual independent audit of the statewide benefit charter school 

will be conducted in keeping with applicable statute and regulation and indicate how the 

statewide benefit charter school’s individual schools will be appropriately included in the 

audit process. 

(4) Incorporate a plan that provides for initial commencement of instruction in at least 

two schools, which shall be in at least two different school districts or two different 

counties. The plan for instruction shall describe how the instructional services will provide 

a statewide benefit, as specified in Section 11967.6(b) that cannot be provided by a 

charter school operating in only one school district, or only in one county. Existing charter 

schools previously approved by a charter authorizer may not be included in a petition to 

establish a statewide benefit charter school. 

(5) Include an assurance that the instructional services for similar student populations 

described in the charter will be essentially similar at each school and, thus, that each 

pupil’s educational experience will be reasonably the same with regard to instructional 

methods, instructional materials, staffing configuration, personnel requirements, course 

offerings, and class schedules. 

(6) Describe how the statewide benefit charter school will participate as a member of a 

special education local plan area, and ensure a coordinated structure for the provision of 

necessary programs and services specific to students with Individual Education Programs 

(IEPs). 

(7) Demonstrate success in operating charter schools previously approved in 

California as evidenced by improved pupil academic performance and annual financial 

audits with no audit findings or exceptions. Data that shall be considered in determining 

the likelihood of a charter operator to successfully operate a statewide benefit charter 

school include, but are not limited to, a statewide or similar schools ranking of 8 or higher 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM


Attachment 3 


on the Academic Performance Index, evidence of having met growth targets over time, 

and other alternative indicators of success as defined in the alternative accountability 

system pursuant to subdivision (h) of Education Code Section 52052. 

(8) Describe how local community input for each school included in the plan was 

solicited (or will be solicited). Satisfaction of this paragraph shall involve the holding of at 

least one publicly noticed meeting for each school, with a summary of the input received 

at the meeting(s) being provided. 

(9) Contain sufficient signatures either of parents, guardians, or of teachers in keeping 

with Education Code Section 47605(a)(1) for each school proposed in the first year. 

(10) Include an assurance that the school district and county superintendents where 

each school will be located will be notified at least 120 days prior to commencement of 

instruction. 

(11) Addresses all charter elements specified in Education Code Section 47605 

adapted appropriately for application at the statewide level. 

(12) Contain or address any provisions or conditions specified by the State Board of 

Education at the time of charter approval. 

(13) Contain a plan for operations of the statewide benefit charter school that 

describes the distinction between centralized and individual school level responsibilities 

and includes a staffing plan to implement the activities at the designated level. The plan 

shall address statewide benefit charter school operations including, but not limited to: 

(A) Academic program, 

(B) Facilities and school operations, 

(C) Legal and programmatic compliance, 

(D) Financial administration, 

(E) Governance, and 

(F) Decision-making authority. 

(14) Provide a list of each school that will be operated by the statewide benefit charter 

school that includes: 

(A) A timeline for the commencement of instruction at each school. Commencement of 

instruction must begin during the term of the charter. 

(B) The general location of each school and the school district and county in which 

each school is to be located. 

(C) A description of the potential facilities to be used at each school. 

(D) The approximate number of pupils that can safely be accommodated by each 

school facility. 

(b) “Instructional services of a “statewide benefit” shall include, but not be limited to, 

the following factors: 

(1) Unique factors and circumstances related to the statewide benefit charter school’s 

educational program that can only be accomplished as a statewide benefit charter and not 

as a single district- or single county-authorized charter, including specific benefits to each 

of the following: 

(A) The pupils who would attend the statewide benefit charter school, 

(B) The communities (including the school districts and the counties) in which the 

individual schools would be located (e.g., in terms of pupil demographics and 

performance), 

(C) The state, to the extent applicable, and 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM


Attachment 3 


(D) The statewide benefit charter school itself (e.g., in fund raising, community 

partnerships, or relationships with institutions of higher education). 

(2) Neither an administrative benefit to a charter operator, nor desire by a charter 

operator to provide services in more than one district and county, shall be considered 

sufficient in and of itself to constitute a statewide benefit. 

(c) A statewide benefit charter school, regardless of the number of individual schools, 

is treated as a school district for all purposes, including but not limited to, compliance 

monitoring, data reporting and collection, student performance data, oversight, and 

apportionments. For purposes of compliance monitoring and oversight, the State Board, in 

its review, will look at each individual school’s independent progress in meeting federal 

and state growth targets. 

(d) Following its submission, a petition to establish a statewide benefit charter school 

may be modified or new schools added that were not included in the original petition only 

with the approval of the State Board of Education. 

(e) Each statewide benefit charter school shall provide an annual report to the State 

Board of Education reflecting student achievement data, performance benchmarks, and 

other pertinent data supporting stated charter goals. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 33031 and 47605.8, Education Code. Reference: Sections 

47612.5, 47634.2, and 47605, Education Code. 

§ 11967.7. Evaluation of Facilities for Statewide Benefit Charter Schools. 

(a) The statewide benefit charter school shall notify the California Department of 

Education within 60 days of proposed commencement of instruction at each school, 

including submission of all documentation required in Section 11967.6(a)(14). Within 30 

days of the receipt of a complete and documented request pursuant to this section, the 

California Department of Education shall evaluate the facilities for the proposed 

educational program for compliance with local building permits and codes and notify the 

statewide benefit charter school and any affected local education agency of its 

determination. The charter school or any affected local education agency may appeal the 

Department’s determination within 10 calendar days of the date of the determination, and 

the matter will be placed on the agenda of the next regularly scheduled meeting of the 

State Board of Education. If no action is taken by the State Board of Education, the 

California Department of Education’s determination shall stand. A school may not open in 

a facility without a positive determination. 

(b) A school in its first year of operation may only commence instruction between July 

1 and September 30 of the year in which it proposes to commence operation. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 33031 and 47605.8, Education Code. Reference: Section 

47605.8, Education Code. 

§ 11967.8. Funding for Statewide Benefit Charter Schools. 

(a) A statewide benefit charter school approved pursuant to Education Code Section 

47605.8 shall be direct-funded pursuant to Chapter 6 of Part 26.8 of the Education Code 

(commencing with Section 47630), with the following exceptions: 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM


Attachment 3 


(1) A statewide benefit charter school’s general-purpose entitlement pursuant to 

Education Code Section 47633 shall be funded entirely from state aid. 

(2) A statewide benefit charter school does not have a “sponsoring local education 

agency” as defined in Education Code Section 47632. 

(b) The warrant for a statewide benefit charter school shall be drawn in favor of the 

State Superintendent of Public Instruction and a county office of education as follows: 

(1)The State Board of Education may designate a county office of education as the 

office responsible for establishing the appropriate funds or accounts in the country 

treasury for the statewide benefit charter schools and for making the necessary 

arrangements for the statewide benefit charter school’s participation in the State 

Teachers’ Retirement System and/or the Public Employees Retirement System. The 

county office may charge the statewide benefit charter school for the actual cost of 

services. 

(2) In designating a county office of education, the State Board shall give preference to 

the county office of education of the county that the statewide benefit charter school 

identifies as the principal location of its business records. 

(3) If the county office of education in the county that the statewide benefit charter 

school identifies as the principal location of its business records declines to accept the 

responsibility for the statewide benefit charter school, the State Board of Education may 

designate another county office of education by mutual agreement. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 33031 and 47605.8, Education Code. Reference: Section 

47632 and 47651, Education Code. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM

Recommended Conditions of Operation 

for Statewide Benefit Charter Schools 


Attachment 4 


1. Insurance Coverage-not later than Date to be determined (TBD), (or such earlier 

time as school may employ individuals or acquire or lease property or facilities for 

which insurance would be customary), submit documentation of adequate 

insurance coverage, including liability insurance, which shall be based on the type 

and amount of insurance coverage maintained in similar settings. 

2. Oversight Agreement-not later than TBD, either (a) accept an agreement with the 

State Board of Education (administered through the California Department of 

Education) to be the direct oversight entity for the school, specifying the scope of 

oversight and reporting activities, including, but not limited to, adequacy and safety 

of facilities; or (b) enter into an appropriate agreement between the charter school, 

the State Board of Education (as represented by the Executive Director of the State 

Board), and an oversight entity (pursuant to EC Section 47605(k)(1)) regarding the 

scope of oversight and reporting activities, including, but not limited, adequacy and 

safety of facilities. 

3. SELPA Membership-not later than TBD, submit written verification of having 

applied to a special education local plan area (SELPA) for membership as a local 

education agency and, not later than TBD, submit either written verification that the 

school is (or will be at the time students are being served) participating in the 

SELPA, or an agreement between a SELPA, a school district that is a member of 

the SELPA, and the school that describes the roles and responsibilities of each 

party and that explicitly states that the SELPA and the district consider the school’s 

students to be students of the school district in which the school is physically 

located for purposes of special education programs and services (which is the 

equivalent of participation in the SELPA). Satisfaction of this condition should be 

determined by the Executive Director of the State Board of Education based 

primarily on the advice of CDE staff based on a review of either the school’s written 

plan for membership in the SELPA, including any proposed contracts with service 

providers or the agreement between a SELPA, a school district and the school, 

including any proposed contracts with service providers. 

4. Educational Program-not later than TBD, submit a description of the curriculum 

development process the school will use and the scope and sequence for the 

grades envisioned by the school; and, not later than TBD, submit the complete 

educational program for students to be served in the first year including, but not 

limited to, a description of the curriculum and identification of the basic instructional 

materials to be used, plans for professional development of instructional personnel 

to deliver the curriculum and use the instructional materials, identification of 

specific assessments that will be used in addition to the results of the Standardized 

Testing and Reporting (STAR) program in evaluating student progress. Satisfaction 

of this condition should be determined by the Executive Director of the State Board 

of Education based primarily on the advice of CDE staff. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM


Attachment 4 


5. Student Attendance Accounting-not later than TBD, submit for approval the 

specific means to be used for student attendance accounting and reporting that will 

be satisfactory to support state average daily attendance claims and satisfy any 

audits related to attendance that may be conducted. Satisfaction of this condition 

should be determined by the Executive Director of the State Board of Education 

based primarily on the advice of the Director of the School Fiscal Services Division. 

6. Facilities Agreement-not later than TBD, present a written agreement (a lease or 

similar document) indicating the school’s right to use the principal school site and 

any ancillary facilities identified by the petitioners for at least the first year of the 

school’s operation and evidence that the facility will be adequate for the school’s 

needs. Satisfaction of this condition should be determined by the Executive 

Director of the State Board of Education based primarily on the advice of the 

Director of the School Facilities Planning Division. 

7. Zoning and Occupancy-not less than 30 days prior to the school’s opening, 

present evidence that the facility is located in an area properly zoned for operation 

of a school and has been cleared for student occupancy by all appropriate local 

authorities. For good cause, the Executive Director of the State Board of Education 

may reduce this requirement to fewer than 30 days, but may not reduce the 

requirement to fewer than 10 days. Satisfaction of this condition should be 

determined by the Executive Director of the State Board of Education based 

primarily on the advice of the Director of the School Facilities Planning Division. 

8. Final Charter-not later than TBD, present a final charter that includes all provisions 

and/or modifications of provisions that reflect appropriately the State Board of 

Education as the chartering authority and otherwise address all concerns identified 

by California Department of Education staff, and that includes a specification that 

the school will not operate satellite schools, campuses, sites, resource centers or 

meeting spaces not identified in the charter without the prior written approval of the 

Executive Director of the State Board of Education based primarily on the advice of 

the Charter Schools Division staff. 

9. Legal Issues-in the final charter presented pursuant to condition (8), resolve any 

provisions related to legal issues that may be identified by the State Board’s Chief 

Counsel. 

10. Processing of Employment Contributions-prior to the employment of any 

individuals by the school, present evidence that the school has made appropriate 

arrangements for the processing of the employees’ retirement contributions to the 

Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and the State Teachers’ Retirement 

System (STRS). 

11. Operational Date-if any deadline specified in these conditions is not met, approval 

of the charter is terminated, unless the State Board of Education deletes or extends 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM


Attachment 4 


the deadline not met. If the school is not in operation within one year of the charter 

petition’s approval by the SBE, approval of the charter is terminated. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:20 PM

School Name: High Tech High Learning 


STATEWIDE BENEFIT CHARTER SCHOOL PETITION REVIEW FORM 2005-06 

Deborah Connelly ______________________ __________ 

Print name of person completing form Signature Date 


Attachment 1 


This form is designed as a tool to evaluate a statewide benefit charter school petition submitted to the State Board of Education in order to insure 

that the charter meets all the requirements and standards intended by State law. After evaluating the charter petition, please respond to each of the 

questions below and provide additional comments, as needed. 

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMISSION OF A PETITION 

COPY OF THE CHARTER PETITION -Title 5, California Code of Regulations Section 11967.6 

• Complete copy of the charter petition is provided Yes 

• Petition contains the number of signatures required by Education Code (EC) Section 47605 (a) Yes 

Comments: N/A 

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE - Title 5, California Code of Regulations Section 11967 (b)(3) 

• A signed certification of compliance with applicable law is provided. Yes 

Comments: 

EVALUATION OF THE CHARTER PETITION 

CDE STAFF OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: 

CDE staff recommends that this petition be approved by the SBE with the standard conditions recommended by CDE staff on charter appeals, the 

development of a contract for oversight, and with the additional conditions recommended by the Advisory Commission on Charter Schools (see the 

SBE agenda item discussion of conditions recommended by the ACCS). 

1


Attachment 1 


The petitioners have reasonably described a statewide benefit that cannot accrue if HTHL was operating in only one district or county. HTHL is 

proposing to open two high schools, each in separate districts within San Diego County (Escondido and Chula Vista) in the fall of 2006. They are 

proposing to bring a total of 10 schools online by 2010 in various districts and counties in the state. 

The petitioners have demonstrated success in improving student academic performance in their other schools previously approved within the state. 

The curriculum and instructional methodologies proposed are generally the same ones that have been used in HTHL’s other existing schools. API 

scores for the two existing schools have been consistently high. HTHL claims that all graduates in the classes of 2003 and 2004 were admitted to 

college and all students chose to attend. The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing has authorized HTHL to open and operate a teacher 

credentialing program. 

HTHL appears to have built the organizational and administrative structure, and the capacity to operate schools in a fiscally sound and prudent 

manner as demonstrated through the success of HTHL’s existing schools. They have previously successfully secured facilities and appear to have 

a sophisticated understanding of various funding mechanisms that are available for facilities. 

The petitioners have requested that the term of the charter be for a five year period. Although the SBE has consistently taken action to limit charters 

on appeal to three year terms, CDE staff recommends a five year initial term for this charter petition. It is difficult to establish solid academic 

performance within a three-year period because of the timing of the availability of STAR test data and the long lead time for petition renewals. This 

new statewide benefit charter school option demands developers that have a proven track record of operating high quality charter schools resulting 

in API statewide and similar schools rankings of eight or higher. 

Finally, there are minor, technical changes that need to be made to the language of the petition, if the SBE approves this petition. 

Education Code §47605.8(b) 

INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES OF A STATEWIDE BENEFIT 

Evaluation Criteria 

The State Board of Education may not approve a petition for the operation of a statewide benefit charter school unless the State Board of 

Education finds that the proposed statewide benefit charter school will provide instructional services of statewide benefit that cannot be provided 

by a charter school operating in only one school district, or only one county. Instructional services of a statewide benefit include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Unique factors and circumstances related to the statewide benefit charter school’s educational program that can only be accomplished as 

a statewide benefit charter and not as a single district- or single county-authorized charter, including specific benefits to the following: 

(A) The pupils who would attend the statewide benefit charter school. 

(B) The communities (including the school districts and the counties) in which the individual schools would be located. 

(C) The state, to the extent applicable. 

(D) The statewide benefit charter school itself. 

2

Charter petition proposes to provide instructional services of a statewide benefit. The SBE may not 

approve a petition unless it finds that the charter school will provide instructional services of a 

statewide benefit that cannot be provided by a charter school operating in only one district or only one 

county. (Indicate “No” if denial is recommended for this reason). 


Attachment 1 


Recommend Approval 

Comments: 

The petition addresses all of the unique factors and circumstances that would benefit pupils, communities, the state, and the school itself in a 

reasonably comprehensive manner. The benefits to students are described as innovative learning opportunities that combine academic rigor with 

real world experience in a small school setting (approximately 450 students) that is demographically diverse. In addition, HTHL has created an 

alumni program to support former students while they attend colleges and universities. 

HTHL asserts that the benefit to communities would be in catalyzing redevelopment and other civic initiatives. Because of HTHL’s local reputation, it 

has served as a catalyst for a collaborative redevelopment project that involved community based organizations, universities, and the city 

leadership. HTHL believes it can foster those collaborations in other areas of the state. This type of collaboration in turn increases the business 

community confidence and support in public education and also results in mutually beneficial internship programs for students. 

The petition states the benefit to the state is that HTHL with its proven model of successful high schools can contribute to statewide initiatives to 

improve low performing schools by locating in low income areas eligible for New Markets Tax Credits. Thus, HTHL will be able to provide alternative 

school choices for those students in greatest need. By replicating this successful high school model across the state, HTHL will be expanding the 

number of students who are capable of entering the workforce with the knowledge and ability to solve real world problems. In addition, by operating 

its own teacher credentialing program, HTHL will graduate approximately 50 new highly qualified teachers annually. 

Finally, HTHL describes the principle benefit to the school as that of being able to better leverage New Markets Tax Credits with a proposed 

statewide presence in low income areas, than on an individual school basis. This is important because the HTHL facilities need to be technologically 

equipped and sophisticated to support the educational program. HTHL also believes it can provide better statewide alumni support to students 

attending colleges and universities outside the San Diego area. 

Education Code §47605(b)(1) 

UNSOUND EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE 


For purposes of Education Code §47605(b)(1), a charter petition shall be “an unsound educational program” if it is either of the following: 

(1) A program that involves activities that the State Board of Education determines would present the likelihood of physical, educational, or 

psychological harm to the affected pupils. 

(2) A program that the State Board of Education determines not to be likely to be of educational benefit to the pupils who attend. 

3


Attachment 1 


Charter petition is “an unsound educational program”. (Indicate “Yes” if denial is recommended for 

No 

this reason.) 


Comments: The education program proposed by HTHL appears to be sound and based on the track record of its existing schools, it will likely 

result in increased academic performance by students. CDE staff believes this model is worthy of replication. CDE staff does have a few specific 

comments about some aspects of the education program as described in the charter petition. These comments are provided under each of the 

required elements below. 

II. Education Code §47605(b)(2) 

DEMONSTRABLY UNLIKELY TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM 


The State Board of Education shall take the following factors into consideration in determining whether charter petitioners are "demonstrably 

unlikely to successfully implement the program." 

(1) If the petitioners have a past history of involvement in charter schools or other education agencies (public or private), the history is one that 

the State Board of Education regards as unsuccessful, e.g., the petitioners have been associated with a charter school of which the charter has 

been revoked or a private school that has ceased operation for reasons within the petitioners’ control. 

(2) The petitioners are unfamiliar in the State Board of Education’s judgment with the content of the petition or the requirements of law that would 

apply to the proposed charter school. 

(3) The petitioners have presented an unrealistic financial and operational plan for the proposed charter school. (See details: Title 5, California 

Code of Regulations §11967.5.1. (c)(3) (A-D)) 

(4) The petitioners personally lack the necessary background in the following areas critical to the charter school’s success, and the petitioners do 

not have plan to secure the services of individuals who have the necessary background in these areas: 

A. Curriculum, instruction, and assessment. 

B. Finance and business management. 

Petitioners are "demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program". (Indicate “Yes” if 

denial is recommended for this reason.) 

No 


4


Attachment 1 


Comments: The petitioners appear to have a good grasp of the requirements of the law and have a background in the financial and legal 

aspects of operating charter schools. HTHL has a past history of operating successful charter schools and the organization has expertise in 

curriculum and instruction as well as finance and business management. The budget contains detailed information about each of the proposed 

schools. 

CDE staff notes that the petitioners have identified the San Diego County Office of Education as the agency they would like to establish 

accounts in the county treasury on HTHL’s behalf in accordance with Title 5 regulations (Section 11967.8). HTHL has entered into discussions 

with the county office, which has indicated that it is willing to serve as the agency for HTHL schools located in San Diego County. However, the 

county is apparently unwilling to serve as a fiscal agent for schools located outside of San Diego County. This does not pose a problem for the 

first year, because both schools proposed for opening are within the county. However, in future years, the SBE may have to appoint a 

designated county office (as provided for in regulations) to be responsible for setting up accounts for HTHL. CDE staff will work with the 

petitioners to resolve this issue, if the petition is approved. 

III. Education Code §47605 (b)(4) 

Affirmation of each of the conditions described in subdivision (d) of Education Code §47605 


A charter petition that "does not contain an affirmation of each of the conditions described in subdivision (d)" of Education Code Section 47605 

shall be a petition that fails to include a clear, unequivocal affirmation of each such condition. Neither the charter nor any of the supporting 

documents shall include any evidence that the charter will fail to comply with the conditions described in Education Code Section 47605(d). 

Education Code §47605(d) 

(1) In addition to any other requirement imposed under this part, a charter school shall be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, 

employment practices, and all other operations, shall not charge tuition, and shall not discriminate against any pupil on the basis of ethnicity, 

national origin, gender, or disability. Except as provided in paragraph (2), admission to a charter school shall not be determined according to the 

place of residence of the pupil, or of his or her parent or guardian, within this state, except that any existing public school converting partially or 

entirely to a charter school under this part shall adopt and maintain a policy giving admission preference to pupils who reside within the former 

attendance area of that public school. 

(2) (A) A charter school shall admit all pupils who wish to attend the school. 

(B) However, if the number of pupils who wish to attend the charter school exceeds the school's capacity, attendance, except for existing 

pupils of the charter school, shall be determined by a public random drawing. Preference shall be extended to pupils currently attending the 

charter school and pupils who reside in the district except as provided for in Section 47614.5. Other preferences may be permitted by the 

chartering authority on an individual school basis and only if consistent with the law. 

(C) In the event of a drawing, the chartering authority shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate the growth of the charter school and, in 

no event, shall take any action to impede the charter school from expanding enrollment to meet pupil demand. 

Charter petition contains an affirmation of each of the conditions described in subdivision (d) of 

Education Code §47605. (Yes or No.) 

No, not all 

affirmations included 

5


Attachment 1 


Comments: The petitioners have included the affirmations addressed in Education Code Section 47605. However, the regulations governing 

statewide benefit charter petitions (CCR Title 5, Section 11967.6(a)(5) and 11967.6(a)(10) require the petitioners to provide assurances that the 

instructional services will be essentially the same at each school site and that HTHL will notify the school district and county superintendents 

where each school site is to be located at least 120 days prior to commencement of instruction. CDE staff recommends these assurances be 

included on the assurances page submitted by the petitioners. 

IV. Education Code §47605 (b)(5) 

REASONABLY COMPREHENSIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE SPECIFIED ELEMENTS 

There are 16 Required Elements (A-P). Please indicate whether or not the information provided for each element overall meets the requirement 

for being “reasonably comprehensive” by circling the appropriate response at the end of each of the 16 sections. 

“Reasonably comprehensive,” as used herein, means that the given information: (1) Is substantive and is not, for example, a listing of topics 

with little elaboration; (2) For elements that have multiple aspects, addresses essentially all aspects of the elements, not just selected aspects; 

and (3) is specific to the charter petition being proposed, not to charter schools or charter petitions generally. 

Required Element 

1. Educational Program - EC §47605(b)(5)(A) 

Evaluation Criteria Yes No 

(A) Indicates the proposed charter school’s target student population, including, at a minimum, grade levels, approximate 

X 

numbers of pupils, and specific educational interests, backgrounds, or challenges. 

(B) Specifies a clear, concise school mission statement with which all elements and programs of the school are in alignment 

and which conveys the petitioners' definition of an "educated person in the 21 st century, belief of how learning best occurs, and 

goals consistent with enabling pupils to become or remain self-motivated, competent, and lifelong learners. 

(C) Includes a framework for instructional design that is aligned with the needs of the pupils that the charter school has 

identified as its target student population. 

(D) Indicates the basic learning environment or environments (e.g., site-based matriculation, independent study, community- 

based education, technology-based education). 

(E) Indicates the instructional approach or approaches the charter school will utilize, including, but not limited to, the curriculum 

and teaching methods (or a process for developing the curriculum and teaching methods) that will enable the school’s pupils to 

master the content standards for the four core curriculum areas adopted by the State Board of Education pursuant to Education 

Code section 60605 and to achieve the objectives specified in the charter. 

(F) Indicates how the charter school will identify and respond to the needs of pupils who are not achieving at or above expected 

levels. 

(G) Indicates how the charter school will meet the needs of students with disabilities, English learners, students achieving 

substantially above or below grade level expectations, and other special student populations 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

6

(H) Specifies the charter school’s special education plan, including, but not limited to, the means by which the charter school 

will comply with the provisions of Education Code section 47641, the process to be used to identify students who qualify for 

special education programs and services, how the school will provide or access special education programs and services, the 

school’s understanding of its responsibilities under law for special education pupils, and how the school intends to meet those 

responsibilities. 


Attachment 1 



1. Educational Program - EC §47605(b)(5)(A) - CONTINUED 


Note: If serving high school students, describes how district/charter school informs parents about: 

• transferability of courses to other public high schools 

Yes No 

• eligibility of courses to meet college entrance requirements 

(Courses that are accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) may be considered transferable and 

courses approved by the University of California (UC) or the California State University (CSU)as creditable under the "A" to "G" 

X 

admissions criteria may be considered to meet college entrance requirements.) 

Comments on element as a whole: 

The petition as a whole is reasonably comprehensive and provides detailed descriptions of each of the evaluation criteria. However, there are a 

few areas that CDE staff recommend be amended if the SBE approves the charter petition. They are as follows: 

Regional Occupation Programs (ROP) – the language of the petition states that the petitioners will work with the SBE to develop a method by 

which the school may access an equitable share of federally provided ROP funding. This language should be eliminated. The ACCS, as one of 

its recommended conditions of approval, strongly indicated that HTHL must resolve ROP programmatic and fiscal details themselves prior to 

schools’ opening. Gaining admittance into an ROP program is similar to applying for admittance to a SELPA and HTHL must initiate that 

process. The SBE has neither the authority nor the responsibility to intercede on behalf of HTHL to secure admittance to any of these regional 

organizations. 

Plan for Special Education – CDE staff recommends that HTHL provide additional information regarding how it intends to secure the resources 

typically needed by students with disabilities. For example, will it hire staff for each school or contract out for services? If HTHL is contracting for 

services, with whom is it contracting? HTHL has secured admittance into the Desert Mountain SELPA, but it is not clear if the SELPA intends on 

providing the necessary staff to support the school’s special needs students. 

Transferability of Credits – statute requires charter high schools to describe how they are going to notify parents of the transferability of 

courses to other high schools and the eligibility of courses to meet college entrance requirements. HTHL states that “upon request from parents” 

it will notify them of course transferability and eligibility. CDE staff recommends that all parents be notified as a matter of course, not just upon 

request. The current language places the burden on the parents to know to request such information. 

X 

7


Attachment 1 


Overall this element describes a program that is “consistent with sound educational practice” (Yes or No) Yes 


2. Measurable Pupil Outcomes - EC §47605(b)(5)(B) 


(A) Specify skills, knowledge, and attitudes that reflect the school’s educational objectives and can be assessed, at a minimum, 

Yes No 

by objective means that are frequent and sufficiently detailed enough to determine whether pupils are making satisfactory 

progress. It is intended that the frequency of objective means of measuring pupil outcomes vary according to such factors as 

grade level, subject matter, the outcome of previous objective measurements, and information that may be collected from 

anecdotal sources. To be sufficiently detailed, objective means of measuring pupil outcomes must be capable of being used 

readily to evaluate the effectiveness of and to modify instruction for individual students and for groups of students. 

