Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-04179/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-04179-251/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

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

Case No. C-96-4179 TEH 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MODIFICATIONS TO RSIP RE ITEMS 1.5.2,

1.5.3, 8.2.1, 8.3.1, 9.2.1, 12.1.2, 12.1.3, 12.2.1, 14.1.1, 14.1.2 AND 14.2.1

JOHN C. BEIERS 

County Counsel (SBN 144282)

BY: AIMEE ARMSBY, DEPUTY (SBN 226967) 

San Mateo Office of County Counsel 

Hall of Justice and Records 

400 County Center, 6th Floor 

Redwood City, CA 94063 

Telephone: (650) 363-4768 

Facsimile: (650) 363-4034 

Email: aarmsby@smcgov.org

Attorneys for Defendant Ravenswood City School 

District and Related Defendants

KAMALA D. HARRIS 

Attorney General of California 

ISMAEL A. CASTRO

Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

R. MATTHEW WISE (SBN 238485) 

DARRELL SPENCE (SBN 248011 

KARLI EISENBERG (SBN 281923) 

Deputy Attorneys General 

1300 I Street, Suite 125 

P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 

Telephone: (916) 323-8549 

Fax: (916) 324-5567 

E-mails: Matthew.Wise@doj.ca.gov

Karli.Eisenberg@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants Delaine Eastin, 

Superintendent of Public Instruction, the State Board 

of Education, and the California Department of 

Education 

WILLIAM KOSKI, Esq. (SBN 166061) CARLY J. MUNSON, Esq. (SBN 254598) 

STANFORD LAW SCHOOL 

YOUTH & EDUCATION LAW PROJECT

MILLS LEGAL CLINIC 

559 Nathan Abbott Way 

Stanford, CA 94305-8610 

Telephone: (650) 724-3718 

Facsimile: (650) 723-4426 

Email: bkoski@stanford.edu

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Arlene B. Mayerson, Esq. (SBN 79310) 

Larisa M. Cummings, Esq. (SBN131076) 

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION 

& DEFENSE FUND, INC. 

3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210 

Berkeley, CA 94703 

Telephone: (510) 644-2555 

Facsimile: (510) 841-8645 

Emails: amayerson@dredf.org

lcummings@dredf.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

_____________________________________________ 

EMMA C., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

DELAINE EASTIN, et al. 

Defendants. 

Case No. C-96-4179 TEH 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE: MODIFICATIONS TO RSIP 

RE ITEMS 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 8.2.1, 8.3.1, 9.2.1, 

12.1.2, 12.1.3, 12.2.1, 14.1.1, 14.1.2 AND 

14.2.1 

Judge: The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 2179 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 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

Case No. C-96-4179 TEH 2

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MODIFICATIONS TO RSIP RE ITEMS 1.5.2,

1.5.3, 8.2.1, 8.3.1, 9.2.1, 12.1.2, 12.1.3, 12.2.1, 14.1.1, 14.1.2 AND 14.2.1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

On March 22, 2016, in accordance with a recommendation of the Court Monitor in his 

Concluding Report issued December 17, 2015, the parties and the Court Monitor met and conferred 

concerning the current status of the Ravenswood Self Improvement Plan (“RSIP”) and progress toward 

completion of its requirements. The meet-and-confer process was productive and collaborative, and the 

parties have reached agreement concerning the matters set forth below. The parties stipulate that this 

agreement will not be considered a waiver of any of the arguments made in the State Defendants’ 

Request for RSIP Concluding Report, [Docket No. (“Dkt. No.”) 2115], except to the extent rendered 

moot by this stipulation. 

II. AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RSIP COMPLIANCE 

After presentation of data analysis by the District, and discussion and careful consideration by all 

parties, agreement was reached concerning several RSIP Items. They are addressed below in numerical 

order. 

A. Items 1.5.2 and 1.5.3 

The parties discussed the requirements of Items 1.5.2 and 1.5.3 of the RSIP, which relate to the 

District’s annual description of the organization of its service delivery system, and submission of that 

description and any revisions for District Governing Board review and approval. These requirements, as 

written in the RSIP, are not subject to a maintenance period. In view of the District’s near-perfect 

compliance with these requirements for many years, and the District’s continued demonstration that it 

has developed and maintained a comprehensive service delivery system, the parties agree to modify the 

RSIP to deem Items 1.5.2 and 1.5.3 fully compliant, and discontinue monitoring these requirements, 

effective immediately. Thus, the District will no longer be monitored on Items 1.5.2 or 1.5.3. 

