October 30, 2017
EDCAL 3
ACSA Governmental Relations has strong
impact on recent state legislative session
ACSA’s Governmental Relations team
has been working hard in coordination
with the state Legislative Policy Committee
to represent the voice of school leaders as
bills moved through the Capitol during the
recently concluded legislative session.
Senior Director Edgar Zazueta noted
that this was the first of the standard two-
year legislative session, so bills that failed to
get passed can still be taken up when the
session reconvenes in January.
“In this first year of the session, the
Legislature introduced nearly 3,000 pieces
of legislation, with our team tracking just
under 1,000 legislative measures that could
impact school administrators,” Zazueta said.
“Of those bills, nearly 300 were sent to Gov.
Brown for his signature or veto.”
Following is a look at some of the key
bills, issues and their status:
Assembly Bill 1220, Weber, and AB
1164, Thurmond. Re: Extension of pro-
bationary period. ACSA’s Governmental
Relations team helped shepherd an effort in
the Legislature to extend the teacher pro-
bationary period. Despite historical resis-
tance to previous efforts, ACSA helped
lead a coalition to push AB 1220 out of
the Assembly with overwhelming bipar-
tisan support. Despite the unprecedented
support in the Assembly, the bill met sig-
nificant resistance in the Senate due to
the opposition of the California Teachers
Association. A similar measure, AB 1164,
was introduced with language developed
by CTA that would force administrators
to show cause prior to separating from a
teacher during their probationary period.
ACSA opposed the alternative measure and
both bills met a stalemate in the Senate
Education Committee. There is likely to
be significant political activity on the issue
of the teacher probationary period in 2018.
ACSA hopes the political environment
might be right to finally make a meaningful
change to these policies in the coming year.
AB 1217, Bocanegra. Re: State STEM
Schools. This legislation sought to establish
a new specialized state school for science,
technology, engineering and mathematics
in Los Angeles County. This “state school”
would be governed by a nonprofit public
benefit corporation, and an appointed board
that would submit a plan to be approved by
the superintendent of public instruction.
While the intent of establishing a STEM
school seems valid, the bill set a troubling
precedent by having the Legislature autho-
rize a state school. This runs counter to
local control by circumventing the local
processes, community input and oversight.
ACSA opposed AB 1217 and helped
lead a broad coalition to fight this measure.
On the last night of the legislative ses-
sion, after weeks of the coalition putting
immense pressure on the Legislature, the
bill stalled on the Senate floor. It was clear
that the Senate did not have the 21 votes
needed to pass the measure. It is a short-
term win for the opposition, who fought the
bad policy surrounding this bill. This bill is
likely to reemerge in January 2018.
Senate Bill 328, Portantino. Re: School
Start Time. This legislation would have
prohibited public middle and high schools
from starting the school day before 8:30
a.m. Proponents argue that a substantial
body of research demonstrates that delay-
ing school start times is an effective coun-
termeasure to chronic sleep loss and has a
wide range of potential benefits to students.
In particular, allowing students more time
to sleep would benefit students’ physical
and mental health, safety, and academic
achievement. Opponents argue that while
some of the research is compelling, districts
already have the discretion over what time
to begin the school day. This local discre-
tion should be used to determine school
start times based on local needs, taking into
account potential impacts on transportation
and time for extracurricular activities, rather
than mandating a one-size-fits-all statewide
start time.
The Assembly took up the measure on
Sept. 14, the second-to-last day of session,
but the bill failed to get the 41 votes needed
to move on to the governor. The bill was
granted re-consideration by the Assembly
and could be acted on next year.
SB 607, Skinner. Re: Willful defiance.
This legislation related to willful defiance
suspensions and expulsions failed to get out
of the Legislature and has become a two-
year bill. Specifically, SB 607 would perma-
nently eliminate suspensions and expulsions
for willful defiance for grades K-5 and
would prohibit willful defiance suspensions
and expulsions for grades 6-12 through
2023. The bill’s sponsors were adamant
throughout the year that the bill apply to
grades K-12. ACSA pushed back, saying
the bill would have limited the author-
ity of school leaders and that insufficient
data exists showing a need for the bill. A
compromise with the governor’s office was
reached the last week of session but not in
time to beat the legislative deadline. The
negotiated language will move quickly next
year, as the current willful defiance statute
sunsets July 1, 2018.
Budget advocacy
As in every year, the 2017-18 state bud-
get was at the forefront of ACSA’s advocacy
during the legislative year. ACSA can be
credited for successfully advocating that
a COLA be added to the K-12 Mandate
Block Grant on an ongoing basis. Our
team’s advocacy also helped secure greater
flexibility for early education programs, an
increase of $3.2 billion in Proposition 98
See BILLS, page 10
Significant new Title 9 guidance on
school‘s handling of sexual misconduct
The following article was provided by
Lozano Smith, attorneys at law.
New guidance on schools’ responsibilities
for addressing claims of sexual misconduct
under Title 9, including sexual harassment
and sexual violence, places greater emphasis
on the rights of those accused of sexual
misconduct. The new guidance marks a sig-
nificant departure from prior guidance, but
lacks details, creating the potential for many
issues requiring legal consultation.
On Sept. 22, the United States
Department of Education issued a Dear
Colleague Letter (DCL) and interim guid-
ance on schools’ responsibilities in address-
ing sexual misconduct. The USDOE
rescinded a 2011 DCL and a 2014 Q&A
document, which were both intended to
provide more support for those making sex-
ual misconduct complaints. The USDOE
plans to go through a notice and comment
period before putting new, permanent guid-
ance in place.
Separately, members of Congress are
seeking to return to the standards laid
out in the 2011 DCL and 2014 Q&A
through a recently introduced bill, HR
4030. California lawmakers had attempted
to do the same through Senate Bill 169,
which was approved by the Legislature but
vetoed by Gov. Brown.