X 

(B) Include the school’s Academic Performance Index growth target, if applicable. 7 6 


The petition contains many school-wide objectives that are quantifiable. However, the student outcomes described in the petition do not quantify 

expected numbers of students to perform and at what levels on the tests. CDE staff recommends that the Charter Schools Division work with 

HTHL over the next year to develop quantifiable and measurable student outcomes. 

Further, language under the section on the API states that it is the goal of HTHL that every site will achieve a statewide API ranking of 7 or 

higher by its fifth year of operation. This is inconsistent with the ACCS recommendation that all sites approved as part of this petition 

demonstrate student academic achievement annually as evidenced by a statewide API ranking of 7 or better or a similar schools ranking of 6 or 

better before additional schools may be added under the statewide benefit charter. CDE staff recommends HTHL amend language in the petition 

to be consistent with the condition that HTHL demonstrate annual achievement at these levels. 

Overall this element meets the criteria for “reasonably comprehensive” (Yes or No) No 


3. Method by Which Pupil Progress in Meeting the Pupil Outcomes Will Be Measured – EC §47605(b)(5)(C) 


(A) Utilizes a variety of assessment tools that are appropriate to the skills, knowledge, or attitudes being assessed, including, at 

minimum, tools that employ objective means of assessment consistent with the Measurable Pupil Outcomes. 

X 

(B) Includes the annual assessment results from the Statewide Testing and Reporting (STAR) program. X 

(C) Outlines a plan for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data on pupil achievement to school staff and to pupils’ parents and X 

guardians, and for utilizing the data continuously to monitor and improve the charter school’s educational program. 


Petition is reasonably comprehensive in addressing this element. 

8

Overall this element meets the criteria for “reasonably comprehensive” (circle one) Yes 


Attachment 1 



4. Governance Structure of School Including, But Not Limited to, Parental Involvement – EC §47605(b)(5)(D 


(A) Includes evidence of the charter school’s incorporation as a non-profit public benefit corporation, if applicable. 

(B) Includes evidence that the organizational and technical designs of the governance structure reflect a seriousness of 

purpose necessary to ensure that: 

1. The charter school will become and remain a viable enterprise. 

X 

2. There will be active and effective representation of interested parties, including, but not limited to parents 

(guardians). 

3. The educational program will be successful. 

X 


The petition describes a number of activities that parent associations may undertake, such as creating newsletters, websites, student directories, 

etc. However, these activities do not appear to describe meaningful parent involvement in governance of the sites. If petitioners will receive 

federal funding under NCLB or the Perkins Vocational Education Act, there must be a formal parent involvement policy that reflects parents as 

being actively involved in the planning and implementation of the programs and activities funded with these federal funds. CDE staff 

recommends the charter be amended, if approved, to more explicitly address how parents will be involved. 

Overall this element meets the criteria for “reasonably comprehensive” (circle one) No 


5. Qualifications to be Met by Individuals to be Employed by The School – EC §47605(b)(5)(E) 


(A) Identify general qualifications for the various categories of employees the school anticipates (e.g., administrative, 

Yes No 

instructional, instructional support, non-instructional support). The qualifications shall be sufficient to ensure the health, and 

safety of the school’s faculty, staff, and pupils. 

(B) Identify those positions that the charter school regards as key in each category and specify the additional qualifications 

X 

expected of individuals assigned to those positions. 

(C) Specify that all requirements for employment set forth in applicable provisions of law will be met, including, but not limited to 

X 

credentials as necessary. 


X 

The petition states that HTHL is well on its way to full compliance with NCLB highly qualified teacher provisions. However, the petition goes on to 

state that if the teacher of record cannot meet the NCLB requirements, students will have access to tutoring or consultation as needed with an 

NCLB compliant teacher. CDE staff is concerned that this language is not quite consistent with NCLB guidance issued by CDE in March 2004, 

9


Attachment 1 


which states that the “access to teachers meeting the requirement could be through in-person meetings or through distance learning 

arrangements.” In other words, the school is still responsible for ensuring that teachers who teach core academic classes are NCLB compliant. 

It is not sufficient to provide only tutoring or consultation as needed. CDE staff recommends that, if approved, the petition be amended to ensure 

that all teachers of core academic courses are NCLB compliant. 



6. Health and Safety Procedures – EC §47605(b)(5)(F) 


(A) Require that each employee of the school furnish the school with a criminal record summary as described in Education 

Yes No 

Code section 44237. 

X 

(B) Include the examination of faculty and staff for tuberculosis as described in Education Code section 49406. 

(C) Require immunization of pupils as a condition of school attendance to the same extent as would apply if the pupils attended 

X 

a non-charter public school. 

(D) Provide for the screening of pupils’ vision and hearing and the screening of pupils for scoliosis to the same extent as would 

X 

be required if the pupils attended a non-charter public school. 


The petition states that HTHL will develop health, safety and risk management policies, but nothing is included with the petition. Further, CDE 

staff recommends that the petition, if approved, be amended to state that the employer rather than the employee will be responsible for obtaining 

criminal record summaries from the Department of Justice. This removes the potential for unscrupulous employees to tamper with records. 



7. Means to Achieve a Reflective Racial and Ethnic Balance – EC §47605(b)(5)(G) 


Recognizing the limitations on admissions to charter schools imposed by Education Code section 47605(d), describe the 

Yes No 

means by which the school (s) will achieve a racial and ethnic balance among its pupils that is reflective of the general 

X 

population residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the school district. 


The petition is reasonably comprehensive in addressing this element. 

Overall this element meets the criteria for “reasonably comprehensive” (Yes or No) Yes 

X 

10


Attachment 1 



8. Admissions Requirements – EC §47605(b)(5)(H) 


A description of admission requirements in compliance with the requirements of Education Code section 47605(d) and any 

Yes No 

other applicable provision of law. 


The petition lists a priority for admissions that includes returning students at a site, children of employees or board members of HTHL sites, 

children of employees or board members of the High Tech High Foundation and of HTHL, children who are being promoted or are transferring 

from another HTHL school, and all other students. CDE staff recommends that HTHL provide information on what percentage of the student 

body is expected to fall under these preferences. CDE staff further recommends that a 10% limitation be placed on the number of students out of 

total enrolled who may be given priority preference each year. 



9. Financial Audit – EC §47605(b)(5)(I) 


Describe the manner in which annual, independent, financial audits shall be conducted, which shall employ generally accepted 

accounting principles, and the manner in which audit exceptions and deficiencies shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the 

chartering authority. 

Yes No 

(A) Specify who is responsible for contracting and overseeing the independent audit. X 

(B) Specify that the auditor will have experience in education finance. X 

(C) Outline the process of providing audit reports to the State Board of Education, California Department of Education, or other 

agency as the State Board of Education may direct, and specifying the timeline in which audit exceptions will typically be 

addressed. 

X 

(D) Indicate the process that the charter school(s) will follow to address any audit findings and/or resolve any audit exceptions. 


X 

The petition is reasonably comprehensive in addressing this element. However, CDE staff recommends that HTHL be directed to employ an 

audit firm listed on the State Controller’s Office list of approved auditors if this petition is approved. 


X 

11


Attachment 1 



10. Pupil Suspension and Expulsion Procedures– EC §47605(b)(5)(J) 


(A) Identify a preliminary list, subject to later revision pursuant to subparagraph (E), of the offenses for which students in the 

charter school must (where non-discretionary) and may (where discretionary) be suspended and, separately, the offenses for 

which students in the charter school must (where non-discretionary) or may (where discretionary) be expelled, providing 

evidence that the petitioners’ reviewed the offenses for which students must or may be suspended or expelled in non-charter 

Yes No 

public schools. 

(B) Identify the procedures by which pupils can be suspended or expelled. X 

(C) Identify the procedures by which parents, guardians, and pupils will be informed about reasons for suspension or expulsion 

and of their due process rights in regard to suspension or expulsion. 

(D) Provide evidence that in preparing the lists of offenses specified in subparagraph (A) and the procedures specified in 

subparagraphs (B) and (C), the petitioners reviewed the lists of offenses and procedures that apply to students attending noncharter 

public schools, and provide evidence that the charter petitioners believe their proposed lists of offenses and procedures 

provide adequate safety for students, staff, and visitors to the school and serve the best interests the school’s pupils and their 

parents (guardians). 

(E) If not otherwise covered under subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D): 

1. Provide for due process for all pupils and demonstrate an understanding of the rights of pupils with disabilities in 

regard to suspension and expulsion. 

2. Outline how detailed policies and procedures regarding suspension and expulsion will be developed and periodically 

reviewed, including, but not limited to, periodic review and (as necessary) modification of the lists of offenses for which 

students are subject to suspension or expulsion. 


The petition addresses suspension and expulsion procedures in very general terms. If approved, CDE staff recommends the petition be 

amended to address the above criteria with specificity. 



11. Staff Retirement System – EC §47605(b)(5)(K) 


Describes the manner by which staff members of the charter schools will be covered by the State Teachers' Retirement 

System, the Public Employees' Retirement System, or federal social security, at a minimum, specifies the positions to be 

covered under each system and the staff who will be responsible for ensuring that appropriate arrangements for that coverage 

Yes No 

have been made. 


The petition does not describe the positions to be covered under each system, nor does it describe who will be responsible for ensuring that 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

12


Attachment 1 


appropriate arrangement for coverage have been made. 



12. Attendance Alternatives – EC §47605(b)(5)(L) 


Describes the public school attendance alternatives for pupils residing within the school district who choose not to attend 

charter schools, at a minimum, specify that the parent or guardian of each pupil enrolled in the charter school shall be informed 

that the pupils has no right to admission in a particular school of any local education agency (or program of any local education 

agency) as a consequence of enrollment in the charter school, except to the extent that such a right is extended by the local 

education agency. 


The petition should be amended to include language stating “...that the parent or guardian of each pupil enrolled in the charter school shall be 

informed that the pupil has no right to admission in a particular school of any local education agency (or program of any local education agency) 

as a consequence of enrollment in the charter school, except to the extent that such a right is extended by the local education agency.” 



13. Description of Employee Rights – EC §47605(b)(5)(M) 


The description of the rights of any employees of the school district upon leaving the employment of the school district to work 

in a charter school, and of any rights of return to the school district after employment at a charter school, at a minimum, 

specifies that an employee of the charter school shall have the following rights: 

Yes No 

(A) Any rights upon leaving the employment of a local education agency to work in the charter school that the local education 

agency may specify. 

X 

(B) Any rights of return to employment in a local education agency after employment in the charter school as the local 

education agency may specify. 

(C) Any other rights upon leaving employment to work in the charter school and any rights to return to a previous employer 

after working in the charter school that the State Board of Education determines to be reasonable and not in conflict with any 

provisions of law that apply to the charter school or to the employer from which the employee comes to the charter school or to 

which the employee returns from the charter school. 

X 

X 

X 

13


Attachment 1 



CDE staff recommends the petition be amended to add language from the above criteria that states charter school employees have any rights 

upon leaving or returning to employment in a local education agency (LEA) that the LEA may specify, and any other rights that the SBE 

determines to be reasonable and not in conflict with any other applicable provisions of law. 



14. Dispute Resolution Process – EC §47605(b)(5)(N) 


Describes the procedures to be followed by the charter school and the entity granting the charter to resolve disputes relating to 

provisions of the charter, at a minimum: 

(A) Include any specific provisions relating to dispute resolution that the State Board of Education determines necessary and 

Yes No 

appropriate in recognition of the fact that the State Board of Education is not a local education agency. (CCR 11967.5.1) 

(B) Describe how the costs of the dispute resolution process, if needed, would be funded. X 

(C) Recognize that, because it is not a local education agency, the State Board of Education may choose resolve a dispute 

directly instead of pursuing the dispute resolution process specified in the charter, provided that if the State Board of Education 

intends to resolve a dispute directly instead of pursuing the dispute resolution process specified in the charter, it must first hold 

a public hearing to consider arguments for and against the direct resolution of the dispute instead of pursuing the dispute 

resolution process specified in the charter. 

(D) Recognize that if the substance of a dispute is a matter that could result in the taking of appropriate action, including, but 

not limited to, revocation of the charter in accordance with EC Section 47604.5, the matter will be addressed at the State Board 

of Education’s discretion in accordance with that provision of law and any regulations pertaining thereto. 


CDE staff recommends that the 30 day timeline for arbitration proceedings to be held, concluded, and a decision rendered in the event of a 

dispute with HTHL be changed to 90 days instead. Thirty days is an unrealistic timeline in which to conduct the entire process. 


N/A 

X 

X 

14


Attachment 1 



15. Labor Relations – EC §47605(b)(5)(O) 


Contains a declaration of whether or not the district shall be deemed the exclusive public school employer of the employees of 

the charter school(s) for the purposes of the Educational Employment Relations Act (Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 

3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code), recognizes that the State Board of Education is not an exclusive public 

school employer and that, therefore, the district must be the exclusive public school employer of the employees of the charter 

school(s) for the purposes of the Educational Employment Relations Act (Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of 

Yes No 

Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code). 


X 




16. Closure of Charter School – EC §47605(b)(5)(P) 


Describes the procedures to be followed if the charter school closes. 

Yes No 

(A) The process for conducting a final audit of the charter school/district that includes specific plans for disposition of any net X 

assets, and 

(B) The process for notifying parents/guardians and for the maintenance and transfer of pupil records. X 



Overall this element meets the criteria for “reasonably comprehensive” (Yes of No) Yes 

V. EDUCATION CODE §47605 (c) 

REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN EC §47605 (c) 

Specific evidence, procedures and/or assurance (check appropriate box for each) 


(1) Meets all statewide standards and conducts pupil assessments required pursuant to EC §60605 and any other statewide 

standards authorized in statute or pupil assessments applicable to pupils in non-charter public schools. Statement of 

Yes No 

assurance and list of pupil assessments included in petition. 

(2) Consults on a regular basis with parents and teachers regarding the school's educational programs. Describes parental and 

X 

teacher participation regarding the educational program. 

X 

15

Comments: 

See comments under Element #4, regarding parent participation in governance, and the planning of programs and activities. 


Attachment 1 


This criterion has been met (Yes or No). No 

VI. EDUCATION CODE §47605 (d) 

REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN EC §47605 (d) 

Specific evidence, procedures and/or assurance (check appropriate box for each) 


(1) Statements of assurance are provided stating that district and/or charter school(s) shall be nonsectarian in its programs, 

admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations; shall not charge tuition, and shall not discriminate 

against any pupil on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender, or disability. Also that admission to the district and/or 

charter school shall not be determined according to the place of residence of the pupil, or of his or her parent or guardian, 

within this state. (Note: Any existing public school converting partially or entirely to a charter school under this part shall 

adopt and maintain a policy giving admission preference to pupils who reside within the former attendance area of that 

Yes No 

public school.) 

(2) (A) A charter school shall admit all pupils who wish to attend the school. 

(B) If the number of pupils who wish to attend a charter school exceeds the school's capacity, attendance, except for 

existing pupils of the charter school, shall be determined by a public random drawing. (Note: Preference shall be extended 

to pupils currently attending the charter school and pupils who reside in the district except as provided for in EC §47614.5. 

Other preferences may be permitted by the chartering authority on an individual school basis and only if consistent with the 

law.) Describes how public random drawing will be conducted. Clearly describes admissions requirements, including any 

preferences (must be consistent with the law). 

(C) In the event of a drawing, the chartering authority shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate the growth of the 

charter school and, in no event, shall take any action to impede the charter school from expanding enrollment to meet pupil 

X 

demand. 

Comments: 


X 

This criterion has been met (Yes or No). Yes 

16


Attachment 1 


VII. EDUCATION CODE §47605 (e) 

REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN EDUCATION CODE §47605 (e) 

Specific evidence, procedures and/or assurance (check appropriate box) 


No governing board of a school district shall require any employee of the school district to be employed in a charter school. 

Yes No 

Statement of assurance included in petition. 

Comments: The criterion has been met. 

X 

This criterion has been met (circle one). Yes 

VIII. EDUCATION CODE §47605 (f) 

REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN EDUCATION CODE §47605 (f) 



No governing board of a school district shall require any pupil enrolled in the school district to attend a charter school. 

Yes No 

Statement of assurance included in petition. 

Comments: 

The criterion has been met. 

X 


17


Attachment 1 


IX. EDUCATION CODE §47605 (g) 

REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN EDUCATION CODE §47605 (f) 



The petitioner or petitioners shall provide information regarding the proposed operation and potential effects of the school 

including, but not limited to: 

Yes No 

1) Facilities to be used by the school including where the school intends to locate X 

2) Manner in which administrative services of the school are to be provided X 

3) Potential civil liability effects, if any, upon the school and upon the school district X 

4) First-year operational budget, including startup costs X 

5) Cash flow and financial projections for the first three years of operation 

Comments: 

Tentative sites have been identified for both the Escondido and Chula Vista schools proposed to open in 2006. 

X 


18

High Tech High Learning 

A MODEL APPLICATION TO OPERATE 

A STATEWIDE BENEFIT CHARTER SCHOOL 

June 13, 2005 

For Presentation to 

the 

State Board of Education 

HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School Application 

May 16, 2005 


Attachment 2 


1



Attachment 2 


Introduction to Statewide Benefit Charter Petition………………………………3 

Founding Group………………………………………………………………………..13 

Educational Philosophy and Program…………………………………………… 14 

Mission………………………………………………………………………14 

Educational Philosophy……………………………………………………14 

High School Programs……………………………………………………. 15 

Students to be Served …………………………………………………….15 

Curriculum and Instructional Design…………………………………….. 15 

Plan for Students Who Are Low Achieving………………………………19 

Plan for Students Who Are High Achieving……………………………...20 

Plan for English Learners…………………………………………………..20 

Plan for Special Education……………………………………………….. .21 

SELPA Membership Plan…………………………………………………..21 

Transferability of Credits …………………………………………………...23 

Measurable Student Outcomes and Other Uses Of Data……………………….23 

Measurable Student Outcomes……………………………………………23 

Academic Performance Index……………………………………………..24 

Methods of Assessment…………………………………………………… 25 

Use and Reporting Of Data……………………………………………….. 

Governance Structure……………………………………………………………….. 29 

Human Resources……………………………………………………………………..31 

Qualifications of School Employees……………………………………….31 

Compensation and Benefits………………………………………………..33 

Employee Representation………………………………………………….33 

Rights of School District Employees………………………………………34 

Health and Safety…………………………………………………………...34 

Dispute Resolution…………………………………………………………..34 

Student Admissions, Attendance and Suspension/Expulsion Policies……. 36 

Student Admission Policies and Procedures………………………….... 36 

Non-Discrimination………………………………………………………... 38 

Public School Attendance Alternatives………………………………….. 38 

Suspension/Expulsion Procedures………………………………………. 38 

Financial Planning, Reporting and Accountability……………………………..39 

Budgets…………………………………………………………………….. 40 

Financial Reporting……………………………………………………….. 40 

Insurance…………………………………………………………………... 40 

HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School Application 2 

June 13, 2005


Attachment 2 


Delineation of Site-based and Central Responsibilities ………..…….. 41 

Facilities………………………………………………………………… 44 

Transportation………………………………………………………….. 44 

Audits …………………………………………………………………… 44 

Closure Protocol……………………………………………………….. 45 

Impact on the Charter Authorizer………………………………………………45 

Authorizer Liability……………………………………………………... 45 

Charter Term…………………………………………………………… 45 

Charter Revisions……………………………………………………… 45 

Severability…………………………………………………………….. 46 

Information Exchange…………………………………………………. 46 

ASSURANCES…………………………………………………………………….. 47 

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………… 49 

List of sites to be operated under the HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter 

Demographics of Locations for HTHL Statewide Charter Sites 

Site Descriptions 

Desert/Mountain SELPA Local Plan 

HTH Learning Board Members 

Facilities Design Specifications for High Tech High Schools 

Financials 

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS………………………………………………………. 



INTRODUCTION TO STATEWIDE BENEFIT CHARTER 

APPLICATION 


Attachment 2 


In a recent white paper, Improving Student Achievement in California’s High 

Schools, the California Department of Education finds that “the majority of 

California’s 1,7000,000 high school students simply are not reaching the 

academic levels needed to succeed in tomorrow’s economy, in postsecondary 

education, or as effective citizens.” 1 High Tech High was created precisely to 

address this problem. 

Launched by a coalition of San Diego civic leaders and educators in September 

2000, the Gary and Jerri-Ann Jacobs High Tech High is a small public charter 

school serving 450 students. The school combats the twin issues of student 

disengagement and low academic achievement by creating a personalized, 

project-based learning environment where students are known well and 

challenged to meet high expectations. 

At High Tech High, all students use technology to engage in scientific, 

mathematical, literary, historical, and artistic pursuits. The curriculum is rigorous, 

providing the foundation for entry and success at the University of California and 

elsewhere. Assessment is performance-based: students develop projects, solve 

problems, and present findings to community panels. The learning environment 

extends to the community beyond school: all students must complete academic 

internships in local businesses or non-profit organizations. Over the past three 

years, HTH students have completed 350 internships in 135 organizations. 

The track record of HTHL schools in San Diego demonstrates that our innovative 

approach to secondary education works for all students. All 155 students in the 

first two graduating classes in 2003 and 2004 were admitted to college, and all 

have entered. Of these, 58% were first generation college attendees as defined 

by the University of California system. On state accountability measures, High 

Tech High scores near the top statewide in raw scores on standardized tests and 

scored second among 100 similar schools in terms of achievement of Latino and 

socioeconomically disadvantaged students. High Tech High was the only high 

school in San Diego Unified to score 10,10 API rankings for three consecutive 

years. 

As High Tech High has grown as an organization, we have received local and 

national attention for our innovative approach to education, including funding 

from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to support the development of High 

Tech High-modeled schools nationwide. We have also established HTH 

Learning (HTHL), a nonprofit public benefit corporation whose mission is to 

1 http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/se/yr05highschoolwp.asp 




Attachment 2 


support the development of new High Tech High schools. Finally, we have 

become the first charter school organization in the State of California to 

receive authorization from the California Commission on Teacher 

Credentialing to operate a teacher credentialing program. 

Encouraged by our success to date, HTHL has articulated a Theory of Action for 

expanding the High Tech High model, comprising four key strategies: 

� Inspire others to implement HTH design principles by serving as an 

exemplary model school; 

� Enable others to establish schools adopting HTH design elements by 

making available tangible tools and support; 

� Enact change by directly establishing and managing new HTH schools; 

and 

� Influence policy makers and thought leaders to improve the ecosystem 

within which public schools operate. 

These four strategies have already contributed to a change in the local 

climate that is now strongly supportive of high school reform efforts: 

� High Tech High has served as an inspiration to the San Diego community 

by creating a successful small public high school which hosts visits from 

many local educators, politicians and community leaders. 

� We have helped enable reform with the San Diego Unified School District 

by providing key supports to district staff as they prepared their Gates 

Application that is resulting in the breakdown of three high schools into 16 

autonomous small schools; 

� We have enacted change directly by opening additional schools in San 

Diego as applications for admission to HTH grew far beyond our capacity 

to serve students 

� We diplomatically exerted influence with San Diego to encourage policy 

makers to adopt policies that support innovative schools like HTH. 

San Diego is now witnessing a broad scale transformation of its public high 

schools to adopt practices that have been commonplace at HTH since our 

inception. We are optimistic that by more broadly applying the four hallmarks 

of our change theory, we may have a profound impact on secondary 

education in the State of California. 

Therefore, HTHL submits this petition to establish a Statewide Benefit Charter 

School to the State Board of Education. Under this charter petition, HTHL 

would open 10 sites over the next 4-5 years, each serving approximately 470 

students in grades 9-12. We believe that the opening of such sites in many 

different regions will allow HTHL and the SBE to catalyze an improvement of 



educational options available to secondary students across the State of 

California. 

Creating a Statewide Benefit and Demonstrating Need for 

Chartering at a Statewide Level 


Attachment 2 


California’s schools are not serving students effectively. Only 70% of enrolling 

ninth graders graduate four years later, and a meager 23% of those ninth graders 

will graduate with a grade of “C” or better in the courses required to qualify for the 

University of California and California State University systems. 2 Broken down 

by racial groups, the weaknesses of our schools are even more apparent. Only 

12% of Latinos graduate with mastery to qualify for university systems, compared 

to 14% of African Americans, 31% of white students, and 50% of Asian 

Americans. 3 

These statistics are not simply abstract figures—they represent a crisis in our 

schools that not only diminishes the likelihood of social mobility for the 

underserved, but also threatens our state’s premier status in the global economy. 

The statistics occur at a time when California’s workforce is undergoing a radical 

transformation requiring that the state’s workers possess the knowledge-based 

skills needed to maintain competitiveness with global sources of labor which are 

increasingly better-educated and better positioned, via information technology, to 

compete for jobs in our state. As such, it is during this unique era when the 

greatest social challenge of our time – providing more equitable opportunities for 

historically underserved racial and socioeconomic groups – merges with the 

greatest economic imperative of our time – improving workforce competitiveness 

– that High Tech High Learning submits this application to operate a Statewide 

Benefit Charter School. 

We firmly believe that the HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School will provide 

statewide benefit to the pupils, to communities, to the state and to the school 

itself as is demonstrated below: 

Benefit to Pupils 

As ever, our first focus is on our students. Specifically, we believe that the HTHL 

Statewide Benefit Charter School will : 

Provide Pupils with Innovative Learning Opportunities 

2 “California: Only 70% graduate high school on time, Less than 1 in 4 have 'C' grade in core college courses,” Knight, 

Heather. San Francisco Chronicle. June 4, 2004. (http://sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/04/BAGJ370QUK1.DTL) 

3 Ibid. 




Attachment 2 


• We believe that in order to change educational outcomes, we must 

change our pedagogical approach, which is why High Tech High 

schools offer an instructional program featuring the design principles of 

Personalization, Adult-world Connection and Common Intellectual 

Mission. These design elements find full expression in HTH schools, 

which demonstrate project-based learning, interdisciplinary teaching, 

and frequent public presentations of student work. 

• We also hold the view that every student should be prepared for both 

the world of college and meaningful careers when they graduate from 

high school. Thus we offer all our students rigorous, collegepreparatory 

curriculum and real-world work experience which prepares 

them to be successful citizens in 21 st century America. 

• We believe that the integration of academic and vocational programs 

best prepares students to succeed in an economy that requires 

workers to not only have the book smarts necessary to solve complex 

problems, but to have the hands-on skills necessary to apply learning 

to real-world situations. 

Provide Pupils with Small, Integrated Learning Environments 

• We believe that, in sharp contrast to the comprehensive high school 

model, students thrive best when they are enrolled within a school 

community small enough to know them well. HTH schools are small 

schools, approximately 450 students, with class sizes smaller than 25, 

where all students are assigned an advisor who visits the student and 

the family in their home and grows to know the students well. Core 

classes are taught in two-hour interdisciplinary blocks where teachers 

have enough time with students to know them individually. Instead of 

teachers having a student load of 150-180 students as is common in 

comprehensive high schools, teachers of the HTHL Statewide Benefit 

Charter School maintain a teaching load averaging approximately 50- 

60 students, further ensuring that students are well-known by school 

staff. 

• We believe that one way to address the California-wide challenge of 

low-performing high schools is to create integrated learning 

environments which bring together students from neighborhoods with a 

high prevalence of Program Improvement schools with students who 

have historically been better served by our public education system. 

The outreach and admissions procedures used by the HTHL Statewide 

Benefit Charter School are designed to achieve, to the extent 

permissible under law, a student body within each site that represents 

the demography of the larger surrounding area, allowing for a level of 

integration that is not commonly found in California’s public schools. 

