Judge James C. Chalfant, Case Number: 23STCP04590, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner New Village Charter School (“New Village”) seeks mandamus directing Respondents California Department of Education (“CDE”) and Tony Thurmond, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Director of Education (“Superintendent”), to lawfully determine New Village’s eligibility to receive Supplemental Funding as a classroom-based charter school.

The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision.

Petitioner New Village filed the Petition against Respondents CDE and Superintendent on December 21, 2023, alleging claims of mandamus and declaratory relief. The Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows.

New Village is a non-profit high school chartered since 2006 by the Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) to serve high risk young women at its campus in the Rampart neighborhood of Los Angeles. New Village at all relevant times has been classified as a site-based school by CDE and has provided a full-day, classroom-based curriculum throughout its 17-year existence.

During the COVID-19 pandemic and state of emergency, New Village – like schools across the state -- was required to close its campus and provide instruction solely by distance learning via the internet. Throughout the period of campus closure, New Village maintained its extraordinary faculty-student ratio of one fully credentialed teacher for every ten students, and provided exceptional support for students including home visits, delivery of essential supplies, and mental health and counseling, in addition to its full curriculum by distance learning. Except during the COVID-19 pandemic, nonclassroom studies have never been a material part of the New Village instructional program. Independent studies have been provided to students only on a temporary basis when they have been unable to attend school due to illness, childbirth, or some comparable circumstance.

With the gradual reopening of school campuses in the 2021-2022 school year, it was evident that some students would be unable or unwilling to return to campus because of health concerns, the necessity for care of their babies and other family members, and pandemic-related disruptions of student lives and living arrangements. Like most public schools in California, and as mandated by Education Code section 51745 for school districts and county offices of education, New Village offered students the opportunity to continue their schooling through independent studies during this limited period.

Funding for California public schools, including charter schools, is primarily based on the average daily attendance (“ADA”) of students, and the decline in attendance experienced by public schools in the state threatens the schools’ financial stability. Responding to this situation, in June 2022, the Legislature appropriated $400 million dollars in emergency supplemental funding for public schools, including charter schools. The Legislature made Supplemental Funding unavailable to any “charter school classified as a nonclassroom-based charter school.” The Legislature made this classroom/nonclassroom distinction following reports that nonclassroom-based charter schools provide an inferior quality of education and do not incur the significant expenses associated with owning and operating physical facilities for educational purposes. These nonclassroom-based charter schools were reaping significant profits, despite providing inferior education.

Despite the fact that New Village has been classified as a site-based school by CDE, and that throughout its 17-year existence has provided a full-day, classroom-based curriculum at its campus except during the period of mandatory closure, CDE, under the supervision of the Superintendent, denied New Village the benefits of that 2021-22 ADA Loss Mitigation and the Charter Special Apportionment (“Supplemental Funding”), allocated by Assembly Bill 181 (“AB 181”), section 123 (codified in Education Code section 42238.023(b)), by misclassifying New Village as a nonclassroom based charter school.

That decision was erroneous and unlawful. New Village is and always has been a classroom-based charter school. The New Village Charter states that it provides “on-site, classroom-based instruction.” New Village is identified on CDE’s website as a charter school with “Site-based Instruction” where the instruction is listed as “Primarily Classroom.” CDE’s list of “Charter Schools in California Counties” also identifies New Village as providing “[c]lassroom based instruction (80% of annual instruction on a school site under the supervision of an employee of the school”), and explicitly distinguishes New Village from a “[n]on-classroom based Independent Study Site” in which “[s]tudents may be served in contiguous counties.”

New Village has always certified the “Type of Instruction” at the school as “Classroom-based,” as opposed to “Nonclassroom-based” or “Combination,” for purposes of the Principal Apportionment Data Collection (“PADC”) system required by CDE to be used for school reporting purposes, and CDE’s apportionment allocation to New Village has always been made on the basis that it is a classroom-based institution.

Respondents erroneously decided that classification of a school is based solely on the percentage of the school’s total ADA, comprised by classroom-based instruction as of the 2021–22 fiscal year second principal apportionment certification (“P-2”), relying on Education Code section 47612.5. That section does not purport to provide a definition of a “nonclassroom-based school.” Rather, it provides definitions of classroom and nonclassroom-based instruction and imposes a special apportionment requirement for nonclassroom-based instruction.

For that purpose, Education Code section 47612.5 provides that “in calculating average daily attendance for classroom-based instruction apportionments, at least 80 percent of the instructional time offered by the charter school shall be at the school site[.]” Education Code section 46301 provides that computing a school’s ADA for those purposes is done by dividing the total number of days of pupil attendance allowed by the number of days school was actually taught in the regular day schools of the district. Education Code section 46303(a) provides that if “any computation of average daily attendance [ADA] made under, or necessitated by, any provision of law, results in a fraction of less than one-half of a unit, the average daily attendance shall be taken as the next lowest whole number…; but if the fraction is one-half or more of a unit, the average daily attendance shall be taken as the next highest whole number.”