Title 9 and sexual misconduct
Title 9 requires educational institutions,
including school districts, county offices of
education and community college districts,
to do the following:
• Designate a Title 9 coordinator to
accept reports of sexual misconduct and to
oversee Title 9 compliance;
• Investigate and respond to allegations
of sexual misconduct involving students;
• Prior to investigating a complaint, offer
assistance to complainants such as counsel-
ing, medical services and class schedule
mod ifications;
• Provide both parties with an equal
opportunity to present evidence;
• Notify parties of the outcome of the
complaint; and
• Take steps to prevent recurrence of
sexual misconduct and to remedy its dis-
criminatory effects.
Interim guidance
The interim guidance, released as a Q&A
document, changes how the Department
will evaluate whether schools’ procedures
satisfy Title 9’s procedural requirements.
For example, it could loosen the time frame
for investigating sexual misconduct claims
and raise the standard of evidence required
to prove them. It may also provide new
rights for the accused, including the right to
interim measures and written notice of the
accusations against them.
Interim measures
The 2017 Q&A makes it clear that
interim measures must be extended, as
appropriate, to both accused and complain-
ants. Interim measures are temporary mea-
sures that are put into place to stop sexual
misconduct, protect involved parties and
preserve the integrity of the investigation.
The 2014 Q&A had emphasized interim
measures that avoided impact to the com-
plainant’s educational environment. The
2017 Q&A states that interim measures
should “avoid depriving any student of his
or her education” and that “a school may
not rely on fixed rules or operating assump-
tions that favor one party over another, nor
may a school make such measures available
only to one party.” The 2017 Q&A does not
provide specific examples for evaluating the
appropriateness of interim measures, but
the revised wording and enhanced focus on
the rights of the accused suggest that the
USDOE may be more critical of procedures
that do not give equal consideration to the
interim needs of the accused and the com-
plainant. However, in efforts to implement
interim measures more equitably, schools
should be careful to not retaliate against
those students who have filed complaints
alleging sexual misconduct.
Investigation timeframe
The 2017 Q&A provides that there is
no fixed time frame in which schools are
expected to complete an investigation. As
a result, the suggested 60-day “safe harbor”
period contained in the withdrawn guidance
will apparently no longer be the bar against
which the promptness of investigations is
measured. Instead, while schools must still
establish reasonable timelines, whether an
investigation was in fact conducted timely,
will be measured on a case-by-case basis.
Schools should be mindful of timelines
that may apply to sexual misconduct com-
plaints under their internal policies and
state law, including the Uniform Complaint
Procedures.
Confidentiality
The 2017 Q&A provides that initial
disclosures regarding allegations of sexual
misconduct should be made to the accused
if an educational institution initiates an
investigation. The disclosure should be in
writing and should include:
• The identities of the parties involved;
• The specific section of the code of
conduct allegedly violated;
• The precise conduct allegedly consti-
See TITLE 9, page 9
Equity literacy has been
defined by Paul Gorski as
the knowledge and skills
that enable us to recog-
nize and redress condi-
tions that deny some students access
to opportunities enjoyed by their peers.
To become equity literate we must
understand the system in which we
lead. As equity leaders, our focus should
be on supporting other equity warriors
in building the skills necessary to be a
threat to the inequity in their spheres
of influence. An ally is a fellow col-
league who is supportive of your work
or cause. Due to the barriers stemming
from stereotypes and implicit biases,
leaders of color often need allies to
stand shoulder to shoulder in the trench-
es, being a voice to enlighten others
about this journey. Ally-ship is needed to
ensure equity for our students.
Ally-ship is all about the mutual benefit
and support we provide and receive
when we see one another’s humanity
and recognize that we need one another
to do this hard work. We need allies to
speak against all forms of oppression
including racism, because we see the
effects across institutions and society as
evidenced by: gaps in achievement and
wealth, employment and housing dis-
crimination, incarceration, drug arrests,
immigration arrests, and infant mortality.
One of my White allies is Tony Limoges,
director of Secondary Education in
Elk Grove USD. Tony is a champion
of Restorative Justice and co-facili-
tates the work of the district Equity
Implementation Team with me. Tony
helps to provide validation and access
to belief systems I have no knowledge
of. In return, White leaders need their
non-White counterparts to lovingly yet
truthfully bridge the gap of the experi-
ences they lack related to bias, discrimi-
nation and race-based stress. Tony is a
witness to the injustices I face daily, but
because of privilege, he does not expe-
rience them first hand, and therefore I
provide credibility to him in this work.
Celebrating our diversity isn’t just about
recognizing and accepting our differenc-
es. It is about requiring the intentional
redistribution of influence. Those that
have privilege are complicit if they do
nothing to support and correct those cir-
cumstances that create marginalization.
Anti-racist advocates must come for-
ward and invite others to take a stand
and demand racial justice. Tony exempli-
fies this and together we are committed
to ensuring all students have access to
resources and opportunities.
Anti-racist author and educator, Tim
Wise, says, “Ignorance of how we are
shaped racially is the first sign of privi-
lege. In other words. It is a privilege to
ignore the consequences of race in
America.” Privilege is not something
that people necessarily create or enjoy
on purpose. Privilege is a hidden prefer-
ence that is challenging to tackle. Tony
can speak to me about this privilege
because he freely acknowledges it and
how it can be used to influence change.
Education is a civil right, and serving all
students means confronting all forms
of oppression, and working side by side
to ensure equity liberates us. As lead-
ers we must seek out our allies to fi ght
along with us to be student champions.
– Sonjhia Lowery with
Tony Limoges,
Elk Grove USD