Emma C. v. Thurmond

Background

California is subject to a consent decree requiring it to demonstrate compliance with the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA requires states receiving federal education funds to ensure that school districts provide an appropriate education to students with disabilities. Although local school districts generally provide that education, the state must monitor districts, intervene when they fall short, and use corrective measures when appropriate.

The court divided its review into several phases. Earlier phases examined California’s data collection and analysis. Phase 3 examines how California monitors and assists school districts identified as struggling or noncompliant. Because of the pandemic and the scope of the review, Phase 3 was divided into Phase 3A and Phase 3B. Phase 3A concerns whether California’s monitoring plan is adequate; Phase 3B will concern whether the state actually implements that plan effectively.

The Phase 3A Plan

California assigns school districts to different monitoring categories based on their compliance, performance, racial or ethnic disproportionality, and outstanding corrective tasks. Districts with more serious problems must participate in the state’s Compliance and Improvement Monitoring, or CIM, process.

The CIM process has four basic steps: the district assembles a team and reviews its data and policies; analyzes the root causes of its problems; creates a plan to address those problems; and undergoes continuing monitoring while implementing the plan. The plan must be approved by a regional special-education body or the California Department of Education.

The process uses different levels of monitoring. Districts with less serious problems generally work more independently, while districts with more serious or systemic problems receive closer supervision from the state or technical-assistance providers. The state assigns more tasks and resources to districts with greater difficulties.

Court’s Analysis

The plaintiffs and the court monitor raised several concerns about the written plan. The court acknowledged that the state’s submissions were difficult to follow and used substantial technical language. But the court concluded that two central features of the plan were reasonable: the assigned tasks were generally matched to the severity of each district’s problems, and districts with more serious problems received closer supervision.

The court also considered concerns about technical-assistance providers and the plan’s treatment of the IDEA’s “child find” requirement, which concerns identifying students who may need special-education services. The court concluded that these concerns did not establish noncompliance at the design stage. Some concerns were better addressed during Phase 3B, when the court will examine how the plan works in practice.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court found that California’s Phase 3A plan was sufficient to move forward. The court emphasized that California need not show excellence or perfection, but its efforts must be adequate. The court warned that problems discovered during Phase 3B will not be excused merely by labeling them design problems if the state follows the plan but fails to address the IDEA’s requirements or make reasonable progress on actual problems.

The parties were directed to confer about randomly selecting school districts at each monitoring level for Phase 3B. For each step of the CIM process, California will submit the documents produced for the selected district and explain how the monitoring occurred. The court monitor and the plaintiffs may each submit responses of up to 15 pages.