Emma C. v. Thurmond

Background

California has operated under a consent decree in this case for decades. To leave the decree, the state must show that it has an adequate statewide system for monitoring school districts and enforcing the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The court divided that review into four phases: data collection, selecting districts for intervention, monitoring and enforcing intervention, and addressing remaining issues.

The state had already established compliance at Phase 1, ultimately established compliance at Phase 2, and shown at Phase 3A that it had a sufficient intervention plan. Phase 3B addressed whether California was adequately implementing that plan.

Phase 3B process

The state uses performance targets to identify school districts that may not be meeting IDEA requirements. Districts identified as needing intervention must participate in Compliance and Improvement Monitoring, or CIM, under the supervision of the California Department of Education (CDE). The CIM process generally lasts three years and has four steps:

The parties tracked eleven school districts through the CIM process. The state provided documents and testimony, and the court held three days of hearings. The state also amended and improved the CIM system during the phase.

Evidence from the school districts

The court described School District 9 as an example. The district had been selected for intervention because it overidentified Hispanic students as having specific learning disabilities, a problem that had worsened over three years. CDE staff provided additional explanations, training, meetings, and assistance from a technical-assistance provider.

School District 9 collected and analyzed substantial data, including parent input and information about special-education identification, discipline, and absenteeism. The CDE required further work when the district’s Step 2 submission did not address an issue identified earlier and did not adequately summarize the work performed with its new technical-assistance provider. The district was nevertheless allowed to begin Step 3 while the earlier submission was being improved. Its approved theory of action and later action plan were described favorably by the monitor and the plaintiffs.

The court said this example showed that the state provided meaningful support, evaluated submissions rather than merely approving them automatically, and responded when problems arose, including when the district changed technical-assistance providers.

Plaintiffs’ concerns

The plaintiffs asked the court to withhold a compliance finding. The court concluded that the concerns raised by the plaintiffs and monitor did not establish that California’s system was inadequate under the IDEA and its regulations.

The court considered concerns about how the CDE would respond when districts failed to participate or participated without meaningful effort. The CDE responded with an accountability matrix providing escalating responses and consequences. The court also considered questions about technical-assistance providers, including their training, capacity, selection, and oversight, and stated that it had no serious remaining concerns about them.

The court identified two issues that were not fully resolved. First, CDE consultants were not always consistent about when to approve submissions and when to return them for more work. The court called this a real issue but found that the CDE had trained its consultants, required collaboration with supervisors and colleagues, and created approval rubrics for future use. The court found that the state was adequately, though imperfectly, implementing the intervention process.

Second, some districts faced multiple deficient performance areas but did not always address every area during the CIM process. The court found that the state reasonably allowed districts to prioritize high-leverage activities, while permitting CDE consultants to require a change in direction when appropriate. The court also noted that further intervention would follow if a district completed the CIM process and was again identified for the same failure.

Ruling

The court held that California’s system for intervening with struggling school districts was more than adequate under federal law and found the state in compliance at Phase 3B. The court did not require additional formalization of the earlier phases because the state had already produced extensive documentation.

With the parties’ agreement, Phase 4 will instead address three subjects: the state’s plans for using individualized education program implementation data in CIM selection and the CIM process; its plans for using restraint and seclusion data; and information about selecting small local educational agencies for monitoring and the updated rubrics for those agencies.

The order concludes that California’s monitoring and enforcement system is not perfect but has substantially improved and serves students with disabilities well.