• We also hold the view that it is imperative to avoid intra-school racial 

and socioeconomic segregation that is commonly found within 

traditional public schools that group students by ability. Sites of the 




Attachment 2 


HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School will not group students by 

ability but will instead maintain a common intellectual mission where 

students of all demographic groups are provided the same college 

preparatory curriculum and where all students will be expected upon 

graduation to enroll in an institution of higher learning. 

Provide Pupils with Ongoing Support after Graduation 

• Finally, we believe that high school graduates, especially firstgeneration 

college attendees, require support beyond high school 

graduation to ensure success in institutions of higher learning. This is 

why we have created the HTH Alumni Program, which maintains 

relationships with HTH alumni and supports them while they are 

enrolled in colleges and universities. 

Benefit to Communities 

The HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School has worked in extensive 

collaboration with communities in different regions of California. Collaboration 

has included significant interaction with elected officials, civic groups, 

business leaders, representatives of community based organizations and 

parent groups. We believe that a continuation of this collaborative approach 

will result in sites being established which create benefit within the local 

communities where our sites will be located. 

Specifically, we believe that the HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School will : 

Achieve Greater Civic Level Support for the Creation of Innovative High 

Schools 

• Many of the HTHL Statewide Charter School sites already enjoy high 

levels of support from local civic leaders who wish to see HTHL sites 

catalyze redevelopment efforts or other local civic initiatives. As an 

example, we point to the proposed National City site which would be 

part of a larger collaboration between the City of National City, the 

Sweetwater Union High School District, local universities and local 

community based organizations to create a 20 block redevelopment 

that would serve the economic and educational interests of the 

community for years to come. The presence of HTH is seen by local 

leaders as an incentive for other partners to join the discussion, 

allowing for the development of a vision that will result in the sharing 

and pooling of community resources at a level that is unprecedented 

for the area. 

• The flexible, project-based nature of HTH programs allows the sites to 

engage in project work that actually serves the civic interests of local 

communities. Students also engage in academic internships in public 

agencies or community-based organizations addressing local 




Attachment 2 


problems. This has led to a high level of integration and collaboration 

between site programs and civic institutions. At our flagship site, for 

example, one student’s internship and senior thesis involved serving 

as the chair of the mayor’s student advisory council. 

Engage and Enroll Local Business Communities to Support Public 

Education 

• High Tech High has a proven track record of encouraging local 

business leaders to provide higher-profile leadership in public 

education. More than 40 San Diego based companies participated in 

the discussions which led to the creation of our original schools in San 

Diego. Many of the participants had grown frustrated because of the 

poor returns that their previous investments in the traditional public 

education system had generated. The success of HTH programs to 

date has re-instilled a level of confidence in the business community 

that their involvement can in fact make a crucial difference in public 

education. The business community’s support for HTH programs only 

continues to grow, allowing for a level of business community 

engagement that has little precedent in the San Diego region. 

• High Tech High also has a proven track record of recruiting local 

businesses to offer academic internships to students. Approximately 

80-85 for-profit businesses have participated in our internship program 

over the past four years and our San Diego schools currently have 

many more offers for internships than there are students to fill them. 

Businesses’ engagement in the internship program increases their 

employees’ understanding of public education issues, and we have 

found that businesses become more supportive as they understand 

how specifically they may participate in public education. 

• Approximately 20-25 for-profit companies have made sizable financial 

contributions to support the development of specific HTH initiatives and 

we find that the generosity of the business community only grows as 

HTH continues to deliver improved outcomes for students. 

Leverage Community Assets to Improve Student Access to Learning 

Opportunities 

• Many of the sites of the HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School are 

establishing relationships with local community based organizations 

that are wanting to increase their support for public education. As an 

example, we point to preliminary conversations regarding the HTH 

Escondido site, which have involved the San Diego Wild Animal Park. 

The Park has developed a renowned animal hospital and research 

facility that could be laboratories for student learning. Thus far, 

however, the Park has found it difficult to partner with traditional public 

schools which do not have the flexibility necessary to make full use of 

Park assets. The involvement of HTHL, then, may allow the 




Attachment 2 


Escondido community to leverage community learning resources that 

have heretofore gone underused. 

Benefit to the State 

We believe that the HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School will assist the 

state to address critical statewide problems. Specifically, the school will: 

Dovetail with other high priority state initiatives to improve educational 

opportunity for all students 

• Forward thinking policy makers in the State of California have directed 

the state’s focus toward making successful secondary school models 

more available to all public school students, particularly to those living 

in low-income areas. Both Governor Schwarzenegger’s Failing 

Schools Initiative and State Superintendent O’Connell’s High 

Performing High Schools program are designed to address the state’s 

crisis in secondary education. It is in the spirit of wanting to do our part 

to assist the Governor and the State Superintendent in their important 

work that HTHL submits this Statewide Charter School Application. 

• As has been well documented, the number of California students who 

attend, or who will be soon attending Program Improvement schools, is 

growing at an alarming rate. The state is now engaged in high-level 

efforts to improve learning opportunities for students attending 

Program Improvement schools. By making concerted efforts to locate 

our sites in areas eligible for New Markets Tax Credits – areas 

identified by the Federal Government to be low income areas – HTHL 

will have access to the very students that the state is most motivated to 

improve services for. 

Graduate Students with the Skills Necessary to Meet the Workforce 

Needs of the 21 st Century 

• As was quoted above, only a small percentage of students attending 

California public schools are graduating prepared to be successful in 

institutions of higher learning and the workforce. By creating a 

Statewide Benefit Chart School that will ultimately serve approximately 

4,500 to 4,700 students in communities across California, HTH 

Learning will be able to graduate more than a 1,000 students annually 

who will have completed all A-G requirements and who will enroll in 

and be prepared to be successful in institutions of higher learning. 

• A constant refrain being heard from the major employers of the State 

of California is that our education system is not producing workers with 

the ability to solve real-world problems using knowledge-based skills. 

High Tech High’s project-based, multi-disciplinary instructional 

approach was designed specifically to address this problem. In 

addition, by situating a significant portion of student learning in an 




Attachment 2 


adult/professional milieu, our students are developing a better 

understanding for how their learning in school has direct application to 

real-world problems. 

Address the State’s Critical Shortage of Highly Qualified Teachers 

• The State of California is clearly challenged by No Child Left Behind to 

recruit and train Highly Qualified Teachers. HTHL, as the first charter 

school organization authorized to operate its own teacher credentialing 

program, is doing its part to address California’s critical teacher 

shortage. By drawing into the public school system – many times 

directly from industry or from graduate- level programs in highly 

reputable universities – large numbers of high achieving individuals 

with deep content knowledge, especially in the areas of math and 

science, HTHL is credentialing a new generation of teachers who are 

having a profound impact on students. As we know from our own 

interviews with newly hired teachers, HTHL is able to recruit such 

talented people precisely because we offer a credentialing program 

that is inexpensive to the participants, convenient, and of great 

relevance because it is implemented within the context of our highly 

successful schools. 

• Currently, on an ongoing basis, approximately 1 in 5 HTHL teachers 

are enrolled in our teacher credentialing program. Under this 

Statewide Charter School Application, HTHL estimates that it will 

employ over 250 additional teachers at HTHL sites across California. 

If the current percentage of HTHL teachers participate in the program 

going forward, HTHL will provide 50 new highly-qualified teachers 

annually to different communities across the state of California. 

Benefit to the School 

Aside from providing statewide benefit to the pupils, communities and to the 

state itself, HTHL is also seeking the HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School 

because our organization understands that it is not possible to create the 

benefits described in this application in any manner except through statewide 

chartering by the SBE. As such, receiving a statewide charter from the SBE 

would be of great benefit to the school itself. 

Specifically, we believe that the following aspects of our program, each 

providing benefit to the pupils, communities and the state as well as to the 

HTHL organization itself, would only be possible through the establishment of 

this Statewide Charter School. 

Locating HTHL sites where they may serve students who would 

otherwise be required to attend California’s failing schools 




Attachment 2 


• HTHL is doing its part to address California’s critical need to 

provide students currently attending Program Improvement schools 

other enrollment alternatives. By adopting a lottery system based 

upon zip codes that creates ample enrollment slots for students 

from Program Improvement schools, by heavily recruiting in 

neighborhoods with high numbers of Program Improvement 

schools, and by locating our sites in low income areas with close 

proximity to many Program Improvement schools, the HTHL 

Statewide Benefit Charter School is ensuring that many students 

who would otherwise be required to attend Program Improvement 

Schools in many different communities across California will have 

improved enrollment alternatives. 

• To offer students all of the instructional innovations contained within 

the HTH model requires that HTHL develop facilities that are 

conducive to our program. Building such facilities, ones that meet 

all HTH architectural design specifications, is an expensive 

undertaking. HTHL estimates that it invests approximately $9 

million in each new high school facility. Because HTHL seeks to 

locate sites in areas eligible for New Markets Tax Credits (NMTCs), 

HTHL estimates that under this Statewide Charter School 

approximately $90 million in modern school facilities will be located 

in communities identified by the federal government to be lowincome 

areas. 

• To take on the challenge of financing such a large-scale initiative to 

locate innovative school facilities in low income areas of California, 

HTHL is assisting in the development of a Community Development 

Enterprise (CDE), which will apply for NMTCs. The investment 

strategies and parameters of the CDE are being specifically written 

to support the establishment of innovative small schools in the 

State of California. Because CDE applications for NMTCs are 

highly competitive, it is crucial that CDE be able to show to those 

evaluating the NMTC application that HTHL has the authority to 

open many sites in different low income areas across California. 

That may only be demonstrated through approval of this Statewide 

Charter School Application. Short of fundraising $4-5 million per 

facility – an impractical amount of fundraising – HTHL is not aware 

of another method that would allow for the financing of HTH 

facilities. As such, the only way that HTHL can accomplish its goal 

of locating many new schools within low-income areas in California 

is to do so within the context of this Statewide Charter School 

Application. 

Addressing California’s critical shortage of highly qualified teachers 

• To have the capacity to operate the teacher credentialing program 

at the scale described above, HTHL will have to make significant 




Attachment 2 


investments in its CTC approved program, including investing in 

information technology to enable remote learning and hiring highly 

trained and talented staff to support the program. For HTHL to 

make such investments, it must know with certainty that it has the 

authorization to open programs at the scale described in this 

Statewide Charter School Application. As such, the only way that 

HTHL can make the kind of contribution described above regarding 

California’s teacher shortage is to do so within the context of this 

Statewide Charter School Application. 

Supporting Alumni enrolled in colleges and universities across 

California 

• While great focus has been placed of late upon the crisis in 

secondary education, another pressing problem is the low 

completion rates for students enrolled in institutions of higher 

learning. The problem is particularly acute among first-generation 

college attendees. Recent statistics suggest that fewer than 20% 

of first generation college attendees complete their degrees within 6 

years of initiating their studies. The HTH Alumni Program was 

created to address this problem by tracking alumni post graduation, 

creating supports for all graduates as they progress through 

institutions of higher learning, and, when necessary, offering 

intervention to assist those who may be struggling – especially 

those who are first-generation college attendees. 

• Currently, HTH alumni are enrolled in colleges and universities 

across the state of California. One way that HTHL supports alumni 

is by using our existing schools as bases of support, developing 

alumni resource centers that provide face-to-face counseling, 

offering wok-study employment and other assistance to alumni. 

While HTH is having little difficulty doing so for students attending 

schools in central San Diego, our ability to provide such ongoing 

assistance to our grads attending schools outside San Diego is 

severely limited. As HTHL sites open under this Statewide Benefit 

Charter, the sites will enable fuller implementation of supports to 

alumni attending colleges and universities outside San Diego. 

• Within the next five years, HTHL intends to develop the capacity to 

provide onsite assistance to our alumni attending schools in San 

Diego, San Bernardino, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, with 

a long term goal of providing onsite assistance to alumni in many 

other locations across California. It is not practical to seek charters 

in as many locations as HTH alumni will attend colleges and 

universities, and it is certain that some local chartering authorities 

near universities attended by HTH alumni are hesitant if not 

unwilling to issue charters to HTHL. As such, the only way that 

HTHL can ensure that it will be able to improve college completion 




Attachment 2 


rates of its alumni – especially those of first generation college 

attendees – is to do so within the context of this Statewide Charter 

School Application. 

Finally, High Tech High, as one of the strongest brands in the national charter 

school movement – known both for delivering exceptional academic 

outcomes and for following sound management practices – understands that 

a unique opportunity exists for partnership with the SBE to develop a model 

authorizer-operator relationship. As the charter school movement in 

California moves well into its second decade, it is incumbent upon both 

operators and authorizers to demonstrate that collaboration around efficient 

and thorough chartering and oversight can become a hallmark of the larger 

movement. HTHL pledges to work in partnership with the SBE to maintain a 

high level of transparency and documentation about how charter operations 

and oversight activities occur within the context of this Statewide Benefit 

Charter School. It is our hope that this transparency and documentation may 

serve as a resource for other authorizers and operators in the state wanting to 

adopt improved oversight practices. Ultimately, then, it is our intention that 

the HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School lead to invigorated relationships 

between authorizers and operators across California - relationships which 

would better support the development of highly innovative, autonomous and 

accountable charter schools. 

FOUNDING GROUP 

High Tech High was originally conceived by an ad hoc group of about 40 civic 

leaders, high tech industry leaders and educators in San Diego, assembled by 

the Economic Development Corporation and the Business Roundtable. This 

group met regularly in 1995-96 to discuss the challenge of finding qualified 

individuals for the high-tech work force, particularly women and people of color. 

By 1997, as the group grew less optimistic about the capacity of the local schools 

to graduate students with basic skills and problem-solving abilities, members 

began to consider starting a school. Gary Jacobs, Director of Education 

Programs at Qualcomm, and Kay Davis, Director of the Business Roundtable, 

were key participants in this discussion. 

In 1998 the High Tech High founding group hired Larry Rosenstock to develop 

and implement a new small high school to address this need. The founding 

group was clear about its intent: to create a school where students would be 

passionate about learning and would acquire the basic skills of work and 

citizenship. Rosenstock, a former carpentry teacher, lawyer, and educator who 

had recently directed the U.S. Department of Education’s New Urban High 

School project, brought to the project a vision and a sense of the design 

principles by which this mission might be accomplished. From January 1998 to 

the opening of High Tech High in September of 2000, Rosenstock and the 

founding group, led by Gary Jacobs, worked in tandem, Rosenstock locating a 




Attachment 2 


site, preparing the charter application, hiring staff, and overseeing the 

development of the program, while Jacobs and the business community took the 

lead in addressing issues of financing and facilities development. Rosenstock 

was supported in these efforts by two other educators from the New Urban High 

School project: Rob Riordan, an expert in project-based learning and bridging 

academic content with vocational education methodologies, and David Stephen, 

an architect and graphic designer with extensive experience designing 

educational environments. Riordan and Stephen continue to work with HTHL 

and support expansion efforts. 

The Gary and Jerri-Ann Jacobs High Tech High, the flagship High Tech High 

school, opened in 2000 and rapidly demonstrated the success of this educational 

model for a diverse population of students. As demand has grown, we opened a 

middle school, High Tech Middle, in 2003 and a second high school, High Tech 

High International, in 2004. And as our brand recognition spreads, new potential 

partners approach us to discuss possible opportunities for further expansion. 

Colleagues in the Bay Area, San Bernardino County, and across San Diego 

County have approached HTHL about starting High Tech High schools in their 

local communities. Some of these colleagues will serve side by side with 

trustees from the Board of Directors of HTHL on the governing boards of the new 

schools to be opened under this Statewide Benefit Charter School. As such, we 

feel that the founding group for our Statewide Charter is an optimal blend of 

representatives of the local communities where we intend to operate new schools 

and representatives of our central organization that provides crucial program 

supports and ensures quality. 

HTHL takes a “mitochondria” approach to new school development, on the 

assumption that a replication effort is more likely to be successful if there is a 

base of experience with the High Tech High model in the founding “nucleus.” As 

HTHL commits to opening new schools, current staff are surveyed to determine if 

any qualified employees wish to assume leadership roles at the new sites. If no 

existing qualified employees are interested in the new positions, HTHL will recruit 

instructional leaders and lead teachers from the community where the school will 

be located, with the agreement that these new employees wishing to become 

HTH principals or lead teachers will be required to work for at least three months 

in an existing HTH school. We will assist staff recruited from distant areas to find 

temporary housing near an existing HTH school. Ideally, we seek for each new 

school to be led by a combination of experienced HTH staff and local teacherleaders 

from the area where the school is to be located. 

EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND PROGRAM 

Mission 

The mission of High Tech High schools is to provide students with rigorous and 

relevant academic and workplace skills, preparing its graduates for 




Attachment 2 


postsecondary success and productive citizenship. The primary goals of High 

Tech High schools are: 

� To integrate technical and academic education in schools that prepare 

students for post-secondary education and for leadership in the high 

technology industry. 

� To increase the number of educationally disadvantaged students in math 

and engineering who succeed in high school and post-secondary education 

and become productive members and leaders in the new economy, 

particularly in California. 

� To provide all HTH students with an extraordinary education, and to 

graduate students who will be thoughtful, engaged citizens prepared to take 

on the difficult leadership challenges of the 21st century. 

Educational Philosophy 

High Tech High is guided by three design principles. 

Personalization: HTH personalizes the learning by providing an advisor for 

each student and encouraging students to pursue personal interests 

through projects. Each student creates a personal digital portfolio of work 

samples and reflections on learning. 

Adult World Connection: High Tech High students engage in real world 

projects that enable them to learn while working on problems of interest 

and concern to the larger community. All students in 11 th grade engage in 

off-site, semester-long, academic internships. Younger students prepare 

for this experience through worksite visits and “power lunches” at the 

school, where adults from the community discuss their work lives and 

choices. 

Common Intellectual Mission: Centered on the five High Tech High 

Habits of Mind (perspective, evidence, relevance, connection, and 

supposition), our curriculum is engaging and rigorous. Our schools avoid 

“tracking” and other forms of ability grouping, and our curriculum ensures 

that that all students who graduate from HTH high schools meet the 

University of California A-G requirements. 

High School Programs 

All core courses at High Tech High in San Diego have been approved by the 

University of California. We anticipate that courses offered at all HTH schools are 

as transferable as those of a traditional district high school to other schools, and 

are recognized as such by colleges and universities. The flagship High Tech 

High recently received six-year accreditation by WASC, and we will support all 

HTH schools to achieve full accreditation as well. Student transcripts take a 

standard form for universal acceptance. We routinely inform prospective parents 

and students of such matters in public meetings and school publications, 




Attachment 2 


including recruiting materials, parent and student handbooks, website text and 

occasional newsletters. 

Students to be Served 

High Tech High schools established under the Statewide Benefit Charter will be 

high schools serving approximately 470 students in grades 9-12 (100-120 

students per grade). In San Diego and other locales where HTH-affiliated schools 

are established, we strive to serve a population of students that represents the 

racial, ethnic and socioeconomic diversity of the local community. The target 

composition for each school will differ depending on the community, but we will 

design a legally admissible admissions process that ensures a high degree of 

student diversity. 

Curriculum and Instructional Design 

High Tech High teachers work in teams to create curriculum that is integrated 

across subjects and aligned with California’s academic content standards. The 

guiding pedagogy at High Tech High schools is project-based learning, an 

approach which transforms teaching from "teachers telling" to "students doing." 

More specifically, project-based learning can be defined as: 

� Engaging learning experiences that involve students in complex, real-world 

projects through which they develop and apply skills and knowledge 

� A strategy that recognizes that significant learning taps students' inherent 

drive to learn, capability to do work, and need to be taken seriously 

� Learning in which curricular outcomes can be identified up front, but in which 

the outcomes of the student's learning process are neither predetermined nor 

fully predictable 

� Learning that requires students to draw from many information sources and 

disciplines in order to solve problems 

� Experiences through which students learn to manage and allocate resources 

such as time and materials 4 . 

At High Tech High, our project-based learning approach is a key ingredient to our 

success in serving a diverse population of students. Our students become active 

participants in their learning and are required to publicly demonstrate their 

learning through presentations and portfolios, introducing an element of 

accountability more motivating than any multiple-choice test. 

Cross-Walking Projects to Standards 

As High Tech High teachers develop projects that engage student interests, they 

are mindful of California State Content Standards for grades 9-12. For example, 

a High Tech High chemistry teacher may have each student create a 

documentary about the harmful effects of illicit drugs on the human body. The 

4 Definition from Autodesk Foundation. See http://www.k12reform.org/foundation/pbl/pbl.htm. 




Attachment 2 


unit addresses many state standards in chemistry, such as functional groups, 

bonding, the periodic table, and molecular structures. At the same time, 

however, such a project integrates well with math and humanities and achieves 

real-world relevance as students use technology to create educational videos 

that can be shared with other schools as part of a broader drug and alcohol 

abuse prevention initiative. 

Below are examples of High Tech High interdisciplinary projects mapped to 

California standards. 




Attachment 2 


Examples of Projects Mapped to Standards 

[these are presented for illustrative purposes only; 

see Supplemental Materials for sample syllabi and fuller project descriptions] 

PROJECT TITLE SUBJECT/GRADE STANDARDS ADDRESSED 

Mock Trials in the 

Humanities 

Classroom 

UV Radiation 

Project 

This New House 

(Environmentally 

Sustainable Dream 

House) 

Rock Climbing 

Project (learn the 

physics and write a 

guidebook) 

11 th grade History and 

English 

CA History Standards 11.1, 11.3, CA E/LA 

Standards: Reading (1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 

2.5), Expository Critique 2.6, Listening and 

Speaking 1.0, Comprehension 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 

Organization and Delivery of Oral 

Communication (1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 

1.10), Analysis and Critique of Oral and Media 

Communication 1.11, 1.12 

10 th grade Chemistry CA Chemistry Standards (4a, 4c, 4e, 4f, 4g, 

9b); Investigation and Experimentation 

10th grade Math, 

Chemistry 

11 th grade Math, 

English, Multimedia 

Drug Project 10 th grade 

Humanities, Science 

(Chemistry and 

Biology), Statistics, 

Multimedia 

Virtual Museum 10 th grade 

Humanities, 

Multimedia 

Standards (1a, 1b, 1m) 

CA Geometry Standards (5.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 

10.0, 11.0, 15.0, 18.0, 19.0, 20.0); CA 

Chemistry Standards (3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 4a, 4b, 

4c, 4e, 4f, 4g, 4h, 4i, 7a) 

CA E/LA Standards: Writing (1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 

2.3), Written and Oral Language Conventions 

(1.1, 1.3) CA Physics Standards (1a, 1b, 1e, 

2c, 2h); Trigonometry Standards (12.0, 14.0, 

19.0); Algebra Standards 14.0, 19.0 

CA E/LA Standards: Reading Comprehension 

(2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8); Literary Response 

and Analysis (3.2, 3.5, 3.12), Writing (1.1, 1.2, 

1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9); Writing 

Applications (2.2, 2.3); Mathematics: 

Probability and Statistics (5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0); 

World History, Culture, and Geography (10.4), 

Biology (1b), Physiology (9a, b, c, d, e, i); 

Conservation of Matter and Stoichiometry (3a, 

b, c, d, e, f, g); Acids and Bases (5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 

5e, 5f, 5g); Organic Chemistry and 

Biochemistry (10a, 10e); Investigation and 

Experimentation (1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1j, 1l, 1m) 

CA History-Social Science Standards 10.1, 

10.4 




Attachment 2 


At High Tech High schools, teachers work in teaching teams, grade level teams, 

and disciplines to align and articulate standards coverage within and across 

courses and grades. Accountability mechanisms we have in place to ensure 

that our teachers are covering state standards are as follows: 

• Required teacher posting of syllabi showing year-long approach to meeting 

standards 

• Administrative observation in classrooms to verify that teachers, within the 

context of project-based learning, are covering the content specified in their 

syllabi 

• Required teacher posting of sample projects in the High Tech High online 

project archive with evidence of crosswalking to standards 

• Administrative observation to ensure that student work addresses content 

standards during Presentations of Learning (POLs), Exhibitions and other 

public displays of student work 

• Regular morning meetings where in the context of discussing student work 

teachers address how projects and assignments connect to standards 

• Libraries of text books, primary source material, and other resources available 

to all schools to assist teachers in teaching to standards 

• Annual review of teachers where coverage of standards is an 

established criteria 

Coursework at HTH Schools 

Students at High Tech High schools complete the following sequence of courses: 

9th grade 

� Humanities (English and Ancient World History) 

� Integrated Math-Physics 

� Spanish (one semester) 

� Graphic Arts (one quarter), 

� Inventions (Business, one quarter) 

10th grade 

� Humanities (English and Modern World History), 

� Integrated Math-Chemistry 

� Spanish (one semester) 

� Graphic Arts (one quarter) 

� Robotics/Inventions/Other, at discretion of teaching team (one quarter) 

11th grade 

� Humanities 

� Biology 

� Math 

� Internship (one semester) 

� Principles of Engineering (one semester) 



� Elective 


Attachment 2 


12th grade 

� English 

� Science 

� Math 

� Senior Concentration 

� Senior Project 

� Other courses to fill graduation requirements and student schedule 

Regional Occupation Programs (ROP) 

HTH has developed a reputation for implementing a successful hands-on, 

vocationally oriented ROP program within the structure of an academically 

rigorous, college preparatory curriculum. Each site within the HTHL Statewide 

Charter will offer a similar ROP program featuring the following ROP Course 

Offerings: 

� Engineering Principles, Engineering Design and Development 

� Multimedia Production 

� Digital Art and Mixed Media, Computerized Graphic Design 

� Biotechnology 

The HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School pledges to work collaboratively with 

the SBE to develop a method by which the school may access an equitable 

share of federally provided ROP funding. 

Assurance of Similarity of Instructional Services Across HTH Schools 

All High Tech High schools offer about 90% the same instructional program. 

Based on the same three design principles (personalization, adult world 

connection, and common intellectual mission), all emphasize project-based 

learning, preparation for both college and careers, advisory, internships, parentteacher 

conferences, home visits for all students, alternative assessments, 

presentations of learning, and adherence to the state standards which guide our 

curriculum. Where the schools may differ is in the focus of that curriculum. Using 

the example from above, at the flagship High Tech High a teacher in chemistry 

may address state standards by having each student create a video 

documentary about the harmful effects of drugs on the human body. In contrast, 

at a HTH school with an environmental focus, the chemistry teacher would 

address the same standards, but the project and resulting videos might be about 

the components of hazardous waste and its effects on the environment. The 

standards are the same, and the process may be identical, but the specific 

curricular focus may vary. 

Plan for Students Who Are Low Achieving 




Attachment 2 


High Tech High has developed a number of strategies to address the needs of 

students with a wide range of prior experience and achievement. 

1. We provide support to students both in and out of the core courses. This 

may take the form of after school tutoring or tutoring during lunch or elective 

time. We have an active peer tutoring program at High Tech High and HTH 

alumni who remain in the local area often return to the school to volunteer. 

2. Because of the project-based curriculum and small class size, teachers are 

able to spend time with students needing extra support on both projects and 

basic skills. 

3. Project-based learning lends itself nicely to building basic skills because 

students are able to see the math, humanities, or science being applied to 

something real. 

4. Literature Circles allow for building content knowledge while reading levels 

are improved through books at varied levels of difficulty. 

5. We offer summer bridging for students entering High Tech High schools 

with below-level skills in math and English and summer school programs for 

current students needing additional support in the core areas. 

Plan for Students Who Are High Achieving 

At High Tech High, we personalize our offerings to individual students. For two 

students in the same physics class, one might be building a hovercraft while 

another is building a sailboat. Our teachers work to challenge and support each 

student to aim for their personal best. We believe this is a better way to 

acknowledge differences between students rather than offering “honors” vs. 