B. Item 8.2.1 

 

The parties discussed the District’s compliance history for Item 8.2.1 for the past two-and-a-half 

years. The Court Monitor’s Trends Report, most recently updated in October 2015, documents the 

District’s compliance average for the 2013-14 school year at 95.4%, and the average for the 2014-15 

school years was 96.5%. Because quarterly compliance dipped slightly below 95% in certain quarters, 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 2179 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 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

Case No. C-96-4179 TEH 3

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MODIFICATIONS TO RSIP RE ITEMS 1.5.2, 

1.5.3, 8.2.1, 8.3.1, 9.2.1, 12.1.2, 12.1.3, 12.2.1, 14.1.1, 14.1.2 AND 14.2.1 

the District has not yet posted four consecutive semesters at 95% or higher, and thus has not been 

deemed to have satisfied the maintenance period. For Quarters 1 and 2 (“Q1” and “Q2”) of the current 

2015-16 school year, the District was again slightly below the 95% compliance mark. The parties agreed 

that on the basis of consistently strong compliance data for the past two-and-a-half years, the District will 

be deemed to have satisfied the maintenance period with a showing of 95% compliance for Q3 and Q4 of 

the 2015-16 school year, using the average compliance percentage based on raw data for the two 

quarters. Thus, the Court Monitor will combine the total number of compliant files for Q3 and Q4 

combined, and divide by the total number of files assessed for compliance, to arrive at a compliance 

percentage. If the resulting percentage is 95% or more, the District will be deemed to have complied 

with the applicable maintenance period for Item 8.2.1 without the need for further discussion among the 

parties or action by the Court, and this Item will no longer be monitored under the RSIP. 

C. Item 8.3.1 

For this RSIP requirement, the parties had previously agreed to modify the methodology by 

which the Court Monitor determined compliance. While the evidence of performance had been 

documentation that parents received a translated assessment report at least 5 days prior to the IEP 

meeting, the parties previously agreed that for up to 30% of eligible files, the District could satisfy the 

evidence of performance requirement with a showing that a District assessor had met with a parent at 

least 2 days prior to the IEP meeting to review the report in the parent’s primary language and answer 

questions, if any, about the report. After discussions among the parties, it was agreed that the District 

could utilize either option without limitation to satisfy the evidence of performance requirement. 

D. Item 9.2.1(j) and (k) 

These subparts relating to the use of curriculum-based assessments (“CBAs”) are the only 

remaining portions of Item 9.2.1 still being monitored. The parties have reviewed and discussed recent 

monitoring results, from Q1 and Q2. The District was compliant for Q1 in both subparts, with 95.2% 

compliance in each. For Q2, the District narrowly missed the 95% compliance mark, with a 92.5% 

compliance rate in each subpart. The District noted that the Q2 results were disproportionately impacted 

by a single service provider who left her position without notice for a time period during the quarter. It 

was observed that in at least some of the noncompliant files, there was evidence that appropriate CBAs 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 2179 Filed 05/05/16 Page 3 of 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

Case No. C-96-4179 TEH 4

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MODIFICATIONS TO RSIP RE ITEMS 1.5.2,

1.5.3, 8.2.1, 8.3.1, 9.2.1, 12.1.2, 12.1.3, 12.2.1, 14.1.1, 14.1.2 AND 14.2.1 

were used, but the files were not found compliant because the CBAs were not sufficiently identified. The 

parties agreed that the District could resubmit its data to the Monitor, and to the extent sufficient 

evidence was submitted to the Monitor that appropriate CBAs were used, the files would be deemed 

compliant. 

In accordance with the parties’ agreement, the District resubmitted evidence of performance, 

verifying where applicable that approved CBAs had been used. As a result, the Monitor changed his 

finding as to Item 9.2.1(j) to compliant, at a 96.2% rate. 

E. Item 12.1.2 

For this item, the District posted compliance percentages of 100% for both Q3 and Q4 of 2013-

14. The District’s average compliance rate for 2014-15, as documented in the Trends Report, was 

98.4%. The District’s compliance percentages for Q1 and Q2 of the current year are 94.4% and 100%, 

respectively. In light of the consistent high level of performance on this Item, the parties agreed that the 

District is deemed to have been found compliant for four consecutive semesters, and therefore the 

District is deemed to have complied with the maintenance period of this requirement. Accordingly, Item 

12.1.2 will no longer be monitored. 

