School DIstricts Are No Longer Required To Offer State Mandated Minimum Core Curriculum

At tonights January 27, 2016 Board of Trustees Meeting, Agenda Item #5 Trustees will be presented with a Citizen’s Request to discuss fundraising for core educational programs.

http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1218998819331/1262503101751/5233370917763515617.pdf

District Staff is in agreement that Education Code Sections 51210 and 51220 require every District to offer the state mandated minimum curriculum which requires that every student receive instruction in the following core subjects:

English
Math
Social Science
Science
Visual and Performing Arts
Health
Physical Education

Prior to the State’s adoption of the Common Core Curriculum and the State’s new Local Control Funding Formula, minimum instruction (required content, and instructional time ) in a particular subject was defined by the California Department of Education’s content standards and curriculum framework for each subject.

Staffs is telling the Board that it is the State Department of Education’s position that under the new Common Core Curriculum and the State’s new Local Control Funding Formula that Districts are no longer mandated to follow State Content Standards. Under the new laws, the content that is taught, and instructional time that is devoted to each subject is left to the discretion of an individual teacher in a class and the local school and district administration.

It does appear that Staff is correctly stating what the position of the California Department of Education is: see: http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/ccssfaqs.asp #5

However, that stated position is in direct conflict with existing state and federal laws which were not amended or repealed under AB 97 School Finance Local Control Funding Formula.

AB-97 School Finance
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB97

The slide presentation to the Board clearly shows that the CDE interpretation is in direct conflict with the Federal and State Laws, Board Bylaws and Board policy outlined in the slide presentation which require the State to provide every student with sufficient funding to achieve a quality education. A “quality education has been defined by the courts to mean that:

“...all students should have the same opportunity to obtain highly qualified staff, program expansion and variety, beneficial teacher-pupil ratios and class sizes, modern equipment and materials, high quality buildings” Serrano v. Priest (1976) 18 Cal.3d 728.”

Without mandatory compliance with State mandated content standards or minimum instructional requirements, there is no way to ensure that students are receiving equal opportunities.

I recommend that the District seek legal counsel opinion on how to reconcile current state law and the conflicting opinion of state law by the State Department of Education.

I would also argue that if Local Control leaves total control of subject content, presentation and instructional time to an individual teacher, school or District, that there is no longer any real purpose for a County Office of Education, or the State Department of Education. These governmental bodies should be dismantled and the money used to fund them should be returned to local schools and district to fund a quality education for students.