“regular courses.” Nonetheless, we recognize that one reason that students take 

honors courses is the weighted GPA that comes with these courses, which helps 

for college admissions. Therefore, we allow students to take junior and senior 

core classes for honors credit. Students who choose the honors option must 

complete additional assignments and/or are held to a higher standard of 

performance on projects or exams. 

Plan for English Learners 

High Tech High schools will meet all requirements of federal and state law 

relative to equal access to the curriculum for English language learners. The 

goal is to develop high quality instructional programs and services for English 

learners that allow them, within a reasonable amount of time, to achieve the 

same challenging grade level and graduation standards as native-English 

speaking students. Additionally, High Tech High teachers will be trained in 

SDAIE methodologies and prepared to use the California English Language 

Development standards. Our project-based approach is particularly effective 

with English Learners for a number of reasons. First, the small group instruction 

that accompanies projects allows for teachers to differentiate supports for 

students based on individual needs. Second, EL students participate in group 

problem-solving with non-EL students and learn from those interactions. Third, 

our focus on applying knowledge to real-world projects encourages 




Attachment 2 


comprehension and learning for all students. At High Tech High schools, content 

knowledge is not inert or solely textbook-driven; rather, it is applied, and 

transformed in ways that deepen the learning for all students. As an additional 

support, we also offer tutoring during and after school with volunteers specifically 

prepared to work with EL students. 

As required by California law, all High Tech High schools will administer the 

California English Language Development Test (CELDT) to all new students with 

a home language other than English and to all English Learners annually to 

determine each student’s individual proficiency level and to reclassify students to 

Fluent English Proficient (FEP) where appropriate. Once an English Learner is 

identified, a conference will be scheduled with the parent to outline the 

instructional program, the teacher’s role in implementation, and the teacher’s, 

parents’ and school’s role in providing support. At least twice each semester, the 

instructional program will be reviewed and discussed. 

Plan for Special Education 

As required by federal and state statutes and regulations, each special education 

student eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act will be 

provided a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. 

To meet our students’ needs, High Tech High focuses on the provision of 

educational enhancement services such as assistive technology, in-class tutorial 

assistance, small group and individual instruction and note-taking services in the 

regular education environment rather than a more restrictive special education 

learning environment. Decisions regarding the above are the responsibility of the 

Individualized Education Team, as formulated in a written plan and with full 

parental consent. 

The primary method of identifying students eligible for special education services 

is through the registration process, after a student has been accepted for 

enrollment. Students are also eligible for special education identification and 

eligibility determination through a “child find” process. Instructional staff are 

instructed about the characteristics of special education handicapping conditions 

and referral procedures. High Tech High provides psycho-educational diagnostic 

services to assess students for each of the 13 disabilities as defined by federal 

law. 

SELPA Membership Plan 

The HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School shall participate as an LEA member 

of the Desert/Mountain SELPA Local Plan Area (D/M SELPA). As a member of 

the D/M SELPA, HTHL will require all affiliated schools to make the following 

assurances through their governing board: 

FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION 




Attachment 2 


Each affiliate site shall assure that a free appropriate public education will be 

provided to all enrolled students including children with disabilities who have 

been suspended or expelled from school. 

FULL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY 

Each affiliate site shall assure that all students with disabilities have access to 

the variety of educational programs and services available to non-disabled 

students. 

CHILD FIND 

Each affiliate site shall assure that all students with disabilities are identified, 

located and evaluated. 

INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (IEP) 

Each affiliate site shall assure that an IEP is developed, reviewed and revised for 

each child with a disability who is eligible for special education services. 

LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT 

Each affiliate site shall assure that, to the maximum extent appropriate, students 

with disabilities are educated with students who are not disabled. Placements in 

the least restrictive environment shall be pursued for students with disabilities 

through the utilization of supplementary aids and services in the general 

education learning environment. 

. 

PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS 

Each affiliate site shall assure that children with disabilities and their parents shall 

be provided with safeguards through the identification, evaluation, and placement 

process and provisions for a free appropriate public education. 

ANNUAL/TRIENNIAL ASSESSMENT 

Each affiliate site shall assure that an IEP review shall be conducted on at least 

an annual basis. Additionally, a reassessment shall be conducted at least once 

every three years or more often if conditions warrant, or requested by the 

student’s parent or teacher. 

CONFIDENTIALITY 

Each affiliate site shall assure that the confidentiality of personally identifiable 

data shall be protected at collection, storage, disclosure and destruction. 

PERSONNEL STANDARDS 

Each affiliate site shall assure that it will make good faith efforts to recruit and 

hire appropriately and adequately trained personnel to provide special education 

and related services to children with disabilities. 

PARTICIPATION IN ASSESSMENTS 




Attachment 2 


Each affiliate site shall assure that students with disabilities are included in 

general State and District-wide assessment programs with appropriate 

accommodations, when necessary. 

Further, each approved site will be required to comply with the D/M SELPA Local 

Plan [see Appendix for a copy of this plan] and perform all corrective actions 

deemed necessary by High Tech High charter school managers and/or the 

SELPA. The oversight of the special education programs at HTHL affiliate sites 

will be provided by HTHL’s special education director who has extensive 

administrative experience in the area of special education service delivery and 

state and federal statutes and regulations. Additionally, each affiliate site will be 

required to demonstrate an adequate capacity to provide special education 

students with a free and appropriate public education. Working in close 

collaboration with HTHL staff, each affiliate will develop an annual special 

education budget, hire necessary personnel, contract for appropriate services 

and document the qualifications and competency of site administrative staff to 

meet special education quality and compliance requirements. 

The Special Education director for HTHL will be accessible to the sites through 

personal school site visits/reviews as well as video and telephone conferencing. 

The Desert/Mountain SELPA currently has the technological resources to 

engage in distance learning through the use of interactive video conferencing. 

This activity is also enhanced by regularly scheduled personal visits to all 

participating LEA’s from a team of highly qualified Resource Specialists. As 

additional staff is hired, HTHL will pursue the development of a mentor teacher 

program which will provide pedagogical support to affiliate sites. Specific and 

targeted staff development opportunities will also be provided by HTHL staff and 

the Desert/Mountain SELPA during the Annual Summer Institute sponsored by 

HTHL. Additionally, the California Special Education Management Information 

System (CASEMIS) information will be reviewed by HTHL’s Special Education 

Director at least monthly for each affiliate school site to insure compliance with 

state and federal statutes, reporting requirements, and timelines. Periodic staff 

development will also be provided to affiliate schools to address local needs, 

review changes in the law, and introduce promising educational interventions. 

Transferability of Credits 

Upon request from parents, the sites of the HTHL Statewide Charter School will 

provide written information about the transferability of courses to other public 

high schools and the eligibility of courses to meet college entrance requirements. 

As courses offered by the sites of the HTHL Statewide Charter School are 

accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and approved by 

the University of California or the California State University as creditable under 

the “A” to “G” admissions criteria, written notification to parents shall state that 

such accredited courses and approved courses are considered transferable. 




Attachment 2 


MEASURABLE STUDENT OUTCOMES AND OTHER USES OF 

DATA 

Measurable Student Outcomes 

High Tech High intends to graduate its students with: 

� A high school diploma 

� Passage of the California High School Exit Exam 

� SAT scores, a transcript, and a portfolio that greatly increase opportunities 

for admission to a college, CSU, UC, or other notable institutions, e.g., the 

Ivy League. 

Other measurable outcomes include: 

• An expectation that 100% of High Tech High graduates will secure 

admission to an institution of higher education. We expect roughly 

80% of those graduates to secure admission to a four-year institution. 

• 100% of High Tech High graduates will complete an academic 

internship in their junior or senior year. 

• 100% of High Tech High graduates will complete a four-year advisory 

program, addressing the topics of careers, college, culture, community, 

and citizenship. 

• A course of study that meets all requirements for entry into the 

University of California system. 

• An expectation that 60% of High Tech High alumni will complete 4-year 

college degrees within 6 years of graduating from High Tech High 

Graduation Requirements: 

At High Tech High schools, our graduation requirements are aligned with the 

minimum entry requirements of the University of California/California State 

University systems. In addition, in order to graduate, students must complete a 

semester-long academic internship and complete a substantive senior project. 

GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS 

SUBJECT AREA REQUIREMENT 

English 4 years 

History 3 years 

Mathematics 4 years 

Lab Science 4 years 

Language other than English 2 years (of the same language) 

Visual and Performing Arts 1 year (of the same art course) 

College Preparatory Elective 1 year 

[In addition, at HTH:] 1 semester 

Principles of Engineering 1 semester 

Academic Internship 1 semester 

Senior Project Project completion 




Attachment 2 


High Tech High students will meet all academic standards as adopted by the 

State Board of Education and applicable to charter schools. 

Academic Performance Index 

High Tech High’s API scores are as follows: 

API Base Score State Rank Similar Schools 

Rank 

2003-2004 828 10 10 

2002-2003 802 10 10 

2001-2002 788 10 10 

2000-2001 820 10 10 

Further, our goal is that every HTHL site operated under the Statewide Benefit 

Charter School will achieve a statewide API ranking of 7 or higher school by its 

fifth year of operation. 

Methods of Assessment 

Unlike many traditional high schools, where students progress simply by putting 

in class time and passing multiple choice tests, success at High Tech High 

schools requires producing real work products, solving problems, and making 

oral and written presentations. Teachers, industry experts, community members, 

parents, and peers review these efforts. In addition, High Tech High schools 

have instituted “Transitional Presentations of Learning” (tPOLs) at the end of 

each grade to ensure that all students make adequate yearly progress before 

moving on to the next grade level. 

Presentations of Learning (POLs) 

A Presentation of Learning is a formal presentation given by a student to a panel 

of peers, community members, administration, teachers, and parents at the end 

of the first semester each year, delivered in one of the following formats 

(determined by the teaching team). 

1. Community Event POL 

2. Reflective Portfolio POL 

3. Project Specific POL 

4. Personal Growth POL 

Before the POL, students practice their presentations in advisory. Advisories 

focus on presentation skills and give feedback to each student on how they can 

revise and improve their POL before the final presentation. Each type of POL 

must incorporate a reflective piece regarding the learning goals. 




Attachment 2 


For the second semester POL, teaching teams conduct transitional POLs to 

determine whether students are ready to advance to the next grade. This is a 

15-25 minute individual, formal presentation based on the student’s digital 

portfolio, during which the students must demonstrate their mastery of grade 

level standards and their readiness to proceed to the next grade. 

Digital Portfolios 

Every High Tech High student is required to create a personal digital portfolio. 

Although students may take creative license in the design of their portfolio, each 

portfolio must include a project section and a career/educational section that is 

presented each year during the Transitional Presentation of Learning (tPOL). 

The portfolio includes the following: 

• Career/Educational 

A career and educational objective, a web-based resume and a standard, 

printable resume 

• Projects 

Samples of best work accompanied by reflections on the learning 

embedded therein 

• Art and Design 

A simple, easily navigable design. 

At the end of each school year, High Tech High students present at their 

“Transitional Presentation of Learning,” or tPOL. The requirements for the tPOL 

are grade-level specific, but include an oral presentation, use of the student’s 

digital portfolio, artifacts from standards-bearing project work in the humanities, 

math and science, and elective courses. tPOL panels will consist of faculty from 

the students’ current and proximate grade level, students, parents, and 

community members. Each grade level will use a common rubric to evaluate 

tPOLs and determine each students’ readiness to advance to the next grade. 

Students who attempt but do not pass the tPOL will be given one additional 

opportunity to present once they have revised their work based on input from the 

review panel. [See Supplemental Materials for a sample tPOL rubric.] 

Senior Project 

Every HTH must complete a senior project in a focus area, such as graphic 

design or engineering. They present their senior projects in a final Transitional 

Presentation of Learning. Teachers, parents, administrators, and community 

members sit on the senior presentation panels. 

Grades and Testing 

HTH students earn traditional grades on a four point scale as well as honors 

options for core academic classes such as math, humanities, language, and 

science. They also participate in standardized exams such as the California 

Standards Tests, California High School Exit Exam, and Physical Fitness tests. 




Attachment 2 


To assess what students know and can do as a result of their project work, HTH 

uses additional assessments, including the Digital Portfolio, Presentations of 

Learning (POLs), Academic Internship Standards, Senior Projects, and grade 

level Transitional Presentations of Learning (tPOLs) as described above. 

The following table outlines the assessments used at High Tech High schools 

and the timing of each. All of these methods are employed and reviewed 

throughout the year inform the curriculum. Because our schools are small, they 

can make changes quickly. For example, when they noticed a dip in math 

scores, teachers at the flagship HTH met to examine the scores disaggregated 

by grade level and subtest area and then refined the HTH math content guide for 

teachers. The downward trend in the math scores has been reversed. 

Assessments Administered at HTH Schools 



NAME OF 

ASSESSMENT 

California High 

School Exit Exam 

(CAHSEE) 

“A-G” college 

requirements 


Attachment 2 


WHEN 

PURPOSE FOR ADMINISTERING 

ADMINISTERED 

Winter/Spring State and graduation requirement to assess 

whether or not students are prepared with 

basic skills. 

Throughout the 

school year 

CELDT Fall and as 

needed for new 

Presentations of 

Learning 

School-wide 

Exhibition 

Fitness Gram 

Parent and 

student survey 

California 

Standards Test 

CAT-6 

students 

Prepare students for college entry with 

rigorous curriculum. 

To assess English Language proficiency 

Fall and Spring To ensure learning goals are met for each 

individual student. 

Spring Demonstrate presentations of learning to 

teachers, parents, and community. 

Spring Required by the Federal Government to 

ensure students are physically fit. 

Spring Solicit specific feedback to gauge parent 

and student satisfaction with learning 

outcomes and program design of school. 

Spring Tests student knowledge of the California 

State Standards. 

Spring Norm-referenced test to assess student 

knowledge of core subjects (Math, Science, 

History, English) in California versus other 

states. 

Use and Reporting of Data 

The Sites of the HTHL Charter School will make regular use of student 

performance data to inform instructional practices and will regularly report 

achievement to school staff, parents and guardians. In the context of weekly 

staff meetings at HTHL sites, staff routinely review student work and discuss how 

practices may be adjusted to meet the individual needs of students. It is in these 

weekly “Looking at Student Work” discussions that teachers receive support from 

one another to assist students in achieving the standards required. Teachers 

give advice to the presenting teacher so that they may go back to their classroom 

and provide additional support. Often these discussions are broadened to 

include parents and the students themselves so that coordinated intervention and 

support services can be offered to improve the students’ learning. As such, this 




Attachment 2 


powerful staff development protocol ensures that the real-time analysis of daily 

student performance data is informing refinement of practice in the classroom, is 

providing a basis for regular communication with parents and students and is 

supporting student achievement and high expectations. 

At the classroom level, High Tech High teachers use a variety of strategies to 

monitor student understanding and progress on a daily and weekly basis. These 

include quizzes, weekly student reflections, and daily “check-ins,” e.g., asking 

students at the end of a class session to write and submit a quick reflection on a 

3 x 5 card. In addition, High Tech High teachers have established protocols for 

weekly reviews of student work including using learning logs or journals, and 

using weekly check-ins to gauge progress on long-term projects. 

HTHL sites also issue regular progress reports and grade-status updates to 

students’ advisors who are then responsible for intervening to support students 

who may be in danger of not receiving passing grades. Such intervention 

includes the hosting of meetings with students’ parents to assess what additional 

supports need to be made available to assist the students with their learning. 

HTHL sites also provide parents up-to-the-minute information about students’ 

grades via web-enabled password access to the HTHL Student Information 

System. 

All HTHL sites will participate in the School Quality Review Process (SQR) that 

all HTH schools undertake in order to demonstrate successful implementation of 

HTH design principles and achievement of HTH quality standards. The SQR 

process consists of a self-study that sites undertake in the spring of each year, 

an onsite evaluation from central HTHL staff involving interviews with all 

stakeholder groups at the school, the submission and review of stakeholder 

surveys regarding implementation of various aspects of the HTH model, and the 

submission and review of student achievement data as demonstrated by 

performance on state-mandated tests. The final SQR report is made available to 

all stakeholders at HTHL sites and is posted on sites’ web pages. Both sitebased 

staff and HTHL central staff use sites’ final SQR reports as planning tools 

for improving instruction and student outcomes in the following year. 

HTHL will also regularly collect and report student achievement data through 

participation in state-mandated testing programs and through publishing of data 

in sites’ School Accountability Report Cards. 

Alumni Program 

HTHL will operate an alumni program that will keep in contact with graduates of 

HTHL sites and monitor their progress through institutions of higher education so 

that we may measure the extent to which we achieve our goals regarding college 

completion rates. 




Attachment 2 


GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE 

HTHL's governance structure is borrowed from the experience of successful 

national nonprofit organizations such as the Red Cross under the California 

Corporations Code. It is designed to provide transparency and accountability for 

each individual school site from the standpoint of fiscal control, governance and 

student performance. At the same time, the governance structure provides 

efficiencies through centralized administration services, curriculum development, 

teacher training support, special education services and overall financial 

management. 

Each site will be governed by the board of a nonprofit public benefit corporation 

which has ties to the community in which it operates. This governing body will 

oversee operations of the school site. Yet each school will be a corporate 

affiliate of HTHL. HTHL, as the holder of the charter, will be able to ensure the 

State Board, as authorizer, that all HTHL affiliates are delivering consistent 

quality curriculum, that governance of each site meets consistent standards of 

excellence, and that each site is being operated on a fiscally sound basis. As the 

"head" nonprofit corporation, HTHL will retain the right to appoint, approve, or, if 

necessary, replace a majority of each local board of directors. It will control, 

through licensing and training agreements, delivery of the HTHL curriculum and 

quality assurance. HTHL will maintain overall financial management of the 

schools under its contracts with each site, while providing auditability of each 

site's operations. As the head nonprofit corporation, HTHL will retain the right to 

approve any significant changes in local corporate articles and bylaws, and the 

right to approve major decisions of the local schools, such as a decision to 

dissolve or merge the operations of any local school. 

This governance structure not only gives HTHL a high degree of control, and 

gives the State Board assurance that there will be consistency in quality and 

performance across the proposed sites, but it simplifies the tax status of the 

overall organization, which will be viewed by the IRS as a single, integrated 

501(c)3 organization. 

The board of HTHL will have at least seven members, the majority of which will 

represent the business community of the region in which the school is located. 

[For names and backgrounds of current HTHL Trustees, please see the 

Appendix.] Board members will be chosen who have skills and experience to 

match their board responsibilities 

For purposes of administering this Statewide Benefit Charter, the Board of HTHL 

will be responsible for: 

� Ensuring that all schools adhere to all aspects of this charter application 

and to all applicable law 

� Managing relations and communications with the SBE 




Attachment 2 


� Serving as the parent organization to which HTH schools’ Boards of 

Trustees are subsidiary 

� Defining the Mission and Goals of HTH, including identification of essential 

design principles, minimum performance standards and other nonnegotiables 

� Approval of Schools’ major contracts, transactions, governance alterations 

� Hiring and evaluating of sites’ Executive Directors 

� Approving LEA plans and other documents requiring board approval 

� Approval of school budget 

� Contracting for and overseeing development of required annual financial 

audits 

The board of each HTHL Statewide Charter School site will have at least five 

members, the majority of which will represent the business community. Board 

members will also be selected to represent the community-at-large, educators, 

and the county in which the site is located. All will be selected with skills and 

experience to match their board responsibilities. 

Each HTHL site’s Board of Trustees will be responsible for: 

� Fostering development of local relationships for the site 

� Providing insight around implementation of the site’s thematic focus 

� Assisting with fundraising for the site 

� Monitoring implementation of HTH design principles and other aspects of 

site’s instructional program 

� Assisting with the hiring and evaluation of the site’s Executive Director 

� Serving as the exclusive public school employer of the employees of that 

site 

� Holding public meetings subject to the Brown Act 

Parent Involvement 

Each HTHL Statewide Charter School site will feature active parental 

involvement, as we see parent involvement as a key factor in student academic 

achievement. Each site will have a parent association, based on the vision that 

“through effective communication, school community activities, and classroom 

support, we will build parent involvement and contribute to student achievement.” 

Activities that the Parent Associations may undertake include, but are not limited 

to: 

� Creating and distributing a Parent Association Newsletter 

� Creating and maintaining a Parent Association Website 

� Sending regular Parent Association “E-mail blasts” 

� Preparing and publishing the student directory 

� Meeting regularly (twice monthly on average) and serving as a liaison to 

other school stakeholder groups such as the Associated Student Body, 

school governance boards, extended services staff 




Attachment 2 


� Sponsoring/supporting community-building activities throughout the school 

year (orientations, school photos, socials, special fundraising events, 

community service activities) 

• Supporting classrooms directly (Room/Team Parent coordination, 

teacher wish lists, chaperoning) 

• Coordinating school-wide fundraising (book fairs, eScrip, other 

fundraising partnerships with local businesses) 

HUMAN RESOURCES 

Qualifications of School Employees 

High Tech High is committed to hiring talented, knowledgeable, passionate 

teachers. We do that by holding hiring fairs, working with Schools of Education, 

and networking with people in industry. Upon review of resumes, we conduct 

initial phone interviews which, if successful, are followed by a rigorous full-day 

process during which candidates teach a class (and are evaluated by students), 

have a luncheon interview with students, and interview with teachers and 

administrators. 

Teachers at High Tech High represent a range of experiences. Some are former 

biotech engineers, community college professors, or graphic designers; other are 

veteran teachers or recent university graduates. In August 2004 High Tech High 

was the first charter school to receive approval from the California Commission 

on Teacher Credentialing to offer single-subject credentials—in six content 

areas. Through this program, and in collaboration with local colleges and 

universities, we are well on our way to full compliance with NCLB requirements. 

High Tech High teachers are required to hold a Commission of Teacher 

Credentialing certificate, permit, or other document equivalent to that which any 

public school teacher is required to hold. As provided by law, the school may 

exercise flexibility with regard to those teaching non-core, non-college 

preparatory courses. 

As High Tech High schools are small by design and feature an innovative 

interdisciplinary approach, we intend to employ the guidelines for small schools 

as set forth by the California Department of Education and California State Board 

of Education in regard to their interpretation of NCLB guidelines: “If the teacher 

of record cannot meet the NCLB requirements for all subjects taught, a possible 

solution is to provide students with access to teachers meeting the 

requirements 5 .” At High Tech High schools, this will mean that if a Humanities 

teacher is credentialed in English but not yet in Social Studies, students will have 

access to a teacher credentialed in Social Studies in their same grade or in an 

adjacent grade level for consultation or tutoring as needed. We support the spirit 

of the NCLB regulations -- that all students are taught by high quality teachers – 

5 NCLB Teacher Requirements Resource Guide, Section 2.3, Professional Development and Curriculum 

Support Division, California Department of Education: March 1, 2004. 




Attachment 2 


and have found that our interdisciplinary structure is quite effective in promoting 

the high levels of achievement that NCLB seeks to generate. Also, we are 

working closely with our experienced teachers in order to verify their subject 

matter competency for additional subject areas using the HOUSSE guidelines. 

Within the provisions of the law, High Tech High reserves the right to recruit, 

interview and hire the best qualified person to fill any of its position vacancies. 

High Tech High does not discriminate against any applicant or employee on the 

basis of race, creed, color, national origin, age, gender, disability, or other basis 

prohibited by law. 

Professional Development 

Professional Development at the HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School 

consists of an ever-changing, ever-improving mix of site-based and HTHL-hosted 

learning opportunities. By design, professional development at HTHL sites is 

largely contextual, integrated into teachers’ day-to-day work and addressing 

issues that emerge therein. Indeed, the whole purpose of the contractual 

requirement that teachers arrive at school one hour before the students each day 

is to reserve time during teachers’ regular work day for planning and 

development. This contractual hour is used for staff to meet in various 

configurations to accomplish planning and development goals. Although the 

precise details may vary at each HTHL site, the typical pattern for morning 

meetings is: 

• one full faculty meeting, where staff discuss of school issues, receive 

training for collegial coaching, and look at student work together 

• two team meetings, where teachers who share the same students meet to 

plan integrated activities and to discuss the needs of individual students 

• one meeting by academic discipline (humanities, science, math, language, 

etc.) 

• one meeting of study groups: self-selected groups that address program 

issues (presentations of learning, digital portfolio requirements, 

assessment, the HTH approach to writing instruction, promotion policies, 

etc.). These study groups are proposed and formed in the overall faculty 

meeting, and they make policy and action recommendations to the faculty 

In practice, these morning meetings serve as a theoretical context for veteran 

and new teachers to reflect on and refine day-to-day practice at HTHL sites. 

They provide the occasion for powerful and productive discussion of the issues 

and needs that teachers identify in their work. 

Morning meetings are also used to allow for Discussions of Student Work. HTHL 

sites have long emphasized close collective scrutiny of student work products as 




Attachment 2 


a key to program and professional development. Much of this work takes place at 

faculty meetings, where teachers bring in samples of student work examination 

and response, following a protocol adapted from the work of Harvard University’s 

Project Zero and others. 

Collegial Coaching has also become an important part of HTH’s professional 

development process. Starting at first with observation and consultation by HTHL 

central staff, the program has evolved to engage peers in classroom observation 

and feedback. Teachers within HTHL schools now have long experience in 

collegial coaching and have worked in the context of study groups to coordinate 

and develop materials for this program across HTHL sites. 

In addition to professional development happening in the context of site-based 

morning meetings, HTHL-sponsored trainings are offered to the teachers and 

directors. Those trainings include teacher residencies at the HTH flagship school 

in San Diego, college advising and internship program institutes, teacher 

ambassador programs where experienced teachers from existing HTH schools 

visit and support teachers in newly opened HTHL sites, and the HTHL Summer 

Institute, an annual conference that attracts participants from across the United 

States to discuss refinement of implementation strategies for the design 

elements of High Tech High. 

Compensation and Benefits 

HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter schools will offer compensation benchmarked to 

the district pay scales of the revenue limit districts nearest to where the schools 

are located. 

The sites of HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School sites will make participation 

in STRS and/or PERS available to teachers and other eligible persons working at 

the school’s sites. HTHL will work with the SBE to identify county offices of 

education or other partners to provide STRS reporting services for the sites of 

the HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School. The boards of trustees for the sites 

of HTHL Statewide Benefity Charter School may establish additional retirement 

plans for employees such as section 403(b) plans, and/or other plans as may be 

appropriate. 

Employee Representation 

For the purposes of the Educational Employment Relations Act, HTHL declares 

that, under this HTHL Statewide Charter, each site’s affiliate board will be the 

exclusive public school employer of the employees of that site. Each site, shall 

retain the right to establish its own lawful procedures for discipline and dismissal. 

Rights of School District Employees 




Attachment 2 


The right to leave a district and take employment at a High Tech High school, as 

well as the right to return to the district for High Tech High employees who were 

previously district employees, will be as specified in district policies, procedures 

or collective bargaining agreements addressing this issue with respect to charter 

schools operated as nonprofit public benefit corporations under Education Code 

section 47604. 

Health and Safety 

All sites of the HTHL Statewide Charter School will comply with all applicable 

safety laws. Sites will require that each employee of the school furnish the school 

with a criminal record summary as described in Section 44237 of the Education 

Code including the requirement that, as a condition of employment, each new 

employee not possessing a valid California Teaching Credential must submit two 

sets of fingerprints to the California Department of Justice for the purpose of 

obtaining a criminal record summary. 

Each site will develop further health, safety, and risk management policies in 

consultation with its insurance carriers and risk management experts. HTHL will 

assess its school buildings for structural safety, using the existing state, county 

and city standards for independent and parochial schools. HTHL, at its own cost 

and expense, will be responsible for obtaining appropriate permits from the local 

public entity with jurisdiction over the issuance of such permits, including building 

permits, occupancy permits, fire/life safety inspections and conditional use 

permits, all as may be required to ensure a safe school and facilities for staff and 

students. 