F. Item 12.1.3 

For this item, the District has shown a high level of compliance since the second half of 2013-14. 

In Q3 of 2013-14, the compliance percentage was 94.4% and in Q4 it was 94.2%. For 2014-15, the 

parties agreed by court-approved stipulation to adjust the methodology for measuring compliance, a 

change that, applied retroactively, would have rendered the District compliant in Q3 and Q4 of 2013-14. 

The District’s average for 2014-15, as documented in the Trends Report, was 95.7%, with a single 

quarter, Q4, dipping below 95% to 91%. For Q1 of the current year, the District has achieved 99% 

compliance, and for Q2, the compliance is 98.8%, representing a semester of compliance. In view of the 

District’s consistently high level of performance in this category, the parties agreed that the District 

would be deemed to have achieved compliance for four consecutive semesters, and thus to have met the 

maintenance period for this Item. Accordingly, Item 12.1.3 will no longer be monitored. 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 2179 Filed 05/05/16 Page 4 of 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

Case No. C-96-4179 TEH 5

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MODIFICATIONS TO RSIP RE ITEMS 1.5.2,

1.5.3, 8.2.1, 8.3.1, 9.2.1, 12.1.2, 12.1.3, 12.2.1, 14.1.1, 14.1.2 AND 14.2.1 

G. Item 12.2.1 

The District has achieved similarly high levels of compliance in this category. Reviewing the two 

and a half years’ data for Item 12.2.1, for which data is monitored for Q2-Q4 only, the District was over 

95% compliant for all three quarters in 2013-14, averaging 96.1% average for the year, as per the Trends 

Report. Then for 2014-15, the District achieved an average of 95.5% compliance, also per the Trends 

Report. For Q2 of the current year, the District has a 94.1% compliance rate. In view of the District’s 

consistently high level of performance in this category, the parties agreed that the District would be 

deemed to have achieved compliance for four consecutive semesters, and thus to have met the 

maintenance period for this Item. Accordingly, Item 12.2.1 will no longer be monitored. 

H. Items 14.1.1, 14.1.2 and 14.2.1 

These items are intended to monitor the District’s compliance with a set of procedures it 

established for investigating parent complaints. However, the absence of parent complaints received 

through the established procedures has led to the repeated deferral of findings with regard to these items. 

In view of the lack of data to be monitored in these categories, the parties agree that these items shall no 

longer be monitored under the RSIP, and for purposes of a future Concluding Report pursuant to Section 

6.1.3 of the First Amended Consent Decree, are deemed concluded. 

III. CONCLUSION 

The parties hereby submit this joint stipulation and respectfully request that this Court approve 

and so order the modifications and benchmarks set forth herein. 

Dated: May 2, 2016 JOHN C. BEIERS, COUNTY COUNSEL 

 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 

 By: /s/ Aimee B. Armsby 

 Aimee B. Armsby 

 Deputy County Counsel 

 Attorneys for Ravenswood City School District 

 and Related Defendants. 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 2179 Filed 05/05/16 Page 5 of 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

Case No. C-96-4179 TEH 6

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MODIFICATIONS TO RSIP RE ITEMS 1.5.2, 

1.5.3, 8.2.1, 8.3.1, 9.2.1, 12.1.2, 12.1.3, 12.2.1, 14.1.1, 14.1.2 AND 14.2.1 

Dated: May 2, 2016 YOUTH & EDUCATION LAW PROJECT 

 By: /s/ William S. Koski 

 William S. Koski 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: May 2, 2016 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 By: /s/ Karli Eisenberg 

 Karli Eisenberg 

Attorneys for Defendants Delaine Eastin, 

Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Board of 

Education and the California Department of 

Education

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

The Court has reviewed the parties’ Joint Stipulation regarding RSIP modifications. 

For good cause shown, the parties’ request to approve the agreements contained herein and order 

the parties’ Joint Stipulation concerning RSIP modifications as set forth herein is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _______________________ ______________________________________ 

THE HON. THELTON E. HENDERSON 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

5/4/2016

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 2179 Filed 05/05/16 Page 6 of 6