Dispute Resolution Process 

HTHL and the SBE will always attempt to resolve any disputes amicably and 

reasonably without resorting to formal procedures. 

In the event a formal dispute arises between HTHL and the SBE relating to 

provisions of this charter, these procedures will be followed: 

• One party will notify the other in writing concerning the nature of the dispute 

and the facts that support it. Such notices will be sent to or from the HTHL 

board chairperson (with a copy to the High Tech High Chief Executive Officer) 

and the chairperson of the SBE. Absent extenuating circumstances, such a 

notice will be provided within 15 calendar days of when either HTHL or the 

SBE becomes aware of the dispute. 

• Upon receipt of the notice, representatives of and the Chairperson of the 

HTHL board of directors and the Chairperson of the SBE, or their designees, 

will meet within 15 days and attempt to resolve the dispute. If they reach a 




Attachment 2 


resolution, they will co-author a description of that resolution and distribute it 

to both parties. 

• If no resolution is reached, the parties may, by mutual agreement, utilize the 

services of an outside mediator skilled in the interest-based approach to 

mediating disputes. Each party will bear its own costs and evenly divide the 

cost for the mediation. 

• If the dispute remains unresolved following the mediation meeting either party 

may request non-binding arbitration before a mutually agreed upon arbitrator. 

The arbitration hearing will be informal in nature. If the arbitration involves a 

dispute which may lead to revocation of the charter, then the arbitration 

proceedings must be held, concluded and a decision rendered within thirty 

days of the mediation meeting so as to not excessively extend the time period 

within which the SBE may act to revoke the charter. Each party will bear its 

own costs and evenly divide the cost for the arbitration. 

• In the event that the above process does not result in an agreement over the 

dispute, both parties agree to continue negotiations in good faith toward a 

resolution of the dispute. If the matter cannot be mutually resolved, HTHL will 

be given a reasonable period of time to correct the violation, unless the SBE 

determines, in writing, that the violation constitutes a severe and imminent 

threat to the health and safety of the school’s pupils. In such event, the SBE 

reserves the right to take any action it deems appropriate and HTHL reserves 

the right to seek legal redress for any such actions under the law. In addition, 

the dispute is not required to be referred to mediation in those cases where 

the SBE determines the violation constitutes a severe and imminent threat to 

the health and safety of the school’s pupils. 

The dispute resolution process permits oral notice, followed immediately by 

written notice. 

RECOGNITION OF SBE PEROGATIVE TO FOLLOW ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE 

RESOLUTION PROCESS 

HTHL recognizes that because the SBE is not a local education agency, it may 

choose to resolve a dispute directly instead of pursuing the dispute resolution 

process described above, provided that if the SBE intends to resolve a dispute 

directly instead of pursuing the dispute resolution described above, it must first 

hold a public hearing to consider arguments for and against the direct resolution 

of the dispute instead of pursuing the dispute resolution process specified above. 

HTHL further recognizes that if the substance of a dispute is a matter that could 

result in the taking of appropriate action, including, but not limited to, revocation 

of the charter, the matter will be addressed at the SBE’s discretion in accordance 

with applicable law and regulations. 




Attachment 2 


INTERNAL DISPUTES 

Except those disputes between the SBE and HTHL relating to provisions of this 

charter, all disputes involving sites within the HTHL Statewide Charter School will 

be resolved by HTHL according to HTHL policies. Complaints to the SBE relating 

to the operation of the school and not to the terms of this charter or other issue 

regarding the School’s and the SBE’s relationship will be resolved as set forth 

below: 

• HTHL sites will adopt policies and processes for airing and resolving 

disputes. 

• The SBE agrees to refer all complaints regarding operations of HTHL 

Statewide Charter sites to HTHL’s chief executive officer for resolution in 

accordance with the site's adopted policies. In the event that the site's 

adopted policies and processes fail to resolve the dispute, the SBE agrees 

not to intervene in the dispute without the consent of HTHL unless the 

matter directly relates to one of the reasons specified in law for which a 

charter may be revoked. Notwithstanding the above, the SBE will have the 

ability to intervene in and respond to complaints about the operation of 

HTHL as is required by law. 

STUDENT ADMISSIONS, ATTENDANCE AND 

SUSPENSION/EXPULSION POLICIES 

Student Recruitment 

The HTHL Statewide Charter seeks to serve student bodies that reflect the full 

socio-economic and cultural diversity of the local areas where the sites operate. 

HTHL sites will work cooperatively with area school districts and county offices of 

education to attempt to program information and applications to all area 8 th grade 

students via direct mail. Staff members will visit school and community 

organizations throughout the surrounding area to recruit applicants. Public 

information meetings will be held about each site. Special emphasis will be 

placed on holding such meetings in communities where site staff feel additional 

focus is needed to achieve socio-economic and cultural diversity. Program 

descriptions and student recruitment information will be presented in a variety of 

languages so that we will be able to access a broader group of students and 

parents. Additionally, we will post on each site’s website information about our 

admissions process and timeline along with an application form. Sites’ websites 

may be accessed through www.hightechhigh.org. 

Student Admission Policies and Procedures 

High Tech High schools endeavor to accommodate all students who apply for 

admission. Criteria for admission include California residence, matriculation from 

the current grade, and interest in attending the school. There are no tests or 

GPA requirements for admission. Each site operated under this Statewide 

Charter may consider any student who satisfactorily completes the course of 




Attachment 2 


study offered by another middle school level affiliate of HTHL as qualifying for 

admission. Similarly, each site may consider any transfer student in good 

standing from any high school level affiliate of HTHL as qualified for admission. 

For other applicants to qualify for admission: 

• A student and his/her parent or guardian must together attend one complete 

High Tech High orientation session. These sessions will be held on evenings 

and weekends. They will detail what the school expects of the student and his 

or her family as well as what the student and family should expect of the 

school. 

• A parent or guardian must complete and return a simple, non-discriminatory 

application by a published deadline. 

• The student and a parent or guardian must sign a statement that they are 

familiar with and agree to abide by all policies and procedures set forth in the 

student handbook. 

• A student seeking admission to any High Tech High grade must be 

successfully promoted from the prior grade. 

If more students apply and qualify than can be admitted, priority for admissions 

will be assigned in the following order: 

1. Returning or existing students of the site in good standing. 

2. Children of employees or board members of sites that are affiliates of HTHL, 

as well as children of employees or board members of High Tech High 

Foundation, and HTHL. 

3. Students being promoted from or transferring from another school that is an 

affiliate of HTHL (who also complete the application process in a timely 

fashion) 

4. All other students permitted by law. 

Where the number of applicants exceeds the number of available seats, 

applicants are accepted through a lottery process, with provisions to create an 

ethnically and economically diverse student body. Such balance will be 

accomplished by implementing a zip code-based lottery system which is 

described below. In addition, the procedures described below reflect the finding 

of the U.S. Congress that women and girls nationally complete fewer math and 

science courses and lack roles models in science. (See 20 U.S.C. section 

7283(b)). This lack of interest is borne out in previous applications to other High 

Tech High schools. Consequently, in order to offer equal opportunities to girls in 

the lottery, available openings will first be divided into two groups of equal size, 

one for each gender. 

In order to insure that the each site’s student body represents the socioeconomic 

and cultural diversity of the county within which it operates, a separate 

lottery will be then be held by grade level for each zip code in the county. Spaces 




Attachment 2 


will be allocated to a zip code area based on enrollment data provided to the site 

by the County Office of Education where the school operates showing the 

percentage of students attending public schools who reside within the zip code 

area. If additional openings remain after this first series of zip code-based 

lotteries is performed, a second random lottery will be held where all remaining 

applicants will be aggregated into a single applicant pool. 

After capacity has been reached for each grade, names shall be placed in a 

grade level waiting pool. If a site is fully subscribed and then space becomes 

available within a grade, the site will randomly select applicants from the waiting 

pool and notify them that they have the option of enrolling at the site. Upon 

notification, the applicant will have at least three full business days to inform the 

site director or secretary, verbally or in writing, of the applicant's intentions. In the 

absence of an affirmative and timely response by phone or letter, the site will 

eliminate the applicant from the pool and proceed to randomly select another 

applicant from the waiting pool. All waiting pools expire annually at the end of the 

site's formal academic year, or as otherwise determined by the site’s board. 

HTHL sites will evaluate the performance of all current enrollees annually and 

consider each for readmission prior to consideration of any other applicants. 

Readmission decisions will be based upon published criteria, including those 

contained in the Student, Parent and School Contract. Students not readmitted, if 

any, will be notified in writing of the basis for their non-readmission. 

The School certifies that, to the best of its knowledge, all its admissions 

procedures, policies and criteria comply with non-discrimination statutes and 

applicable law. The School will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the SBE 

from any and all challenges alleging that the School’s admission procedures do 

not comport with applicable laws. 

Non-Discrimination 

The charter school shall be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, 

employment practices and all other operations, shall not charge tuition, and shall 

not discriminate against a pupil on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender 

or disability. 

Public School Attendance Alternatives 

HTHL Statewide Charter School sites will be sites of choice. No student is 

required to attend. Students choosing not to attend a HTHL site may attend other 

public schools within their home school district. 

The sites of the HTHL Charter School pledge to work cooperatively with the SBE, 

with appropriate county offices of education, with local school districts and with 

other local charter schools as necessary to expeditiously provide and receive 




Attachment 2 


student information as may be necessary when students transfer between sites 

of the HTHL Charter School and other public school alternatives. 

Suspension/Expulsion Procedures 

Sites of the HTHL Statewide Charter School will regard suspension and 

expulsion as a last resort. Criteria for suspension and expulsion of students will 

be consistent with all applicable federal statutes and state constitutional 

provisions. Students will be afforded due process, including a hearing and right of 

appeal, as described below. A student identified as an individual with disabilities 

or for whom there is a basis of knowledge of a suspected disability pursuant to 

the Individuals with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”) or who is qualified for services under 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) is subject to the same 

grounds for suspension and expulsion and is accorded the same due process 

procedures applicable to regular education students except when federal law or 

SELPA policies require additional or different procedures. 

The following represent typical grounds for suspension and expulsion: 

• The threat, causation or attempted causation of physical injury to another 

person, including sexual assault. 

• Possession of a weapon (e.g., firearms, knives or explosives) or 

possession of a replica firearm. 

• Unlawful possession, use, sale, or offer of any controlled substance, 

alcoholic beverage or any intoxicant, or being under the influence thereof. 

• Robbery or attempted robbery of school or private property. 

• Destruction or attempted destruction of school or private property. 

• Extortion. 

• Obscene or offensive acts or habitual profanity or vulgarity. 

• Disruption of school activities or willful defiance of valid school authorities. 

• Violation of a policy or procedure by a student and/or parent as set forth in 

the student handbook. 

A student suspension or expulsion may only be enacted with the approval of the 

site director. A suspension or expulsion may be appealed to a subcommittee 

authorized by the site’s local board that will have the right to rescind or modify 

the suspension or expulsion. The parents or guardians of the student will have 

ten days from the suspension or expulsion to declare in writing their request for 

an appeal. The subcommittee will convene a hearing within fifteen days of receipt 

of a timely request for an appeal. At the hearing the student will have the right to 

counsel, the right to present evidence and the right to confront and cross 

examine adverse witnesses. The subcommittee members will consider evidence 

and/or testimony as it deems appropriate and render a written decision that will 

be in the best interests of the student and the site. That decision will be final. 




Attachment 2 


FINANCIAL PLANNING, REPORTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

Preferred County Office of Education for Administrative Support 

HTHL identifies the San Diego County as the county that will serve as the 

location of our business records and operations. The San Diego County Office of 

Education will establish the appropriate funds or accounts in the country treasury 

for the HTHL Statewide Charter School. 

Budgets 

The Appendix to this application contains a proposed three year operational 

budget including startup costs for each site to be operated under this HTHL 

Statewide Charter. The budget includes: 

• Reasonable estimates of anticipated revenue & expenditures, including 

special ed; 

• Budget notes that clearly describe assumptions or revenue estimates, 

including but not limited to the basis for average daily attendance estimates 

and staffing levels. 

The Appendix also contains cash flow and financial projections for the first three 

years of operation and plans for the establishment of a prudent reserve. 

Financial Reporting 

The School will: 

• Prepare and file with the state on or before September 15 an annual statement 

of receipts and expenditures of the charter school for the preceding fiscal year; 

and 

• Prepare and file with the state a preliminary budget on or before July 1, an 

interim financial report on or before December 15, a second interim financial 

report on or before March 15, and a final unedited report for the full prior year 

on or before September 15 (Education Code section 47604.33). 

Insurance 

HTHL schools, at their own expense and risk will secure and maintain 

appropriate workers compensation, as well as liability coverage, providing for, 

among other things, insurance for operation and procedures, personal injury, and 

property, fire, and theft. The SBE will be named as “other named insured.” 

Supplementary coverage will cover the after-hours and weekend activities of 

HTHL site programs. 

At minimum, coverage will include: 




Attachment 2 


• Workers’ Compensation with limits of $1,000,000 per accident as required by 

the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers’ Liability. 

• Comprehensive Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability for the combined 

single limit coverage of not less than $5,000,000 per single occurrence. 

• Commercial Crime including Fidelity Bond coverage for blanket employee 

theft, disappearance, destruction, and dishonesty in the amount of at least 

$50,000 per occurrence with no self-insured retention. 

HTHL may also purchase coverage for the following: 

• Directors and Officers for wrongful acts (including coverage for employment 

practices) of at least $2,000,000 each claim with an extended reporting period 

of not less than one year following termination of the charter. 

• Professional Liability (E & O) for defense and damages for errors and 

omissions with a limit of $1,000,000 each incident if health care services such 

as medical, nursing, and/or counseling are provided to students. 

• Commercial All Risk Property for buildings and contents for full replacement 

cost. 

• Student Accident Insurance with a limit of no less than $10,000 per accident 

and a zero deductible. 

Delineation of Site-based and Central Responsibilities Including 

Administrative Responsibilities 

The HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School features a high level of coordination 

and cooperation between site-based staff and central staff in order to ensure that 

each site achieves the quality standards of High Tech High. 

At the site level, sites maintain a mix of administrative and teaching personnel to 

perform site-based activities. The Director of each site maintains the authority to 

make adjustments to the default HTHL site staffing model as necessary to meet 

local needs, but in general, each site shall have the following administrative staff: 

• Director – responsible for overseeing all aspects of the site’s local 

operations including responsibility for ensuring that the site’s instructional 

program features full implementation of HTH Design Principles and 

delivers the measurable outcomes expected of HTH schools. The 

Director is responsible for hiring all site-based staff and, working in 

collaboration with HTHL central staff, for preparing a budget for approval 

by the site’s local board. 

• Dean of Students – works in close partnership with the Director to ensure 

that student safety is maintained at all times and that a culture and 

standard of discipline conducive to student learning is supported by all site 

students and parents. 




Attachment 2 


• College Advisor – ensuring that all students in the site have the support 

needed to earn acceptance to and enroll in an institution of higher 

learning. 

• Intern Coordinator – working to implement the site’s academic internship 

program, including identifying intern program partners, matching students 

to specific internship opportunities and implementing established protocols 

designed to allow students to earn academic credit for work accomplished 

during internship experiences. 

• IT Director – working closely with HTHL central staff to ensure that HTHL 

IT systems architecture is fully implemented at the site level, providing the 

site’s students, parents and staff full access to the array of IT services that 

support teaching, learning and site operations at HTH schools. The IT 

Director also ensures that the site’s webpage is maintained in a manner 

that supports the mission of the school 

• Administrative Assistance – working closely with the site Director to 

ensure that administrative, clerical and front office functions are performed 

at the site level and working closely with the HTHL central staff to make 

sure that timely information flows from the site to HTH Learning regarding 

compliance matters and fiscal control. 

• Custodian – ensuring that the site’s facility is maintained in a manner that 

supports teaching and learning. 

HTHL is keenly aware that our schools operate in a manner that is very different 

from most other public and private schools, and we understand that in order to 

ensure successful replication of HTH practices, we must staff new schools with 

directors and teachers who are intimately familiar with the operations of HTH 

schools. As such, HTHL has an expectation that each new site will have at least 

three staff members on site who have worked in an existing HTH site. In most 

cases we can identify teacher and director candidates who are willing to move 

from existing schools to staff startup sites. In those instances when we cannot 

find such staff, we recruit local talent to receive extensive training in San Diego 

prior to the new site opening. 

At the central level, HTHL offers a comprehensive suite of back office and 

other services to the sites of the HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School. As 

a guiding principle, HTHL central staff attempt to perform all of the 

bureaucratic and other compliance related activities that would otherwise 

distract site-based staff from their primary mission, which is to support student 

learning. Services include: 

� Charter Development, Grant Generation and Initial Community 

Engagement 

� Property/Facilities Acquisition and Financing 

� Facilities Design, Renovation and Maintenance 

� HR Support 



� IT Services 

� Curriculum Development Support 

� Teacher Credentialing 

� Professional Development for Principals and Teachers 

� Program Monitoring, Compliance and Quality Assurance 

� Special Education Services 

� Fundraising 

� General Counsel 

� Administrative Services 


Attachment 2 


HTHL has developed a proven track record of being able to provide high quality 

administrative services to sites, as is demonstrated by HTHL’s successful 

management of the seven sites which are already affiliates of HTHL. 

Administrative functions performed include: 

• Pupil Accounting 

o Summarize daily attendance into monthly reports made 

available to site principals 

o Prepare and submit P1, P2 and Final attendance reports as well 

as the J18/19 and advance apportionment reports to chartering 

authority/and or CDE 

• Budgeting and forecasting, including developing annual budgets for 

submission to chartering authorities as required by statute 

• Accounting services including: 

o Maintain schools general ledgers per the State Standardized 

Account Code Structure 

o Provide monthly reconciliations of balance sheet items 

o Accounts Payable – process vendor invoices for payments and 

post accounting entries 

o Process employee reimbursements 

• Fiscal reporting including 

o Provide to school monthly financial reports including balance sheet 

and actual vs. budget 

o Prepare J210 budget report including budget summary, ADA report 

cash flow report and break-out of revenue detail 

o Twice a year, prepare J250 Interim Financial Reports and submit to 

chartering authority 

o Prepare annually J200 Final Actuals Report 

o Prepare state and federal payroll tax filing reports quarterly and 

annually 

• Payroll Processing 

o Maintain employee files and database 

o Process payroll for all school employees 

o Reconcile payroll checks to general ledger 

o Process federal and state tax payments as required by statue 




Attachment 2 


o Prepare W-2’s and 1099’s 

• Purchasing 

o Perform all activities necessary to secure appropriate health and 

retirement benefits for employees including vendor selection, 

employee sign-up, informing staff about benefits options and acting 

as an intermediary between school and provider 

o Oversee all activities related to securing appropriate liability 

insurance including making application for bids, processing renewal 

applications and ensuring prudent levels of coverage 

o Oversee selection of food service vendors 

o Establish relationships with vendors to achieve bulk-purchase 

pricing benefits for textbooks, office supplies, janitorial supplies, 

etc. 

• HR Compliance 

o Monitor and review all Worker’s Comp and Unemployment claims 

o Maintain duplicate copies of employment records for school 

including documentation verifying eligibility for employment 

o Perform new hire processing including reference and background 

check, eligibility for employment, medical clearance, fingerprinting 

o Perform exit interview and complete exit paperwork for employees 

leaving the school 

Facilities 

All sites within the HTHL Statewide Charter will incorporate the “look and feel” 

of the original Gary and Jerri-Ann Jacobs High Tech High campus. That look 

and feel will include both the functionality of the space as well as the aesthetic 

design elements that distinguish High Tech High. The sites shall be housed in 

buildings consisting of approximately 40,000 square feet, a size sufficient to 

serve the sites’ projected student enrollment. 

HTHL will seek fee-simple ownership of all buildings housing HTHL Statewide 

Charter School sites but reserves the option of leasing facilities where 

appropriate. HTHL will secure facilities on behalf of Statewide Charter School 

sites and will sublease those sites to schools at cost. Locations will be chosen 

that allow HTHL sites to attract a student bodies that are representative of the 

surrounding socio-economic and cultural diversity. HTHL shall attempt to locate 

sites within areas eligible for New Market Tax Credits but reserves the right to 

locate in other areas. HTHL shall notify the CDE within 60 days of proposed 

commencement of instruction of each site. 

Transportation 

Except for those students who may be entitled to transportation under IDEA, 

transportation is a parental responsibility for students attending sites of the HTHL 

Statewide Charter School. 




Attachment 2 


Audits 

The HTHL Statewide Charter School will engage an independent auditor to 

produce an annual financial audit according to generally accepted accounting 

principles. As has occurred in the past for schools managed by HTHL, the audit 

for the HTHL Statewide Charter School will present both a consolidated report 

showing financial information for the entire HTHL Statewide Charter School as 

well as information disaggregated by site. HTHL will transmit a copy of the audit 

to the State Controller, the State Board of Education and the State Department of 

Education by December 15 of each year. Should the audit note any exceptions or 

deficiencies, HTHL will follow a procedure whereby the school: 

• Informs in writing all audit recipients of any exception and/or deficiency the 

School disputes or believes it has already corrected by the time of submitting 

the audit, along with supporting documentation; 

• Informs all audit recipients in writing of a proposed timetable with benchmarks 

for the correction of each exception and/or deficiency still outstanding at time 

of audit submission; and 

• Resolves all outstanding or disputed exceptions and/or deficiencies to the 

mutual satisfaction of the state and the School by no later than the following 

June 30 th or other time as may be mutually agreed to. 

Closure Protocol 

If the HTHL Statewide Charter School or any of its individual sites should require 

dissolution and winding up for any reason, assets remaining after payment of all 

debts and liabilities and a final audit will be distributed as follows: (1) All assets 

and property purchased with public money will be distributed first to HTHL if it is 

still operating, then to High Tech High Foundation, for the benefit of other charter 

schools established by the foundation, and if neither organization is operating, to 

the SBE. (2) All other assets and property will be distributed to a nonprofit fund, 

foundation or association in accordance with state law. Further, HTHL will notify 

parents, students, the California Department of Education, and districts affected 

by the closure and will transfer all pupil records as appropriate. Finally, HTHL will 

produce a final audit for the charter-granting agency that determines the 

disposition of all assets and liabilities. 

IMPACT ON CHARTER AUTHORIZER 

Authorizer Liability 

The HTHL Charter School shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the SBE, 

its officers and employees, from every liability, claim or demand which may be 

made by reason of: (a) any injury to person or property sustained by School, its 

officers, employees or authorized volunteers; and (b) any injury to person or 

property sustained by any person, firm or corporation caused by any act, neglect, 

default, or omission of School, its officers, employees or agents. In cases of 

such liabilities, claims or demands, the HTHL Statewide Charter School at its 




Attachment 2 


own expense and risk shall defend all legal proceedings which may be brought 

against the SBE, its officers and employees, and satisfy any resulting judgments 

up to the required amounts that may be rendered against any of them. 

Charter Term 

The petitioners request the State Board of Education approve a term of this 

charter that shall begin for a five-year period on July 1, 2006 and end June 30, 

2011. The School justifies this five-year term based on the increased difficulty of 

securing staff and facilities financing with a shorter term and on the successful 

record of the School’s educational design. 

The SBE shall not allow the charter to expire, without renewal, through lack of 

timely consideration by the SBE if the School submits the charter for renewal at 

least nine months prior to expiration. 

Charter Revisions 

Material revisions to the charter must be approved by the SBE. However, any 

proposed revisions to the charter will be presented to the SBE for a 

determination as to whether it is a material revision that must be approved by the 

SBE. The SBE will make its determination and, if required, the SBE will consider 

the revision for approval within 60 days of submission by the School or within a 

time mutually agreed to. 

Severability 

The terms of this charter are severable. In the event that any of the provisions 

are determined to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, the remainder of 

the charter shall remain in effect, unless mutually agreed otherwise by the SBE 

and HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter School. The SBE and HTHL Statewide 

Benefit Charter School agree to meet to discuss and resolve any issue or 

differences relating to invalidated provisions in a timely and proactive fashion. 

Information Exchange 

HTHL agrees to permit the SBE and/or its designees to inspect and receive 

copies of all records relating to the operation of the HTHL Statewide Charter 

School, including financial, personnel, and pupil records. HTHL shall promptly 

comply with all reasonable written requests for information pertaining to the 

operations of the School and shall provide the SBE regular access to all sites 

operated under this Statewide Benefit Charter School. 



ASSURANCES 


Attachment 2 


As the authorized representative of the applicant, I hereby certify that the information 

submitted in this application for a Statewide Benefit Charter School for High Tech High 

Learning to be located in communities identified in this charter application is true to the 

best of my knowledge and belief; I also certify that this application does not constitute 

the conversion of a private school to the status of a public charter school; and further I 

understand that if awarded a charter, each of the sites of the HTHL Statewide Charter 

School: 

1. Will meet all statewide standards and conduct the student assessments 

required, pursuant to Education Code 60605, and any other statewide 

standards authorized in statute, or student assessments applicable to 

students in non charter public schools. 

2. Will be deemed the exclusive public school employer of the employees of 

the charter school for the purposes of the Educational Employment Act 

(Chapter 10.7 (commencing with 3540) of Division 4 of Title 4 of Title 1 of 

the Government Code. 

3. Will be nonsectarian in its programs, admissions, policies, employment 

practices, and all other operations. 

4. Will not charge tuition. 

5. Will admit all students who wish to attend the school, and who submit a 

timely application, unless the school receives a greater number of 

applications than there are spaces for students, in which case each 

applicant will be given equal chance of admission through a random lottery 

process. 

6. Will not discriminate against any student on the basis of ethnic background, 

national origin, gender, or disability. 

7. Will adhere to all provisions of federal law relating to students with 

disabilities, including the IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1974, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, that are 

applicable to it. 

8. Will meet all requirements for employment set forth in applicable provisions 

of law, including but not limited to credentials, as necessary. 

9. Will ensure that teachers in the school hold a Commission on Teacher 

Credentialing certificate, permit, or other document equivalent to that which 

teachers in other public schools are required to hold. As allowed by statute, 

flexibility will be given to non-core, non-college preparatory teachers. 

10. Will at all times maintain all necessary and appropriate insurance coverage. 

11. Will follow any and all other federal, state, and local laws and regulations 

that pertain to the applicant or the operation of the charter school. 




Attachment 2 


12. Will provide an annual report to the SBE reflecting student achievement 

data, performance benchmarks, and other pertinent data supporting state 

charter goals. 

13. Will notify the CDE within 60 days of proposed commencement of 

instruction of each site 

_________________________________ (Authorized Signature) 

_________________________________ (Date) 



APPENDICES 


Attachment 2 


List of sites to be operated under the HTHL Statewide Benefit Charter 


Site Descriptions 

Desert/Mountain SELPA Local Plan 

HTH Learning Board Members 

Facilities Design Specifications for High Tech High Schools 

Financials 




Attachment 2 


List of Sites to be Operated under the HTHL Statewide Charter 

School* Location** Proposed Opening*** 

HTH Hesperia Hesperia (San Bernardino County) 2006 or 2007 

HTH Environmental Chula Vista (San Diego County, 

Sweetwater Union HSD) 

2006 or 2007 

HTH Escondido Escondido (San Diego County) 2006 or 2007 

HTH National City National City (San Diego County, 

Sweetwater Union HSD) 

2007 or 2008 

HTH San Mateo San Mateo County 2007 or 2008 

HTH Finance Central San Diego 2008 or 2009 

HTH San Jose San Jose (Santa Clara County; 

Eastside Union HSD or San Jose 

Unified) 

2008 or 2009 

HTH Hesperia II Hesperia (San Bernardino County) 2008 or 2009 

HTH Escondido II Escondido (San Diego County) 2009 or 2010 

HTH East SD County East San Diego County 2009 or 2010 

* HTH Learning reserves the right to adjust the name of affiliate sites based upon input 

from local communities. 

**HTH Learning will open sites within identified counties but reserves the right to open 

sites in school districts adjacent to the identified school districts if HTHL determines that 

the most suitable facilities are found to be located in those adjacent school districts. 

***HTH Learning reserves the right to adjust the sequence and timeline of school 

openings as necessary to respond to circumstances at a local level, including the 

availability of suitable facilities. 



San 

Mateo 

County 


Attachment 2 



San 

Diego 

County 

San 

Diego 

Unified 

San 

Bernardino 

County 

Hesperia 

Unified 

Escondido 

Union 

HSD 

Sweetwater 

Union HSD 

Santa 

Clara 

County 


June 13, 2005 

East Side 

Union 

HSD 

American 

Indian 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 

San 

Jose 

Unified 

Asian 

Pacific 

11.3 5 8.7 2.7 0.4 2.7 2.3 23.4 27 

1.7 

12.9 

Islander 3 0.9 1 0.5 1.2 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.5 

Filipino 9.6 4.9 7.5 1.3 0.5 2 8.8 5.1 9.7 1.8 

Hispanic 

African 

33.1 40.8 41.9 50.5 39.6 44.6 68.9 34.8 43 34.8 

American 4.4 7.7 14.5 11.5 5.1 2.6 4.8 3.5 4.5 3.5 

White 

Multiple/No 

36 38.9 25.9 30.2 49 46.3 13.9 30.1 14.3 28.9 

Response 2.2 0.9 0 2.6 3.7 0.7 0 1.8 0.2 0 

% F/R Lunch 29.6 41.8 50.7 51.3 55.5 15.7 51.6 32.2 26.3 43.7 

% EL 23.4 23.4 28.1 18.8 15.3 17.8 26.4 25.2 28.1 26.0 

% grads with 

A-G (02-03) 43.6 35.3 38.5 21.1 24.9 25.8 27.9 44.9 29.6 

*Data from www.ed-data.k12.ca.us for 2003- 

2004 except where noted 

64.2

SITE DESCRIPTIONS 


Attachment 2 


(Note: For each site presented below, please see additional information about 

site names, locations and timelines for opening provided above in the table: “List 

of Sites to be Operated under the HTHL Statewide Charter.”) 

HIGH TECH HIGH HESPERIA 

Location 

Hesperia, California, located within San Bernardino County and within the 

Hesperia Unified School District. 

Timeline 

High Tech High Hesperia will open in September 2006 or 2007 serving 250 

students in grades 9 and 10. It will grow to serve approximately 450-470 

students in grades 9-12 by its third year of operations. 

School Background 

As HTHL has developed a positive relationship with the Desert/Mountain SELPA, 

requests from SELPA partners to HTHL to establish schools within the 

geographic borders of the SELPA have grown. Some of the strongest support 

has come from the Hesperia community where a rapidly growing student 

enrollment has coupled with a history of local high schools failing to place a high 

percentage of graduates in colleges and universities to create a serious problem 

in secondary education in the area. 

Like other High Tech High sites, HTH Hesperia will seek to draw upon the 

growing diversity of the surrounding county, including economically 

disadvantaged students, while maintaining high performance standards for all 

students. The site will remain true to the High Tech High design principles of 

personalization, common intellectual mission, and adult-world connection, and 

students will engage in project-based learning. 

Plan for Community Input and Notification 

HTHL has already begun the process of engaging the Hesperia community by 

attending meetings in the area and creating opportunities for local 

representatives to learn more about HTHL at our flagship school in San Diego. 

Discussions to date have centered on how HTHL may develop a thematic focus 

for the school which will enable it to engage students in manner that will increase 

the percentage of area students who complete A-G requirements. The 

percentage of current Hesperia Unified School District students that complete A- 

G Requirements is an alarmingly low 24.9%. 




Attachment 2 


In the near future we plan to begin hosting community events at schools and 

various civic organizations. We are also in the process of establishing a “Friends 

of HTH Hesperia” advisory group to assist in planning for the new school. The 

site will incorporate as a subsidiary of HTHL in the coming months and will apply 

to receive 501c3 nonprofit status from the I.R.S. 

Per state guidelines, High Tech High: 

� Will hold a minimum of one publicly noticed meeting for this school with a 

summary of the input received at the meeting posted on the school’s 

website; and 

� Will inform the local school district and county superintendents of the 

location of the proposed school at least 120 days prior to the 

commencement of instruction. 

The Charter Petition contains the necessary signatures of prospective teachers 

for the site. 

Potential Facilities 

HTHL currently holds an option on property in Hesperia for development of HTH 

Hesperia. Staff are now engaged in discussions with the City of Hesperia to 

determine the feasibility of locating the site on the controlled property. City staff 

are also assisting HTHL to generate a list of possible alternative sites, with an 

emphasis on finding sites that are eligible for New Markets Tax Credits. We 

anticipate construction commencing on HTH Hesperia by late fall of 2005. If a 

viable site has not been identified by that time, HTHL may delay the opening of 

HTH Hesperia. 



HIGH TECH HIGH ENVIRONMENTAL 

Location 

Chula Vista, California, located within San Diego County and within the 

Sweetwater Union High School District. 


Attachment 2 


Timeline 

High Tech High Environmental will open in September 2006 or 2007 serving 

approximately 250 students in grades 9 and 10. It will grow to serve 

approximately 450-470 students in grades 9-12 by its third year of operations. 


As demand for High Tech High schools in San Diego County continues to 

outpace the number of slots available for students, HTHL has been approached 

by a number of local civic and community leaders about the possibility of opening 

sites in different areas within San Diego County. Of particular interest to HTHL 

has been the possibility of opening sites within the South Bay area, where the 

sites would have close proximity to a high percentage EL students and students 

coming from demographic groups that have been historically underrepresented in 

math, science and technology fields. 

More than a year ago, HTHL was approached by a local property owner in the 

National City/Chula Vista area who offered to gift to HTHL a seven acre site for 

the creation of a HTH site having a thematic focus on issues of cross-border 

environmentalism and biodiversity. Unfortunately, the original site was 

determined to not be viable as a HTH school, but HTHL, having developed 

considerable plans for a school with an environmental focus, initiated a search 

for suitable facilities to house the site. The City of Chula Vista has been 

supportive of HTHL’s effort to start a school in their community and has identified 

a potential site for the school. 

As part of our preparation for opening HTH Environmental, the site’s future 

leaders have done extensive research into other public schools that feature a 

focus on environmental issues. The site’s leaders have recently returned from a 

trip to Israel where they observed a school that operates a 40,000 square foot 

greenhouse, which serves as the laboratory for the science and math projects 

that the school’s students undertake. HTH Environmental is now considering 

how a similar working greenhouse and laboratory may be incorporated into the 

site’s design. To HTHL’s knowledge, there is no school in the United States 

currently operating a full greenhouse/laboratory as now envisioned for HTH 

Environmental. 

Like other High Tech High sites, HTH Environmental will draw upon the diversity 

of San Diego County, including economically disadvantaged students, while 

maintaining high performance standards for all students. The site will remain 




Attachment 2 


true to the High Tech High design principles of personalization, common 

intellectual mission, and adult-world connection, and students will engage in 

project-based learning with a main emphasis on environmentalism and 

biodiversity as the platform for integrated curriculum across the disciplines. 


HTHL has already begun the process of engaging the Chula Vista community by 




for the school which will enable it to engage the high percentage of EL students 

who are likely to attend the school. 

In the near future HTHL plans to begin hosting community events at schools and 


of HTH Environmental” advisory group to assist in planning for the new school. 

The advisory group has identified prospective board members. HTHL will 

incorporate the site as a subsidiary of HTHL in the coming months. HTHL will 

apply on behalf of HTH Environmental to receive 501c3 nonprofit status from the 

I.R.S. 

Per state guidelines, HTHL will: 

� Hold a minimum of one publicly noticed meeting for this school with a 


website; and 

� Inform the local school district and county superintendents of the location of 

the proposed school at least 120 days prior to the commencement of 

instruction. 


for the site. 


Working in collaboration with the City of Chula Vista, HTHL has identified a 

potential facility for the site. The potential site is an approximately 4.8 acre cityowned 

parcel on E Street on the Bayfront in Chula Vista, immediately adjacent to 

the Chula Vista Nature Center. The parcel is located within an area defined to be 

low income by the federal government and, as such, is eligible for New Markets 

Tax Credits. The City and HTHL are in discussions about how the site may be 

made available to HTHL in time for the site to open in September 2006. If the 

site is determined to not be viable, HTHL will resume the search for other 

appropriate properties. Wherever the school is ultimately located, HTHL intends 

to make the HTH Environmental facility reflect the values of the site’s chosen 

thematic focus. To the extent possible, the site will be housed with an eco- 




Attachment 2 


friendly building, one that is all or partly solar powered and that minimizes use of 

water and emissions of gases damaging to the environment. 



HIGH TECH HIGH ESCONDIDO 


Attachment 2 


Location 

Escondido, California, located within San Diego County and within the Escondido 

High School District. 

Timeline 

High Tech High Escondido will open in September 2006 or 2007 serving 








has been the possibility of opening sites within the North County area, where the 

sites would have close proximity to a growing percentage of Latino students. 

Recently, HTHL was approached by a group of local parents and business 

leaders who wanted to assist in the development of a HTH site to be established 

in Escondido. This group established “Friends of HTH Escondido,” an advisory 

panel supporting development of the site that been instrumental in assisting 

HTHL to develop local relationships in the Escondido area. The City of 

Escondido has been supportive of HTHL’s effort to start a school in the 

community and has provided a list of potential properties that would qualify for 

New Markets Tax Credits. The Friends of HTH Escondido and HTHL have also 

developed a relationship with the San Diego Wild Animal Park, which may grow 

into a formal relationship that could provide the site with a thematic focus around 

endangered species and life sciences. 

Like other High Tech High sites, HTH Escondido will draw upon the diversity of 

San Diego County, including economically disadvantaged students, while 




project-based learning with a possible emphasis on life sciences as the platform 

for integrated curriculum across the disciplines. 


HTHL has already begun the process of engaging the Escondido community by 

hosting and attending meetings in the area and creating opportunities for local 






Attachment 2 


for the school which would capitalize upon the local community resources 

available within Escondido. 

HTHL has also assisted in the development of the “Friends of HTH 

Environmental” advisory group to assist in planning for the new school. The 

group has identified a list of prospective board members. We anticipate 

incorporating the school as a subsidiary of HTHL in the coming months. HTHL 

will apply on behalf of HTH Escondido to receive 501c3 nonprofit status from the 

I.R.S. 




website; and 



instruction. 


for the site. 


HTHL is still working to find a suitable site for HTH Escondido. The City of 

Escondido has provided a list of available sites and HTHL has given priority to 

those sites that qualify for New Markets Tax Credits. Early meetings with 

representatives of the San Diego Wild Animal Park have also included 

discussions about the possibility of locating the school on the Wild Animal Park 

grounds. That location would not be eligible for New Markets Tax Credits, but 

HTHL and the Friends of HTH Escondido believe that the possibility of locating 

the school on the Wild Animal Park grounds is attractive enough to warrant 

deviating from our preferred approach of locating within areas eligible for New 

Markets Tax Credits. Good public transportation exists to the Wild Animal Park 

making HTHL confident that the site would attract the desired demographic of 

students. 



HIGH TECH HIGH NATIONAL CITY 


Attachment 2 


Location 

National City, California, located within San Diego County and within the 

Sweetwater Union High School District. 

Timeline 

High Tech High National City will open in September 2007 or 2008 serving 




As demand for High Tech High schools in San Diego continues to outpace the 

number of slots available for students, HTHL has been approached by a number 

of local civic and community leaders about the possibility of opening sites in 

different areas within San Diego County. In the summer of 2004, HTHL was 

approached by a coalition of business, education and civic leaders from National 

City who encouraged HTHL to establish a high school as part of the “Sweetwater 

Education Collaborative,” a new initiative which would attempt to improve a 

historically low income area of National City by encouraging secondary education 

providers, institutions of higher education and low-income housing and 

commercial developers to partner on a large-scale multi-use project. HTHL was 

happy to agree and has begun to develop plans for how HTH National City can 

capitalize upon the close proximity the site will have to the Collaborative’s various 

partners and to other resources in the National City area. 

Like other High Tech High sites, HTH National City will draw upon the diversity of 





project-based learning. 


HTHL has engaged in extensive community engagement in the National City 

area since HTHL first began to develop plans for HTH Environmental (see 

above). As the Collaborative continues to progress, HTHL will resume the 

process of engaging with the local community to identify a thematic focus for the 

school and make other preparations for school opening. HTHL will also assist in 

the development of a “Friends of HTH National City” advisory panel, which will 

assist in planning for the new site. In the unlikely event that the Education 

Collaborative does not continue to move forward, HTHL is prepared to 

independently continue preparations for the establishment of HTH National City. 

HTHL will incorporate the site as a subsidiary of HTHL and will apply to receive 

501c3 nonprofit status from the I.R.S. 




Attachment 2 





website; and 



instruction. 

HTHL will also gather and submit to the SBE the necessary signatures of 

parents/guardians and/or prospective teachers for the site. 


HTHL is working with the City of National City to identify a suitable location within 

the proposed Sweetwater Education Collaborative. All sites proposed to date 

have been determined to be eligible for New Markets Tax Credits. Given the 

preponderance of low income areas in National City, HTHL is optimistic that it will 

ultimately be able to locate the site an area eligible for New Markets Tax Credits. 



HIGH TECH HIGH SAN MATEO 

Location 

San Mateo County, within the Sequoia Union High School District. 


Attachment 2 


Timeline 

High Tech High San Mateo will open in September 2007 or 2008 serving 




As the reputation of High Tech High schools continues to strengthen, HTHL finds 

that many school developers and local leaders in different areas of the state are 

requesting that HTHL open schools in their communities. A high number of 

requests for HTHL services have come from various stakeholder groups within 

San Mateo County. 

Whenever HTHL enters a new region, our preference is to open a pod of tightly 

situated sites so that staff may share expertise and support one another. Given 

that HTHL is committed to opening HTH Bayshore in Redwood City, it is only 

natural that HTHL would be interested in opening additional sites in the area. 

Once HTH Bayshore has grown to full enrollment and may, like our signature 

school in San Diego, support the development of additional schools in the region, 

HTHL intends to open an additional school in San Mateo County. 

Like other High Tech High sites, HTH San Mateo will draw upon the diversity of 

the surrounding county, including economically disadvantaged students, while 




project-based learning. 


HTHL has engaged in extensive community engagement in the San Mateo 

County region, hosting events at schools and various civic organizations and 

creating opportunities for local representatives to learn more about HTHL at our 

flagship school in San Diego. Discussions to date have centered on how HTHL 

may develop a unique thematic focus for the school which will distinguish it from 

HTH Bayshore, allow the school to capitalize upon local resources in San Mateo 

County and create a strong basis for engaging local students in project-based 

learning. Other discussions have focused on where best to locate the school so 

that the school may best serve a student body that is representative of the 

diversity of San Mateo County. HTHL will also assist in the development of a 

“Friends of HTH San Mateo” advisory panel, which will assist in planning for the 

new site. 




Attachment 2 


In addition, many CEO-level business leaders from Silicon Valley and the greater 

Bay Area have been invited to a round table discussion to be hosted by Tim 

Draper where leaders may share their ideas for how the local business 

community may catalyze the development of innovative high schools that 

graduate students better prepared to meet the needs of employers in California’s 

technology-driven economy. It is expected that part of this discussion will center 

on generating input about what may be an appropriate thematic focus and 

specific geographic location with the county for the site. 

As HTHL’s plans for HTH San Mateo mature, HTHL will begin hosting community 

events at schools and various civic organizations. HTHL will also assist in the 

development of a “Friends of HTH San Mateo” advisory group to assist in 

planning for the new school. HTHL will incorporate the school as a legal 

subsidiary of HTHL and will apply for 501c3 nonprofit status from the I.R.S. 




website; and 



instruction. 




HTHL is working with our local partners to determine the optimal location for HTH 

San Mateo. One option currently being considered is attempting to locate the 

site in very close proximity to HTH Bayshore where a “village” of HTH schools 

could be established much like “HTH Village” in San Diego. A benefit to this 

approach would be that the site would certainly be located in an area eligible for 

New Markets Tax Credits, affording the site strong prospects for recruiting a 

diverse student body. A concern would be determining whether sufficient 

demand exists to support two sites in the same location within San Mateo 

County. HTHL is also considering other areas within San Mateo County. HTHL 

will attempt to locate the site within an area eligible for New Markets Tax Credits. 



HIGH TECH HIGH FINANCE 


Attachment 2 


Location 

San Diego, California, located within San Diego County and within the San Diego 

Unified School District. 

Timeline 

High Tech High Finance will open in September 2008 or 2009 serving 




As demand for High Tech High schools in San Diego continues to outpace the 

number of slots available for students, we have sought to add new schools in the 

San Diego area. HTHL has long had a group of supporters who have 

encouraged HTHL to establish a school that would have a focus on finance and 

entrepreneurship. These supporters have met with HTHL on several occasions 

and are working within the business community to develop additional support for 

the establishment of HTH Finance, a site most likely to be located within 

Downtown San Diego where the site’s students would enjoy close proximity to 

San Diego’s financial center. 

Like other High Tech High sites, HTH Finance will draw upon the diversity of San 

Diego County, including economically disadvantaged students, while maintaining 

high performance standards for all students. The site will remain true to the High 

Tech High design principles of personalization, common intellectual mission, and 

adult-world connection, and students will engage in project-based learning with a 

main emphasis on finance and entrepreneurship as the platform for integrated 

curriculum across the disciplines. 


HTH Finance will engage in extensive community engagement in the San Diego 

region hosting events at schools and various civic organizations. HTHL will also 

assist in the development of a “Friends of HTH Finance” advisory panel, which 

will assist in planning for the new site. HTHL will incorporate the school as a 

subsidiary of HTHL and will apply for 501c3 nonprofit status from the I.R.S. 




website; and 



instruction. 




Attachment 2 





HTHL is working with our local partners to determine the optimal location for HTH 

Finance. One option currently being considered is attempting to locate the site in 

close proximity to San Diego’s financial center in Downtown San Diego. A 

limited number of parcels within Downtown San Diego are eligible for New 

Markets Tax Credits, but high real estate costs in Downtown may require that the 

school either lease facilities or locate outside of Downtown. If an affordable 

facility is secured in Downtown San Diego for HTH Finance, HTHL is confident 

good public transportation options will enable the site to serve a diverse student 

body. 



HIGH TECH HIGH SAN JOSE 


Attachment 2 


Location 

San Jose, California, located within either Santa Clara County and within either 

the San Jose Unified School District or Eastside Union High School District 

Timeline 

High Tech High San Jose will open in September 2008 or 2009 serving 




As the reputation of High Tech High schools continues to strengthen, HTHL finds 

that many school developers and local leaders in different areas of the state are 

requesting that HTHL open schools in their communities. A high number of 

requests for HTHL services have come from various stakeholder groups within 

San Jose. 

Whenever HTHL enters a new region, our preference is to open a pod of tightly 

situated sites so that staff may share expertise and support one another. Given 

that HTHL is committed to opening HTH Bayshore in Redwood City, and given 

that HTHL is committed to serving integrated student bodies, it is only natural 

that HTHL would be interested in opening a site in San Jose. Once HTH 

Bayshore has grown to full enrollment and may, like our signature school in San 

Diego, support the development of additional schools in the region, HTHL intends 

to open a site in San Jose. 

Like other High Tech High sites, HTH San Jose will draw upon the diversity of the 

greater region, including economically disadvantaged students, while maintaining 

high performance standards for all students. The site will remain true to the High 

Tech High design principles of personalization, common intellectual mission, and 

adult-world connection, and students will engage in project-based learning. 


HTHL will engage in extensive community engagement in the San Jose region 

regarding the development of HTH San Jose. Events will include hosting events 

at schools and various civic organizations in the area and creating opportunities 

for local representatives to learn more about our programs by visiting our schools 

in San Mateo County and San Diego. HTHL will also assist in the development 

of a “Friends of HTH San Jose” advisory panel, which will assist in planning for 

the new site. HTHL will incorporate the school as a subsidiary of HTHL and will 

apply for 501c3 nonprofit status from the I.R.S. 





Attachment 2 




website; and 



instruction. 




HTHL will work with the “Friends of HTH San Jose” to identify a suitable location 

for HTH San Jose. Given the preponderance of low income areas in San Jose, 

HTHL is optimistic that it will ultimately be able to locate the site in an area 

eligible for New Markets Tax Credits. 



TECH HIGH HESPERIA II 


Attachment 2 


Location 

Hesperia, California, located within San Bernardino County and within the 

Hesperia Unified School District. 

Timeline 

High Tech High Hesperia will open in September 2006 or 2007 serving 250 

students in grades 9 and 10. It will grow to serve approximately 450-470 

students in grades 9-12 by its third year of operations. 


As HTHL has developed a positive relationship with the Desert/Mountain SELPA, 

requests from SELPA partners to HTHL to establish schools within the 

geographic borders of the SELPA have grown. Some of the strongest support 

has come from the Hesperia community where a rapidly growing student 

enrollment has coupled with a history of local high schools failing to place a high 

percentage of graduates in colleges and universities to create a serious problem 

in secondary education in the area. 

Like other High Tech High sites, HTH Hesperia will seek to draw upon the 

growing diversity of the surrounding county, including economically 

disadvantaged students, while maintaining high performance standards for all 

students. The site will remain true to the High Tech High design principles of 

personalization, common intellectual mission, and adult-world connection, and 

students will engage in project-based learning. 


HTHL has already begun the process of engaging the Hesperia community by 




for the school which will enable it to engage students in manner that will increase 

the percentage of area students who complete A-G requirements. The 

percentage of current Hesperia Unified School District students that complete A- 

G Requirements is an alarmingly low 24.9%. 

In the near future we plan to begin hosting community events at schools and 


of HTH Hesperia” advisory group to assist in planning for the new school. The 

site will incorporate as a subsidiary of HTHL in the coming months and will apply 

to receive 501c3 nonprofit status from the I.R.S. 

Per state guidelines, High Tech High: 




Attachment 2 


� Will hold a minimum of one publicly noticed meeting for this school with a 


website; and 

� Will inform the local school district and county superintendents of the 

location of the proposed school at least 120 days prior to the 

commencement of instruction. 




HTHL currently holds an option on property in Hesperia for development of HTH 

Hesperia II. The property is adjacent to the parcel that may be used for the 

original HTH Hesperia, allowing potentially for the establishment of a “village” of 

schools in Hesperia. Staff are now engaged in discussions with the City of 

Hesperia to determine the feasibility of locating the site on the controlled 

property. City staff are also assisting HTHL to generate a list of possible 

alternative sites, with an emphasis on finding sites that are eligible for New 

Markets Tax Credits. 



HIGH TECH HIGH ESCONDIDO II 


Attachment 2 


Location 

Escondido, California, located within San Diego County and within the Escondido 

High School District. 

Timeline 

High Tech High Escondido will open in September 2009 or 2010 serving 








has been the possibility of opening sites within the North County area, where the 

sites would have close proximity to a growing percentage of Latino students. 

Recently, HTHL was approached by a group of local parents and business 

leaders who wanted to assist in the development of a HTH site to be established 

in Escondido. This group established “Friends of HTH Escondido,” an advisory 

panel supporting development of the site that been instrumental in assisting 

HTHL to develop local relationships in the Escondido area. The City of 

Escondido has been supportive of HTHL’s effort to start a school in the 

community and has provided a list of potential properties that would qualify for 

New Markets Tax Credits. In addition to establishing a relationship with the San 

Diego Wild Animal Park, The Friends of HTH Esondido have brokered key 

relationships and potential partnership that would allow for the establishment of a 

site near the downtown area in Escondido. 

Like other High Tech High sites, HTH Escondido will draw upon the diversity of 





project-based learning with a possible emphasis on life sciences as the platform 

for integrated curriculum across the disciplines. 


HTHL has already begun the process of engaging the Escondido community by 

hosting and attending meetings in the area and creating opportunities for local 






Attachment 2 


for the site which would capitalize upon the local community resources available 

within downtown Escondido. 

HTHL has also assisted in the development of the “Friends of HTH Escondido” 

advisory group to assist in planning for the new school. HTHL will apply on 

behalf of HTH Escondido to receive 501c3 nonprofit status from the I.R.S. 




website; and 



instruction. 




HTHL is still working to find a suitable site for HTH Escondido. The City of 

Escondido has provided a list of available sites and HTHL has given priority to 

those sites that qualify for New Markets Tax Credits. 



HIGH TECH HIGH EAST SAN DIEGO COUNTY 


Attachment 2 


Location 

San Diego, California, located within San Diego County and within the San Diego 

Unified School District. 

Timeline 

High Tech High East San Diego County will open in September 2009 or 2010 

serving approximately 250 students in grades 9 and 10. It will grow to serve 






sites in different areas within San Diego County. Over two years ago, HTHL was 

approached regarding the possibility of opening a school in East San Diego 

County. After many months of planning, the proposed location for the site was 

determined unexpectedly to not be available and plans for the East County site 

had to be tabled. While HTHL has not yet found a suitable alternative site for the 

East San Diego site, our organization stays committed to our local supporters 

and intends to open an East San Diego site as part of this HTHL Statewide 

Benefit Charter School. 

Like other High Tech High sites, HTH East County will draw upon the diversity of 





project-based learning with a preliminary emphasis on media and visual art as 

the platform for integrated curriculum across the disciplines. This thematic focus 

is subject to change pending further input from the local community. 


HTHL has engaged in extensive community engagement in the East San Diego 

County region. During that engagement, the site developed a preliminary focus 

on media arts. In the near future we plan to resume hosting community events at 

schools and various civic organizations to gather community input. We will also 

assist in the development of “Friends of HTH East San Diego County,” an 

advisory group to assist in planning for the new school. The site will incorporate 

as a subsidiary of HTHL and will apply to receive 501c3 nonprofit status from the 

I.R.S. 




Attachment 2 





website; and 



instruction. 




HTHL is in the early stages of identifying a suitable facility for HTH East San 

Diego County. It is a priority to find a site eligible for New Markets Tax Credits. 





cib-spald-sep05item02 ITEM # 33 

SUBJECT 



Second Regional Occupational Program within the San Joaquin 

County Office of Education: Action on Request for 

Establishment. 


Action 

Information 



Education (SBE) approve the request by the San Joaquin County Office of Education 

(SJCOE) to establish a second Regional Occupational Program (ROP) under the 

following conditions: 

1. The SJCOE shall give first priority to high-school-aged students to enroll in ROP 

courses, as demonstrated by adult enrollment limited to no more than ten percent 

of the ROP’s total base apportionment. [Education Code (EC) Section 52300] 

2. The proposed second SJCOE ROP will serve students from multiple schools and 

districts. [EC 52300] 

3. The school to be served by the second SJCOE ROP must be organized as a 

charter school. 

4. The charter school must be located in high-poverty, low-achieving areas where 

there is a strong need for high quality career technical education (CTE). These 

are areas in which there are high numbers of Program Improvement schools or 

High Priority Schools Grant Program schools. Targeted student population must 

be at-risk, low socio-economic status, low-performing student populations, or 

referred by the courts, juvenile probation, or social service agency (Welfare and 

Institutions Code sections 601, 602, 654, or 300) or on parole. 

5. The proposed second SJCOE ROP will use the necessary small ROP funding 

formula to operate occupational training programs. [EC 52324.6] 

6. The proposed second SJCOE ROP must provide high quality, rigorous CTE 

programs with written articulation agreements with postsecondary educational 

institutions, and establish career pathway programs and career ladders leading 

to advanced training or direct entry into the labor market. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:21 PM

RECOMMENDATION (cont.) 



7. The proposed second SJCOE ROP will operate as a conditional program for two 

years and shall meet all of the conditions for ROPs as contained in pertinent 

provisions of the EC and Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). A 

report must be submitted to the SBE and the State Superintendent of Public 

Instruction no later than two years after the second ROP opens for instruction. 

The report is to demonstrate skill attainment through a portable occupational 

certification and show student academic achievement through results on the 

Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program, California High School 

Exit Examination (CAHSEE) passage, other indicators of academic success, 

decreased dropout rate, matriculation into programs at community colleges, 

receipt of a high school diploma or equivalent certificate, etc. If the second ROP 

is in full compliance with the EC and CCR, Title 5, and demonstrates skill 

attainment and academic progress for students, then full consent of the SBE will 

be granted. [EC 52300] 

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION AND 

The SBE has not previously acted upon a request of this nature. 


EC Section 52301(a) authorizes, with the consent of the SBE, a county office of 

education (COE) to establish and maintain at least one ROP to provide education and 

training in career technical courses. 

Currently, there are 74 ROPs in California. Nearly all COEs in California operate a 

single, countywide ROP. Two COEs are organized for administrative purposes into 

“north” and “south” arrangements, but each is technically a single ROP. They are Santa 

Barbara County North and Santa Barbara County South and Santa Clara County North 

and Santa Clara County South. The north and south offices have separate 

administrative directors; but for accountability and fiscal purposes (such as for the 

federal Carl D. Perkins Act and for the state principal apportionment), each COE’s ROP 

is considered a single entity. 


ROPs are funded under Proposition 98 through the annual Budget Act Item 6110-105- 

0001. The 2005-06 appropriation is approximately $421 million. This is a fixed amount 

that is currently fully allocated to all ROPs based on a revenue limit unique to each ROP 

and a limit (cap) on the number of average daily attendance (a.d.a.) that can be funded 

in each ROP. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:21 PM

FISCAL ANALYSIS (cont.) 



Establishing a second ROP in the SJCOE will not require new state funds, because the 

funding appropriated in the annual budget act for apportionment to ROPs is capped. 

However, it will require a redistribution of the existing appropriation. 

The proposed conditions would fund a second ROP in the SJCOE using the Necessary 

Small ROP funding formula. The statutory provision authorizing necessary small ROPs 

is found in EC Section 52324.6. A necessary small ROP is one with 350 a.d.a. or less. 

The funding formula for a necessary small ROP is based upon the number of a.d.a. and 

the number of full-time equivalent teachers, as illustrated in Attachment 1. 

In fiscal year 2004-05 there are eight ROCPs (all county operated) that were funded 

under the necessary small school formula. These are Glenn County, Inyo County, 

Lassen County, Modoc County, Mono County, Plumas County, Sierra County, and 

Siskiyou County. 

The source of funding for these and all other ROCPs is the budget act appropriation. 

Under EC Section 52335.1, the first priority for the apportionment of funds appropriated 

for ROCPs is the necessary small ROCP formula, and second priority is the 

apportionment for ROCP revenue limits. Funding for the necessary small ROCP is 

calculated first by CDE before revenue limit calculations. Therefore, funding for 

necessary small ROCPs comes off the top of the annual appropriation. 

The effect of adding a second necessary small ROCP would be minimal in a fiscal year 

when the Legislature appropriates growth and COLA in the Budget Act for ROCP 

because the net amount needed to fund one additional necessary small ROCP is 

insignificant. In years when no additional funding for growth and COLA is provided by 

the Legislature, ROCP revenue limits could be in a deficit mode. 

Annually, a small number ROCPs typically do not generate sufficient a.d.a. to meet their 

allocated funding (cap). This occurs for a variety of reasons. In fiscal year 2003-04 there 

were seven ROCPs fitting this description. The remaining 67 ROCPs served a.d.a. that 

exceeded their cap. Funding unused by ROCPs that did not meet cap is redistributed 

through the CDE principal apportionment to ROCPs exceeding their caps. This is a 

permanent reallocation of funding to ROCPs in areas of high student growth thereby 

fully utilizing all available funds for the ROCP program. 

The SJCOE estimates that there could be up to 90 a.d.a. for the second ROP. From the 

attached funding chart, the necessary small ROP formula would allocate $49,839 to the 

SJCOE provided they employ a full-time equivalent of 0.83 teachers. 

Adoption of the proposed conditions would not result in additional state operations costs 

to the CDE. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:21 PM

ATTACHMENT(S) 



Attachment 1: The third page of California Department of Education Form R.1, reflecting 

the Small High School Service Allocation (1 Page) 

Attachment 2: Letter to Ruth E. Green, President, State Board of Education, from 

Fredrick A. Wentworth, San Joaquin County Superintendent of Schools, 

dated August 1, 2005 (4 pages) (This attachment is not available for Web 

viewing. A printed copy is available for viewing in the State Board of 

Education office.) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:21 PM


Attachment 1 


CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Page 3 of 3 

School Fiscal Services Division 

Form R.1 (Rev. 10/04) 

2004-05 [_] P-1 [_] P-2 [_] AN 

County ROC/P Name 

L. Small High School Service Allocation School #1 School #2 Total 

SFSD/PAU 

1. Name of small high school for 2004-05 

(School in Grades 9-12 with 350 or less 

ADA)……………………………………………….. 

2. 2004-05 ADA for grades 9-12 in the 

small high school…………………………………. 

3. 2003-04 concurrently enrolled annual 

ROC/P ADA in the small high school…………... 

4. 2004-05 concurrently enrolled ROC/P ADA 

in the small high school………………………….. 

5. 2004-05 Full-time equivalent certified 

ROC/P employees in small high school………... 

6. Full-time equivalent certificated ROC/P 

employees require for full funding*……………... 

7. Employee proration (If Line 5 equals or 

exceeds Line 6, enter 1, otherwise divide 

Line 5 by Line 6) (Calculate to 4 decimals)…… 

8. Small high school service allocation for 

ADA on Line L-2**………………………………… 

9. Prorated small high school service 

allocation (Line 7 time Line 8) (Round to 

a whole number)………………………………….. 

Service Allocation Schedule 

ADA 

* Required 

** Service 

Grades 9-12 FTE 

Allocation 

0-50 0.50 $30,022 

51-100 0.83 49,837 

101-150 1.00 60,044 

151-200 1.17 70,251 

201-250 1.33 79,859 

251-300 1.50 90,066 

301-350 1.67 100,273 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:21 PM


SBE-006 Federal (REV 07/21/04) ITEM #WC-1 

Federal Waiver 

SUBJECT 



Request by Templeton Unified School District for a waiver of 

Section 131(d)(1) of the Carl D, Perkins Vocational and Technical 

Education Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-332) 



Approval Approval with conditions Denial 

Action 

Consent 


The State Board of Education (SBE) adopted guidelines in February 2001 to assist 

California Department of Education (CDE) staff in reviewing this type of waiver (Waiver 

Policy #2001-02). The SBE has approved a number of these waivers over the years. 


Section 131(d)(1) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 

1998 (Public Law 105-332)) requires local educational agencies (LEAs) that have 

allocations of less than $15,000 to enter into a consortium with other LEAs for the 

purpose of meeting the $15,000 minimum grant requirement. However, Section 

132(d)(2) of the Act permits states to waive the consortium agreement in any case in 

which the LEA is: 

• In a rural, sparsely populated area, or is a public charter school operating 

secondary vocational and technical education programs; and 

• Demonstrates it is unable to enter into a consortium to participate in the Perkins 

funding. 

CDE staff contacted the Templeton Unified School District and verified that the LEA 

received its first consortium waiver in the 1991-92 program year, and that the LEA 

continues to meet the waiver criteria. The LEA requests a renewal of the consortium 

waiver in order to receive its allocated funds for the 2005-06 program year. 

Authority for Waiver: Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 

1998, Section 131(d)(2) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:23 PM

Period of request: July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006 

Local board approval date(s): May 12, 2005 

Templeton Unified School District 



Approval will enable the Templeton Unified School District to receive its Perkins funds 

for the 2005-06 program year (estimated to be $14,668) without having to participate in 

a consortium. The waiver has no significant effect on the distribution of Perkins funds 

statewide. 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

Consent Item: Backup materials, waiver request forms, and supporting documents are 

not available for Web viewing but are available for inspection in the Waiver Office. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:23 PM


SBE-004 General (REV 07/21/04) ITEM #WC-2 

General Waiver 

SUBJECT 



Request by Nevada County Office of Education to waive California 

Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 5, Section 11960 to allow the 

charter school attendance to be calculated as if it were a "regular" 

multi-track school for Muir Charter School. 




Action 

Consent 

That: 1) The charter school will not operate more than five tracks; 2) Each track will 

operate a minimum of 175 days; 3) For each track, the charter school will offer a 

minimum of 64,800 annual instructional minutes as specified by Education Code (EC) 

Section 4620(a)(3); 4) No track will have fewer than 55 percent of its school days prior 

to April 15; and 5) average daily attendance (ADA) will be calculated separately for each 

track by the method set forth in (CCR), Title 5, Section 11960, and then the resulting 

figures will be totaled; 6) EC 33051(c) will apply. 


At its July 2000 meeting, the State Board of Education (SBE) approved the Charter 

School Average Daily Attendance Waiver Policy (#2000-05) that applies to this waiver 

request. Many multi-track calendar waivers for charter schools have been approved by 

the SBE in the past five years. 


California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 5, Section 11960 defines regular average 

daily attendance (ADA) in a charter school, and establishes the calculation for 

determining ADA. The calculation divides the total number of pupil-days attended by the 

total number of days school was actually taught. This section also requires a 

proportional reduction in a charter school's funding for each day less than 175 if the 

school operates fewer than 175 days in any fiscal year. Specifically, the section states: 

(a) As used in EC Section 47612, "attendance" means the attendance of 

charter school pupils while engaged in educational activities required of 

them by their charter schools, on days when school is actually taught in 

their charter schools. "Regular average daily attendance" shall be 

computed by dividing a charter school's total number of pupil-days of 

attendance by the number of calendar days on which school was actually 

taught in the charter school. For purposes of determining a charter 

school's total number of pupil-days of attendance, no pupil may generate 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:23 PM

Nevada County Office of Education 


more than one day of attendance in a calendar day. 

(b) The State Superintendent of Public Instruction shall proportionately 

reduce the amount of funding that would otherwise have been apportioned 

to a charter school on the basis of average daily attendance for a fiscal 

year, if school was actually taught in the charter school on fewer than 175 

calendar days during that fiscal year. 

A multi-track calendar waiver is typically requested by charter schools that operate on a 

multi-track, year-round education calendar so that they can claim the full ADA. In a 

multi-track calendar, the total number of days that school is taught may actually exceed 

200 days. However, each track of students is only provided instruction for the number of 

days in a given track, typically 175 days. Therefore, a waiver is necessary for a multitrack 

charter school to separately calculate ADA in each track, rather than for the school 

as a whole. 

To better accommodate the educational needs of Muir Charter School pupils, the 

educational program is best served by offering multiple tracks. Their five proposed 

instructional tracks will meet the variety of programs and work schedules required by 

Muir Charter School students, all of whom are enrolled in the California Conservation 

Corps, Local Conservation Corps, YouthBuild, or Job Corps programs in 32 sites 

throughout the state. 

The department recommends approval of this waiver with the stated conditions. 

Authority for Waiver: Education Code (EC) Section 33050 

Period of request: July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2007 

Local board approval date(s): July 13, 2005 

Public hearing held on date(s): July 13, 2005 

Bargaining unit(s) consulted on date(s): N/A 

Name of bargaining unit/representative(s) consulted: N/A 

Position of bargaining unit(s) (choose only one): N/A 

Neutral Support Oppose 

Comments (if appropriate): 

Public hearing advertised by (choose one or more): 

posting in a newspaper posting at each school other (specify) 

Advisory committee(s) consulted: Muir Charter School Calendar 

Subcommittee/Solutions Team 

Objections raised (choose one): None Objections are as follows: 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:23 PM

Date(s) consulted: June 28, 2005 

Nevada County Office of Education 



This waiver request will not greatly impact either state or local finances. 


Consent Item: Backup materials, waiver request forms and supporting documents are 

not available for web viewing but are available for inspection in the Waiver Office. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:23 PM


SBE-005 Specific (REV 07/21/04) ITEM # #WC-3 

Specific Waiver 

SUBJECT 



Requested by San Francisco Unified School District to waiver 

Education Code (EC) Section 56362(c); allowing the caseload of the 

resource specialist to exceed the maximum caseload of 28 students 

by no more than four students (32 maximum). Julian Kim assigned 

at Marshall and Fairmount Elementary Schools. 


Action 

Consent 



That the district will provide additional instructional aide assistance at a minimum of five 

hours per day to the affected resource specialist who is over her caseload. 


Both EC 56101 and California Code of Regulation (CCR), Title 5, Section 3100, allow 

the State Board of Education to approve waivers of resource specialists to exceed the 

maximum caseload of 28 students by no more than four students. However, there are 

specific requirements in these regulations, which must be met for approval, and if these 

requirements are not met, the waiver must be denied. 

A Resource Specialist is a credentialed teacher who provides instruction and services to 

children with individualized education programs that are with regular education teachers 

for the majority of the school day. Resource Specialists coordinate special education 

services with the regular school programs for their students. Statute limits caseload for 

resource specialists to no more than 28 pupils unless the State Board of Education 

grants a waiver. 


CCR, Title 5, Section 3100 states: an affected resource specialist will have the 

assistance of an instructional aide at least five hours daily whenever that resource 

specialist’s caseload exceeds the statutory minimum during the waiver’s effective 

period. Julian Kim, Resource Specialist, will have an increase in her caseload from 28 

students to 32 students. The district has agreed to provide her with five hours of aide 

time daily for the last five months of the 2004-05 school year.. 

California Department of Education staff confirmed that Julian Kim assigned at Marshall 

and Fairmount Elementary Schools in San Francisco Unified School District has agreed 

to the increase in her caseload. She will not have had a caseload exceeding 28 

students for twoo consecutive years. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:23 PM

San Francisco Unified School District 


The resource specialist bargaining unit participated in the waiver development and 

stated that they were in support. 

Authority for the Waiver: EC 56101, and CCR, Title 5, Section 3100 

Period of request: January 4, 2005 until June 10, 2005 

Local board approval date(s): SELPA approved March 7, 2005 

Bargaining unit(s) consulted on date(s): March 4, 2005 

Name of bargaining unit(s)/representative(s): Cynthia Lasden 

Position of bargaining unit(s) (choose only one): 

Neutral 


Support Oppose 


If this waiver is denied, the San Francisco Unified School District will need to employ 

additional qualified staff placing a financial hardship on the district. 


Consent Item: Backup materials, waiver request forms and supporting documents are 

not available for web viewing but are available for inspection in the Waiver Office. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:23 PM


SBE-006 Federal (REV 07/21/04) ITEM #WC-4 

Federal Waiver 

SUBJECT 



Request by Ventura Unified School District to waive No Child Left 

Behind Act (NCLB); Title IV, Part A, Section 4115 (a)(1)(c) to use Safe 

and Drug Free Schools and Communities funds to support the cost of 

The Great Body Shop, a Comprehensive Health, Substance Abuse, 

Violence Prevention Program pre-school through eighth grade. 


Action 

Consent 



Ventura Unified School District must submit a report to the Safe and Healthy Kids Program 

Office (SHKPO) no later than September 30, 2006, that describes its progress in evaluating 

the use of The Great Body Shop program within the District. In addition, the District must 

submit a report to the SHKPO no later than September 30, 2007, that describes the 

progress made by Southern Illinois University, Carbondale (SIUC) in submitting the results 

of the SIUC evaluation of The Great Body Shop program to (1) the National Registry of 

Effective Programs, (2) the University of Colorado’s Center for the Study and Prevention of 

Violence, or (3) the California Healthy Kids Resource Center, for possible designation as a 

Model, Blueprint, or Validated Program. The District must be willing to take part in a formal 

evaluation, if requested. The District must also implement and evaluate its own 

comprehensive prevention program in accordance with the District’s approved Local 

Educational Agency Plan. 


State Board Policy 03-01 contains guidelines for approval of applications for waiver of the 

NCLB requirements that Title IV funds be used for “science-based” prevention programs. 

The State Board has previously approved a waiver of the Great Body Shop program for use 

by Chino Valley Unified School District (Fed-09-2003), Eastside Union School District (Fed- 

11-2004), Sierra Sands Unified School District (Fed-13-2004), and Southern Kern School 

District (Fed-3-2005). 


This application requests a waiver so that the local educational agency (LEA) may use 

the “promising” prevention program The Great Body Shop rather than a “science-based” 

prevention program as required by Title IV of NCLB. In accordance with State Board 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:23 PM

Ventura Unified School District 


Policy 03-01, there are three conditions that must be satisfied before approving the use 

of a “promising” prevention program rather than a program established as a “sciencebased” 

prevention program: 

1. Is the program innovative? 

2. Does the program demonstrate substantial likelihood of success? 

3. Is there a plan and timeline for submitting the program for review and 

recognition? 

The two conditions for innovation and substantial likelihood of success are satisfied 

because the program has been designated as “promising” by the Center for Substance 

Abuse Prevention. State Board Policy 03-01 lists the Center as one of the nationwide 

research groups that may recognize a new program as “science-based.” 

The third condition requires that the evaluation of the program be reviewed by one of the 

nationwide research groups identified in State Board Policy 03-01. The waiver request 

meets this criterion because the producer of the program, Children’s Health Market, is 

currently participating in a study conducted by Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 

The LEA’s waiver request states that Children’s Health Market will submit the completed 

study and evaluation to the California Healthy Kids Resource Center, Blueprints of the 

University of Colorado, and the What’s Working Clearinghouse to be considered as a 

research-validated program. The LEA has committed to participating in the data 

collection process for that study if requested. Following through on this commitment to 

evaluation is therefore a condition for approval of the waiver. 

The CDE recommends that this waiver request be approved as it meets each of the 

three criteria identified in State Board Policy 03-01. 

Authority for Waiver: NCLB, Title IV, Part A, Section 4115(a)(3) 

Period of request: September 2005 - September 2007 

Local board approval date(s): 6-28-05 


Waiver approval will allow the district to use Title IV, Safe and Drug Free Schools and 

Communities funds for this program. This is a programmatic change so there is no fiscal 

impact. 


Consent Item: Backup materials, waiver request forms, and supporting documents are not 

available for Web viewing but are available for inspection in the Waiver Office.


SBE-004 General (REV 07/21/04) ITEM #W-1 


SUBJECT 



Request by West Fresno Elementary School District to waive 

portions of Education Code (EC) Section 5091, which will allow the 

district’s state administrator to make a provisional appointment to a 

vacant board position past the 60 day statutory deadline. 


Action 

Consent 



That the appointment be made after September 8, 2005 and before July 1, 2006 


The State Board of Education previously has approved similar waiver requests. The two 

most recent involved Compton Unified School District (Los Angeles County) in February 

2003 and Klamath Trinity Joint Unified School District (Humboldt County) in June 2005. 


The West Fresno Elementary School District (WFESD), in Fresno County, requests that 

the SBE waive the limit of 60 days that Education Code Section 5091 gives a governing 

board to make a provisional appointment or order an election to fill a vacancy on the 

board. Specifically, Education Code Section 5091 provides that, within 60 days of the 

vacancy, a school district governing board must make a provisional appointment or 

order an election to fill the vacancy. If the board fails to take action within 60 days, 

Education Code Section 5091 requires the county superintendent of schools to order an 

election to fill the vacancy. 

The WFESD currently is governed by a state administrator as a result of an emergency 

loan provided by the state to the district in December 2003. Pursuant to the statutes 

governing emergency loans, the governing board of a district that receives an 

emergency loan functions in an advisory capacity to the state administrator. During the 

period of state administration, the state administrator seeks input on a regular basis 

from advisory board members and ensures that they receive training in their roles and 

responsibilities as governing board members in preparation of the district’s return to 

local control. 

The WFESD has a five-member board. A member of the board resigned in December 

2004. The state administrator did not make an appointment within the 60-day time 

period. The Fresno County Superintendent of Schools has not ordered an election to fill 

the vacancy and supports this waiver to allow the state administrator to make the 

appointment. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:21 PM

West Fresno Elementary School District 


If the waiver were not granted, the Fresno County Superintendent of Schools would be 

required to call an election to fill the vacancy. According to the Fresno County Clerk’s 

Office, the approximate cost of conducting a special election would be $8,000 to 

$10,000. According to statutory timelines, it is too late to have this issue addressed in 

the currently scheduled fall 2005 special election; and additional election would be 

required. 

Whether filled by special election or by appointment (if the waiver is approved), the 

provisional appointee would serve on the board only until November 2006, when the 

next regularly scheduled governing board election is to be held. Thus, approval of the 

waiver will save the cost of a special election, not affect any future regularly scheduled 

governing board election, and will permit the district to immediately regain a board 

member from which to draw input and build governing capacity. 

Education Code Section 5093 requires that such appointments not be made in the last 

four months before the next regular election, so the department recommends approval 

of this waiver on the condition that the appointment is made after September 8, 2005 

and before July 1, 2006. 


Period of request: 09/08/05 to 07/01/06 

Local board approval date(s): 06/30/05 

Public hearing held on date(s): 06/30/05 

Bargaining unit(s) consulted on date(s): 6/13/05 

Name of bargaining unit/representative(s) consulted: Gladys Deniz, CTA; Louise 

Robinson, CSEA 





posting in a newspaper posting at each school other (specify) Three 

public places 

Advisory committee(s) consulted: School Site Council 



Revised: 1/19/2012 1:21 PM

West Fresno Elementary School District 



Approval of a waiver that extends the timeline for a governing board to make a 

provisional appointment would result in a cost saving of approximately $8,000 to 

$10,000. 


Action Item: Some documentation is available for Web viewing. Waiver forms and other 

hard copy documents are available for viewing at the Waiver Office or State Board 

Office. 

Attachments: 

• General Waiver request (4 pages) 

• Support letter from Louise Robinson, CSEA President (1 page) 

• Support letter from Gladys Deniz, CTA President (1 page) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:21 PM




SUBJECT 



Request by the Newark Unified School District for a waiver of 

portions of Education Code (EC) Section 48661(a) relating to the 

placement of a community day school (CDS), New Beginnings 

Academy, on the same site (the former MacGregor Junior High 

School facility) as a continuation high school (Bridgepoint) and an 

adult school. 




Action 

Consent 


The State Board of Education (SBE) has approved several similar requests to allow the 

colocation of a community day school (CDS) with a continuation high school when the 

CDS could not be located separately and the district has been able to ensure 

appropriate separation of students between the two schools. 


The Newark Unified School District requests a waiver of Education Code (EC) Section 

48661(a) which states that a CDS shall not be situated on the same site as a 

continuation high school. 

The district intends to locate New Beginnings Academy, a CDS, on the same large 

site (the former MacGregor Junior High School facility) as a continuation high school 

(Bridgepoint) and an adult school. The district conducted an extensive search of 

facilities owned by the district and in the community. The district has certified that no 

appropriate separate facilities are available. Severe fund restrictions made it 

necessary to move the CDS from its previous separate site. The MacGregor site 

was selected to provide the greatest possible separation from other traditional 

school classrooms and students. New Beginnings Academy will not be located on 

the same site as an elementary, middle, or comprehensive high school. 

New Beginnings Academy and the continuation high school will be separated from 

each other by a series of physical barriers (fences and “no student” zones). Arrival 

and departure are at separate times and locations to prevent intermingling of 

students. There are also different bell schedules and lunch periods. Each school has 

its own restrooms. Public Safety Officers assigned to each school will ensure that 

the schools’ respective students are separated at all times. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM

Newark Unified School District 


The district believes that the measures described above will provide a very high 

level of safety. The local board voted unanimously in support of the waiver request. 

The Site Councils and bargaining units representing students, parents, teachers, 

and administrators were consulted and either voiced support or had no objections. 

While the district believes that the measures described above would provide a very high 

level of safety, the district initially is requesting, and the CDE recommends, approval of 

the waiver for only one year to allow for re-evaluation before renewal is considered. 

Authority for Waiver: EC Section 33050 

Period of request: July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 

Local board approval date(s): June 21, 2005 

Public hearing held on date(s): June 21, 2005 

Bargaining unit(s) consulted on date(s): June 2 and 3, 2005 

Name of bargaining unit/representative(s) consulted: California School Employees 

Association (CSEA) – Ann Grundell, Newark Teachers Association (NTA) – Phyllis 

Grenier 






Also posted at district office, community center and public library 

Advisory committee(s) consulted: Progressive Academy & New Beginnings 

Academy School Advisory Committee, Alternative Education Committee 




Approval of this waiver would not have a fiscal impact on the state. Approval of the 

waiver would allow for more efficient local operations and, thus, the avoidance of costs 

that would otherwise be borne by the district. 



hard copy documents are available for viewing at the Waiver Office or SBE Office. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM

Attachments: 

• General Waiver Request (3 pages) 

• Community Day School Site map (1 page) 

Newark Unified School District 


Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM




SUBJECT 



Request by Rocklin Unified School District for a renewal to waive 

Education Code (EC) Section 37202, the equity length of time 

requirement, to allow Rock Creek Elementary School to operate 

grades 1-3 with longer instructional days than the rest of the district 

schools. 


Action 

Consent 



That the district maintains the 325 instructional minutes for grades 1-3 as identified in 

their waiver request. EC 33051(c) will apply so that the district is not required to reapply 

annually if the information contained on the request remains current. 


The State Board of Education (SBE) has approved similar requests for renewal waivers 

in the past. The first request by Rocklin Unified School District was approved July 8, 

2004 (132-4-2004-W-20). 


The Rocklin Unified School District is requesting a renewal of their waiver for the equity 

length of time requirement to allow them to continue operating longer instructional days 

at Rock Creek Elementary in grades 1-3. The district has been using the early-late 

program since 1975 and when Rock Creek Elementary opened in 2002, the district 

wanted to try a traditional year. A survey of the parents indicates that 98.6% are in 

favor of the traditional year, that is, all students start school at the same time and end 

school at the same time. This differs from the early-late program, where half of the 

students in a given class begin 30 minutes to an hour before the rest of the students 

and that half then is dismissed earlier than the students who started later. Rocklin 

Unified has ten elementary schools so the other nine schools are offering early-late in 

grades 1-3. 

The parent survey addressed other reasons for continuing the traditional year: one 

more hour daily of instructional time, larger amounts of time for science, social studies, 

computer training and physical education; increased flexibility to provide interventions, 

ability to group students according to their abilities for math and reading, fewer 

adjustments to the overall instructional time schedules for field trips. The increased 

instructional time has deemed to be a success by the administration, the parents and 

the teachers. 

Therefore, the department recommends approval of this waiver request as long as the 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM

Rocklin Unified School District 


district maintains the 325 instructional minutes for grades 1-3 as identified in their 

waiver request. EC 33051(c) will apply so that the district is not required to reapply 

annually if the information contained on the request remains current. 





Bargaining unit(s) consulted on date(s): June 1, 2005 

Name of bargaining unit/representative(s) consulted: Mary Dick, Rocklin 

Teacher/Parent Association 



Comments (if appropriate): Strongly support waiver 


posting in a newspaper posting at each school other (specify) website 

Advisory committee(s) consulted: Nine elementary schools 


Date(s) consulted: May 25, 2005 


The district will absorb any incurred costs. 


Action Item: Some documentation is available for web viewing. Waiver forms and other 


Office. 

Attachments: 


• 2004 Academic Performance Index (API) Base Report (2 pages) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM




SUBJECT 



Request by Rocklin Unified School District to waive Education 

Code (EC) Section 37202, the equity length of time requirement, to 

allow Ruhkala Elementary School to operate grades 1-3 with longer 

instructional days than the rest of the district (other schools are on 

early-late schedule). 


Action 

Consent 



For one year with the condition that the district submits an evaluation of the longer 

instructional days before a renewal is considered. 


The State Board of Education (SBE) has approved similar requests for waivers in the 

past. 


The Rocklin Unified School District is requesting a waiver for the equity length of time 

requirement to allow longer instructional days at the brand new Ruhkala Elementary in 

grades 1-3. The district has been using the early-late program since 1975 and when 

Rock Creek Elementary opened in 2002, the district wanted to try a traditional year. 

As part of the evaluation of the waiver request for Rock Creek Elementary, a survey of 

the parents indicates that 98.6% are in favor of the traditional year. That is, all students 

start school at the same time and end school at the same time. This differs from the 

early-late program, where half of the students in a class begin 30 minutes to an hour 

before the rest of the students and that half then is dismissed earlier in the day than the 

students who start later. Rocklin Unified has ten elementary schools so if this waiver 

request is approved, both Rock Creek and Ruhkala will offer longer instructional time 

while the other eight schools will continue offering the early-late schedule in grades 1-3. 

Ruhkala Elementary’s attendance area is splitting off from Rock Creek so the parents 

and students are familiar with the full day attendance and prefer it. The teachers are 

agreement as well. Therefore, the department recommends approval of this waiver 

request for one year with the condition that an evaluation is submitted before a renewal 

is considered. 



Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM




Rocklin Unified School District 


Name of bargaining unit/representative(s) consulted: Mary Dick, Rocklin Teachers 

Parent Association 





posting in a newspaper posting at each school other (specify) Web site 

Advisory committee(s) consulted: School Site Councils at all elementary schools in 

the district 




The district will absorb will incurred costs. 




Office. 

Attachments: 

• General Waiver request (2 pages) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM


SBE-005 Specific (REV 07/21/04) ITEM #W-5 


SUBJECT 



Request by Rio Linda Union School District under the authority of 

Education Code (EC) Section 60422(c) to waive the purchasing 

priority order established in EC Section 60422(b) to allow the district 

to purchase state-adopted health textbooks in 2005-06 with 

Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Program (IMFRP) 

monies before purchasing history-social science textbooks (Grades 

Kindergarten through sixth grade). 


Action 

Consent 



That the district provide additional materials and supports to teachers of history-social 

science as outlined in the standards map teacher guides and grade level “updates” 

(additional resources) as approved. 


This is the third request received by the State Board of Education (SBE) for a waiver of 

this particular EC section dealing with the priority order of purchase required for the 

expenditure of IMFRP funds. The first two requests were approved by the SBE at the 

May 2005 meeting. 


The Rio Linda Union School District is requesting a waiver of EC Section 60422(b) to 

allow the district to purchase new state-adopted health textbooks in 2005-06 with 

IMFRP monies before purchasing history-social science textbooks. A new state-adopted 

list for history-social science is expected to be recommended for approval to the SBE at 

the November 2005 meeting. At that point Rio Linda will first pilot, and then purchase 

new materials for the 2006-07 year. 

The IMFRP (EC sections 60420-60424) requires districts to certify that all students, 

have been provided with “a standards-aligned textbook or basic instructional materials” 

in the four core content areas of reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and 

history-social science before any funds can be spent on other instructional materials or 

the other items permitted under EC Section 60242(a). 

The district is using the Houghton Mifflin kindergarten through grade six history-social 

science program from the 1991 state adoption list. The district would like to continue 

using the older materials (with supplementation as below) until the 2005 history-social 

science primary adoption is completed, and purchase materials from the new list at that 

time. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM

Rio Linda Unified School District 


However, in order to ensure that each of the current history-social studies standards are 

being met, the district has prepared kindergarten through grade level displays of all the 

standards, linked to page numbers in the text for appropriate lessons. Where the current 

texts appear to be weak or missing the standard, additional resources have been 

researched, and provided to each teacher, along with a compendium of Web links that 

the teacher could use for additional resources on the topic. 

The local board has certified that the district does have sufficient standards aligned 

texts for all students as required by EC Section 60119 for the for core areas of Englishlanguage 

arts, mathematics, and science. The district also has “sufficient texts” in 

history-social studies, which they plan to supplement with additional materials to make 

the curriculum also “standards-aligned.” Staff of the California Department of Education 

(CDE) have reviewed the additional materials to be provided to teachers of historysocial 

science, i.e., teacher guides and materials, and agrees that the district now has 

sufficient standards aligned materials in all the grade levels, kindergarten through sixth 

grade. 

CDE therefore recommends approval of this waiver so that IMFRP monies from 2005- 

06 may be used to purchase new state-adopted textbooks in health, in order to replace 

the district’s current health textbooks that are over 12 years old. 

Authority for the Waiver: EC Section 60422(c) 

Period of request: July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2007. 



Name of bargaining unit(s)/representative(s): Judith Croce, President, Rio Linda 

Education Association 


Neutral 


Support Oppose 


If the waiver is approved, the district will be able to use IMFRP funds to replace health 

texts this year. 




Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM

Attachment: 

• Specific Waiver Request (4 pages) 

Rio Linda Unified School District 


Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM


SBE-007 Petition (REV 07/21/04) ITEM #W-6 

Petition Waiver 

SUBJECT 



Petition request under Education Code (EC) sections 60421(d) and 

60200(g) by El Segundo Unified School District to purchase 

Instructional Resources (Everyday Mathematics, Kindergarten 

through Grade Six) using Instructional Materials Funding 

Realignment Program (IMFRP) monies. 




Approval from July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2007. 

Action 

Consent 


Since 2001, four IMF petitions, 12 Schiff-Bustamante waiver requests, and 16 IMFRP 

petitions have been submitted to the State Board of Education (SBE) for the Everyday 

Mathematics program. Waivers for non-adopted mathematics programs were 

specifically addressed by the SBE’s Schiff-Bustamante Waiver Policy (#99-06), but no 

specific policies have been adopted regarding IMFRP petitions. Twenty-nine of the 32 

prior waiver/petition requests were approved by the SBE, most with the condition that 

districts supplement the Everyday Mathematics program to ensure that all mathematics 

content standards are met. Several recent IMFRP petitions for this program were 

denied on the basis of declines in Academic Performance Index (API) and/or California 

Standards Test (CST) scores. 

This is the district’s second request for a waiver/petition for Everyday Mathematics. The 

district applied for a Schiff-Bustamante waiver for this same program, and the waiver 

was granted by the SBE in July 2001. 


While no SBE policy currently exists for petitions under the IMFRP, language within the 

IMFRP in EC Section 60421(d) specifically authorizes the SBE to grant waivers for the 

purchase of nonadopted materials with IMFRP funds. 

Following earlier petition requests to purchase the Everyday Mathematics program 

using Instructional Materials Fund funds, the SBE asked a Curriculum Commissioner to 

review the 2002 edition of the Everyday Mathematics program for grades four through 

six. The Commissioner’s report found that there were numerous areas where the 

mathematics content standards were not met, particularly at the grade four level. 

Pursuant to this finding, the SBE acted to approve these petition request with the 

SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES (cont.) 

condition that the applying districts demonstrate supplemental coverage of these 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM

El Segundo Unified School District 


standards. The district submitted supplemental materials following the approval of its 

July 2001 Schiff-Bustamante waiver, which were reviewed and approved by CDE as 

meeting all of the standards not fully covered by the Everyday Mathematics 

program. 

The district’s API results are significantly above average. Its three elementary and 

middle schools all have API scores of greater than 800. The district has provided 

assessment data that indicate performance in mathematics well above the state 

average. The Mathematics CST results for the district have shown continuous 

improvement for grades two through six for each of the last three years, with its 2004 

scores for grade six indicating 70 percent of students at the Proficient or Advanced 

levels, compared to the statewide average of just 35 percent. 

Authority for Petition: EC sections 60421(d) and 60200(g) 

Period of request: July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2007. 






Annual estimated district expenditures for Everyday Mathematics, Kindergarten through 

Grade Six: $30,000. 

A price list provided by the district is attached to the supporting documentation for this 

petition. 




Attachments: 

• Petition Request (2 pages) 

• Addendum A--price list (3 pages) 

• Addendum B--narrative (1 page) 

• Addendum C--Math Content Standards Test (CST) Data (1 page) 

• API Data Summary (1 page) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM




SUBJECT 




60200(g) by Lake Tahoe Unified School District to purchase 

Instructional Resources (Everyday Mathematics, c. 2001, 

kindergarten through grade three, and c. 2002, grades four through 

six) using Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Program 

(IMFRP) monies. 


Action 

Consent 



That the district provide specific teacher training in mathematics to all teachers, grades 

kindergarten through grade six, for two full years, 2005-06 and 2006-07 as outlined in 

the waiver addendum. 


Since 2001, four IMF petitions, 12 Schiff-Bustamante waiver requests, and 15 

IMFRP petitions have been submitted to the State Board of Education (SBE) for the 

Everyday Mathematics program. Waivers for non-adopted mathematics programs 

were specifically addressed by the SBE’s Schiff-Bustamante Waiver Policy (#99-06), 

but no specific policies have been adopted regarding IMFRP petitions. Twenty-nine 

of the 31 prior waiver/petition requests were approved by the SBE (with another also 

being presented at the current SBE meeting), most with the condition that districts 

supplement the Everyday Mathematics program to ensure that all mathematics 

content standards are met. 

This is the district’s second request for a waiver/petition for Everyday Mathematics. 

The district submitted an earlier IMFRP petition for this same program, and it was 

approved by the SBE in February 2003. 


While no SBE policy currently exists for petitions under the IMFRP, language within 

the IMFRP in EC Section 60421(d) specifically authorizes the SBE to grant petitions 

for the purchase of non-adopted materials with IMFRP funds. 

This district’s six elementary schools have 2004 Academic Performance Index (API) 

rankings from the third through the eighth deciles; five of the six schools met their 

(API) growth targets for 2004. The district has provided assessment data that 

indicate performance in mathematics at about the state average, with up and down 

variations from year to year in different grades. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM

Lake Tahoe Unified School District 


The 2004 Mathematics California Standards Test (CST) results for the district 

showed performance in 2003-04 dropping below the 2002-03 levels in third and 

fourth grade. 

However, the 2005 CST results that were just released August 15, 2005 show that 

the third and fourth grades have made gains in the last year from 5 to 15 percent. 

Conversely the second and fifth grade (to a lesser extent) scores have now dropped 

in the same period of time. 

The district has now disaggregated the data by grade level and by mathematics subskill 

to better direct the instruction for the mathematics teachers. In addition they 

have developed an intervention plan for Everyday Mathematics for the 2005-06 and 

2006-07 school years. The first year will focus on the second grade curriculum. The 

second year will follow these students and place emphasis on the third grade 

curriculum. 

There will be a special training of four days in August for “Mathematics Teacher 

Leaders” from each school who will each be assigned to help groups of teachers. 

The district will also create seven release time days to train each of the mathematics 

teachers in the use of Edusoft, which will help them evaluate test scores, develop 

benchmark assessments, and improve instructional strategies. 

Second and third grade teachers will have 40 hours of training, while fourth and fifth 

grade teachers will have 20 hours. Next year the fourth and fifth teachers will get an 

additional 20 hours; kindergarten, first, and fifth grade teachers will also be given 20 

hours. The estimated cost for this training program in the district is $65,000. 

In addition, the class size reduction program has also been reinstated at Lake Tahoe 

Unified for grades one and two in the 2005-06 year. On the basis of this additional 

work and planning, CDE recommends approval of this petition to continue to 

purchase the Everyday Mathematics materials as requested. 


Period of request: July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2007 

Local board approval date(s): May 10, 2005 

Public hearing held on date(s): May 10, 2005 



District list-serve, e-mail, and Web site. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM

Lake Tahoe Unified School District 



Annual estimated district expenditures for the Everyday Mathematics program, 

kindergarten through grade six (consumables): $80,000 

District’s total 2004-05 IMFRP: $185,000 

Percentage of IMFRP included in this petition request: 43 percent 




Attachments: 

• Revised Intervention Plan for Lake Tahoe USD – August 12, 2005 (6 pages) 


• Appendix B – State Testing and API Data (15 pages) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM




SUBJECT 




60200(g) by Pleasant Ridge Union School District to purchase 

specified non adopted instructional materials (Houghton-Mifflin, 

Spelling and Vocabulary, Grades 7-8, 2000 edition) using 

Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Program (IMFRP) 

monies. 




Action 

Consent 


This is the district’s second request for a waiver/petition for this program. The district 

initially submitted a request for the July 2005 SBE meeting for an AB 2519 extension 

through a waiver of California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 9531(a)(3). That 

request was pulled at the district’s request, so they could resubmit it as the current 

IMFRP petition. 


While no SBE policy currently exists for petitions under the IMFRP, EC Section 

60421(d) specifically authorizes the SBE to grant waivers for the purchase of 

nonadopted materials with IMFRP funds. 

The district has stated that it uses McDougal Littell Language of Literature program, as 

the primary/basal program for 7 th and 8 th grade students to meet all standards. This 

material is from the current state adopted list in English/Language Arts. 

The Houghton Mifflin Spelling and Vocabulary program was adopted as a partial 

program in the AB 2519 adoption (in 1999). The program alone does not meet all of the 

English/language arts content standards for grades seven and eight, however it is only 

used as a supplemental resource material. 

The district’s API results are above average; its four elementary schools all have API 

scores of greater than 800. The district has experienced fluctuations, including small 

declines, in its API scores that it attributes to recent declines in enrollment. 

The district has provided assessment data that indicate performance in English/ 

language arts well above the state average. The additional materials are being used 

only at the Magnolia Intermediate School, and the request is only for a small amount of 

money. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM

Pleasant Ridge Union School District 


The latest from the California Standards Test (CST) and CAT/6 National Percentile 

shown on a Comparison chart with the state/county/district and the Magnolia 

Intermediate School. The percentage of students in the advanced and proficient 

categories are consistently higher than both the state and the county levels. 

The department recommends approval of this petition. 


Period of request: June 1, 2005, through June 30, 2008. 

Local board approval date(s): April 19, 2005 

Public hearing held on date(s): April 19, 2005 



District list-serve e-mail and district Web site. 


Annual estimated district expenditures for the Houghton Mifflin Spelling and Vocabulary 

program, grades 7-8 (annually): $8,428.19 

District’s total 2004-05 IMFRP: $112,406.00 

Percentage of IMFRP included in this petition request: 7.5% 




Attachments: 


• Academic Performance Index (API) (1 page) 

• County –District-School Comparisons (2 pages) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM




SUBJECT 


SEPTMEBER 2005 AGENDA 

Request by Sanger Unified School District to waive Education 

Code (EC) sections 44512(c) and 44515(b) regarding the timelines 

for twelve school administrators involved in the principal training 

program, established by Assembly Bill 75 (Statutes of 2001). 


Action 

Consent 



That the district reports to the department which administrators completed the training 

before a final payment to the district is released and that the district completes the 

training of the twelve listed principals by June 30, 2006. 


This is the first time that this type of waiver request will be presented to the State Board 

of Education (SBE). Assembly Bill 75 created the Principal Training Program and 

allocated funds for that purpose. Enacted in 2001, Assembly Bill 75 (AB 75) established 

the Principals Training Program to provide training for school administrators throughout 

the state. Each district that submits names of school administrators receives $3,000. 

Administrators under this program receive 160 hours of training and once the training is 

completed, the district receives the remaining balance. However, since AB 75 defined 

the timelines for completion of this training, several districts have not completed the 

required training and need a waiver to complete this program. 


Sanger Unified School District (USD) is requesting a waiver of the Principal Training 

Program, specifically the code sections 44512(c) and 44515(a) to extend the timeline to 

complete the initial 80 hours of training and to receive funds beyond the 2003-2004 

fiscal year for twelve administrators. The District’s 2004 Academic Performance Index 

(API) base report is attached. 

The California Department of Education (CDE) has approved a total of 21 administrative 

positions for Sanger USD for the Principal Training Program. The administrators are at 

different intervals in the training process and some of their administrators are near their 

two year time limit mandated by Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 44510) of 

Chapter 3 or Part 25 of Education Code which requires participants to complete their 

training within a two year time frame. Sanger USD is requesting an extension on this 

two year time limit. 

CDE is seeking legislative changes in the Principal Training Program so that the 

statutory timelines are more realistic. This would eliminate future waivers of this type 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM

Sanger Unified School District 


Therefore, the department recommends approval of this waiver request to extend the 

timeline of the Principal Training Program with the condition that the district reports to 

the department on which administrators completed the first 80 hours of training before a 

final payment to the district is released and that the district completes the training of the 

twelve listed principals by June 30, 2006. 






Name of bargaining unit/representative(s) consulted: Danette Blackwood, 

President, Sanger Unified Teachers Association 






Advisory committee(s) consulted: 10 schools so far 


Date(s) consulted: pending August and September school site council meetings 


If approved, this waiver request will allow Sanger Unified School District to complete the 

training for twelve more school administrators under the Principal Training Program (AB 

75) and receive $10,800 for the additional training. 




Office. 

Attachments: 


Revised: 1/19/2012 1:22 PM


SBE-005 Specific (REV 07/21/04) ITEM #W-10 


SUBJECT 



Request by Department of Developmental Services Special 

Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) to waive Education Code (EC) 

Section 56366.1(k)(1) and (2), the requirement for a nonpublic school 

to notify the County Superintendent of Schools and the SELPA no 

later than December 1 prior to the new fiscal year in which the 

nonpublic school (Altus Academy) proposes to initiate/expand 

services. 




Action 

Consent 


The State Board of Education (SBE) has previously approved similar waivers. 


One of the hospitals in the Department of Developmental Services, Metropolitan State 

Hospital (MSH) was providing educational services to their patients through a contact 

with Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE). With very little notice, LACOE 

decided to no longer provide services to these children past the close of the 2004-05 

fiscal year. MSH scrambled to find appropriate services for children for the coming 

school year. They have contracted with Altus Academy (previously operating as a non 

public agency) and Altus has now submitted an application for nonpublic school 

certification as needed to serve students living at the MSH. 

This decision was made so late in the year, that Altus had no chance to complete the 

notification by December 1, 2004, to the County Superintendent of Schools and the 

SELPA as required by EC Section 56366.1(k)(1) and (2). The California Department of 

Education (CDE) recommends that this waiver be approved. 

Authority for the Waiver: EC Section 56101 

Period of request: December 1, 2004, to November 30, 2005 

Local board approval date(s): July 12, 2005 

Bargaining unit(s) consulted on date(s): Not required for Special Education waiver. 

Name of bargaining unit(s)/representative(s): Not required for Special Education 

waiver. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:21 PM

Department of Developmental Services SELPA 


Position of bargaining unit(s) (choose only one): Not required for Special Education 

waiver. 




There will be no fiscal impact to the CDE if this waiver is approved. 




Attachment: 

• Specific Waiver Request (3 pages) 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:21 PM




SUBJECT 



Request by San Luis Coastal Unified School District to waive 

portions of Education Code (EC) Section 51222(a) related to the 

statutory minimum of 400 minutes of physical education required 

each ten days for grades nine through twelve in order to continue the 

trimester block schedule at San Luis Obispo High School. 


Action 

Consent 



This waiver meets four of the six criteria cited in State Board of Education (SBE) 

Policy 99-03, and the California Department of Education (CDE) recommends approval 

with the following conditions: 

• By December 1, 2005, the district meet criterion number two by describing a 

method by which it will monitor students’ maintenance of a personal exercise 

program during the weeks the student is not participating in a physical education 

course. The necessary evidence to demonstrate the implementation of the 

monitoring program will include complete information on the training provided to 

teachers and students, copies of completed student physical activity logs, criteria 

for monitoring and providing feedback to students, student participation rate data, 

and program evaluation information. 

• By March 15, 2006, the district meet criterion number five by developing and 

implementing physical education courses that provide each high school student 

with required course content in the following areas: (1) the effects of physical 

activity upon dynamic health; (2) mechanics of body movement; (3) aquatics; (4) 

gymnastics and tumbling; (5) individual and dual sports; (6) rhythms/dance; (7) 

team sports; and (8) combatives (may include self defense). The necessary 

evidence to demonstrate the physical education program is in compliance with the 

California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 5, Section 10060, will include course 

objectives, assessment strategies, units of instruction, and course outlines and 

schedules for all physical education courses. 

• Students receive physical education instruction a minimum of 18 weeks in 70-90 

minute daily periods during the regular school year. 

• The district provides evidence that alternative day scheduling for physical 

education rather than alternative term scheduling has been thoroughly investigated. 

Reasons why alternative day scheduling will not work are clearly explained. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:21 PM

San Luis Coastal Unified 


• The district provides information that shows the physical education program is 

aligned with the Physical Education Framework (provides a sequential, articulated, 

age-appropriate program). 

• All grade nine students are prepared for and participate in the physical 

performance testing program during the months of February, March, April, or May 

as specified in EC Section 60800. 

• EC Section 33051(c) will apply, and the waiver will continue in effect without the 

district having to reapply as long as the information in the request remains current. 


SBE Policy #99-03 establishes criteria for granting of waivers related to physical 

education instructional minutes for the purpose of implementing a block schedule. 

This waiver meets four of the six criteria and it is expected the district will complete the 

other two by early spring. 


Education Code (EC) Section 51222 establishes requirements for minimum instructional 

minutes of physical education, 400 minutes every ten school days for grades seven 

through twelve. 

San Luis Obispo High School was found to be out of compliance with Education Code 

Section 51222(a) during the Coordinated Compliance Review because the trimester 

schedule currently in use does not provide each student with physical education 

instruction for 400 minutes every ten school days during each of the three trimesters. 

The district has provided evidence that it meets four of the six criteria outlined in SBE 

Policy #99-03 for granting a waiver for block scheduling. 

The two unmet criteria can be successfully met with additional time for school staff to 

develop the physical activity monitoring program, and develop and design physical 

education courses that meet the course content requirements outlined in CCR, Title 5, 

Section 10060. 

The CDE recommends approval of this waiver with the conditions described above. 


Period of request: July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2007 



Bargaining unit(s) consulted on date(s): May 26, 2005 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:21 PM

Name of bargaining unit/representative(s) consulted: 

SLCTA – Tony Evans 

SEIU- Paul Reinhardt 

CSEA – Janet Crabb 

San Luis Coastal Unified 




Comments: The San Luis Coastal Teachers Association registered a neutral opinion on 

this waiver request and provided comments focused in four areas: 

(1) Support for the benefits of daily physical education instruction and the influence 

of daily instruction on student achievement on the California physical 

performance test; 

(2) Suggestion that the waiver period be used to study the impact of the trimester 

schedule on the number of elective courses student may take and should include 

additional examination of alternative schedules; 

(3) Recommendation that the waiver period be for a short period of time; and 

(4) Information regarding the lack of opportunity afforded the management team at 

San Luis Obispo High School to consult with their constituencies before voting on 

the waiver request. 



Public hearing information was posted on district bulletin board, personnel bulletin 

board, instructional services bulletin board. 

Advisory committee(s) consulted: San Luis Obispo High School Site Council 

Objections raised (choose one): None Objections are as follows: One 

individual objected to the waiver, citing that students do not receive physical education 

instruction for one trimester of each school year. 



Approval of this waiver will have no fiscal impact. 




Attachments: 


Revised: 1/19/2012 1:21 PM




SUBJECT 



Request by San Jose Unified School District for a waiver of the 

elementary Physical Education statute, Education Code (EC) Section 

51210(g) so that a portion of the lunch period for grades one through 

five may be used for physical education for Almaden Elementary 

School, which was designated as a School Assistance and 

Intervention Team (SAIT) School in November 2004. 




This waiver is recommended for approval with the following conditions: 

Action 

Consent 

1. By October 1, 2005, the district provides the California Department of Education 

(CDE) with a professional development plan for teachers providing physical 

education instruction at Almaden Elementary School. The professional 

development plan for teachers will include: content of the professional 

development program, qualifications of the provider, evaluation criteria, and 

potential resources. 

2. By October 1, 2005, the district provides the CDE with a professional 

development plan for instructional aides assisting with physical education 

instruction at Almaden Elementary School. The professional development plan 

for instructional aides will include: content specific to the duties of the 

instructional aide, instructional strategies and classroom management for 

physical education, information and qualifications of the provider, evaluation 

criteria, and specific information related to the physical education program at 

Almaden Elementary School. 

3. By January 30, 2006, the district will provide a minimum of 25 hours of 

professional development in the design and implementation of standards-based 

physical education instruction for the teachers at Almaden Elementary School 

providing physical education instruction. 

4. By January 30, 2006, the district will provide a minimum of 10 hours of 

professional development in assisting teachers during physical education 

instruction for the instructional aides at Almaden Elementary School who will be 

assisting the teacher during physical education instruction. 

5. By October 1, 2005, the district will provide the CDE with an implementation plan 

for the 25 minutes of physical education instruction. The plan will describe the 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:21 PM

San Jose Unified 


duties of the teachers and instructional aides, the method by which instruction 

will be delivered, the method by which students will be grouped for instruction, 

and a description of how student learning will be assessed. 

6. By December 1, 2005, the district will provide evidence that it has reviewed 

standards-based physical education curriculum programs and has developed or 

selected a standards-based physical education curriculum for use in grades one 

through five. 

7. By May 31, 2006, the district will administer the FITNESSGRAM to all grade five 

students as mandated by EC Section 60800. 

Technical assistance from the CDE will be available to the district upon request. 


No previous action has been taken by the State Board of Education on waiving EC 

Section 51210(g) for SAIT schools or for schools requesting a waiver to deliver physical 

education instruction during the lunch period. 


Almaden Elementary School became a SAIT school in November 2004. SAIT corrective 

actions require two and one half to three hours of English-Language arts instruction, 

one hour of mathematics instruction and 15 minutes of math intervention. In addition, 

the district has specified that English language development is to be provided for one 

hour each day for all English Learners, which includes 45 percent of the students at 

Almaden. The San Jose Unified Teachers’ Association contract specifies only 291 

minutes of student contact time per regular school day. 

Combined, the SAIT corrective actions and the district requirements do not provide for 

the minimum 200 minutes of physical education instruction every 10 school days (not 

including recess and lunch), that are mandated by EC Section 51210 for students in 

grades one through six. 

This waiver requests that 25 minutes of the 45 minute lunch period be utilized for 

instruction in physical education four days per week to meet the required minimum 

physical education instructional minutes. 

In the spring of 2004, only 14 percent of the grade five students at Almaden met 

minimum standards on the physical performance test, with more than 60 percent not 

meeting the minimum standard for aerobic capacity. The physical fitness test results for 

spring 2005 are not yet available. 

The district considers the proposed 2005-06 schedule a temporary measure and 

expects to offer a more balanced curriculum in the fall of 2006. 

The department is recommending approval of this waiver with conditions as above. 

Revised: 1/19/2012 1:21 PM


Period of request: September 6, 2005 to June 9, 2006 

Local board approval date(s): August 18, 2005 

Public hearing held on date(s): August 4, 2005 


Name of bargaining unit/representative(s) consulted: San Jose Teachers’ 

Association – Marlene Mattoon, Gerie Bledsoe 




San Jose Unified 




Advisory committee(s) consulted: Almaden School Site Council 




Approval of this waiver will have no fiscal impact. 



hard copy documents are available for viewing at the Wavier Office or State Board 

Office. 

Attachments: 

• Amendment memo from San Jose Unified (1 page) 


Revised: 1/19/2012 1:21 PM

california state board of education september 2005 agenda

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?