New Village’s PADC P-2 report certified that the total classroom-based ADA at the 2021-22 P-2 certification was 45.68, which is rounded to 46 per Education Code section 46303. The total regular ADA reported in that same certification was 57.19, which is rounded to 57 per Education Code section 46303. The result of that simple division is 80.7%, surpassing the 80% threshold CDE claims to be determinative of the charter school’s classification for purposes of providing Supplemental Funding.

Despite this statutory language on rounding and how to calculate ADA, Respondents do not apply any rounding to calculate that figure. Under Respondents’ erroneous form of calculations, New Village’s classroom-based instruction was deemed to be 79.87%, allegedly missing the cutoff for Supplemental Funding by 0.13%.

In calculating the ADA this way to deny New Village the Supplemental Funding it is owed under law, Respondents have contravened provisions of the Education Code enacted to prevent discrimination in the educational process with regard to pregnant and parenting teenage mothers. At any one time on average, a number of young women at New Village are pregnant or parenting. The Legislature has not only designated pregnant and parenting teenage mothers for special treatment under the Education Code but has mandated that “[a] pupil who is pregnant or is a parent who is the primary caregiver for one or more of their children shall not be counted” in determining a cap placed on eligibility for apportionment credit for independent study. Respondents have taken no steps to account for the fact that a percentage of New Village’s students are pregnant or parenting and require independent study or nonclassroom-based instruction. If independent study for pregnant and parenting teen mothers was appropriately considered classroom-based or not considered at all, New Village would far exceed the requirement for Supplemental Funding.

Petitioner New Village seeks a declaration that its classification as a nonclassroom-based charter school for Supplemental Funding purposes is erroneous. It further seeks a writ of mandate commanding Respondents to lawfully determine Petitioner’s eligibility to receive Supplemental Funding in full accordance with the Education Code and to disburse the funding due to New Village.

A party may seek to set aside an agency decision by petitioning for either a writ of administrative mandamus (CCP §1094.5) or of traditional mandamus. CCP §1085. A petition for traditional mandamus is appropriate in all actions “to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station....” CCP §1085.

A traditional writ of mandate under CCP section 1085 is the method of compelling the performance of a legal, ministerial duty. Pomona Police Officers’ Assn. v. City of Pomona, (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 578, 583-84. Generally, mandamus will lie when (1) there is no plain, speedy, and adequate alternative remedy, (2) the respondent has a duty to perform, and (3) the petitioner has a clear and beneficial right to performance. Id. at 584 (internal citations omitted). Whether a statute imposes a ministerial duty for which mandamus is available, or a mere obligation to perform a discretionary function, is a question of statutory interpretation. AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Health, (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 693, 701.

No administrative record is required for traditional mandamus to compel performance of a ministerial duty.

“For charter schools, excluding a charter school classified as a nonclassroom-based charter school as of the 2021-22 fiscal year second principal apportionment certification pursuant to Section 47612.5, the Superintendent shall multiply the charter school's 2021-22 fiscal year reported average daily attendance by the amount determined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) for the purpose of calculating the 2021-22 fiscal year annual apportionment pursuant to Sections 42238.02 and 42238.03.” (emphasis added).

“The sum of four hundred thirteen million dollars ($413,000,000) is hereby appropriated from the General Fund to the Superintendent of Public Instruction for apportionment to charter schools in the 2022–23 fiscal year, excluding charter schools classified as nonclassroom-based charter schools as of the 2021–22 fiscal year second principal apportionment certification pursuant to Section 47612.5 of the Education Code.” RJN 1, p.198 (emphasis added).

“Notwithstanding any other law, and as a condition of apportionment, “classroom-based instruction” in a charter school, for purposes of this part, occurs only when charter school pupils are engaged in educational activities required of those pupils and are under the immediate supervision and control of an employee of the charter school who possesses a valid certification. For purposes of calculating average daily attendance for classroom-based instruction apportionments, at least 80 percent of the instructional time offered by the charter school shall be at the schoolsite, and the charter school shall require the attendance of all pupils for whom a classroom-based apportionment is claimed at the schoolsite for at least 80 percent of the minimum instructional time required to be offered pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).” (emphasis added).

“Whenever it is necessary to compute the average daily attendance of a school of a district for any certain purpose and no provision is made for the computation thereof for such purpose, the average daily attendance of the school shall be computed by dividing the total number of days of pupil attendance allowed by the number of days school was actually taught in the regular day schools of the district, exclusive of Saturdays or Sundays.” §46301.

“If any computation of average daily attendance made under, or necessitated by, any provision of law, results in a fraction of less than one-half of a unit, the average daily attendance shall be taken as the next lowest whole number, except that if such computation results in an average daily attendance of less than one unit, the average daily attendance shall be deemed to be one unit; but if the fraction is one-half or more of a unit, the average daily attendance shall be taken as the next highest whole number. §46303(a).

Whenever a reference is made to a specific whole number of units of average daily attendance said number shall include any fraction above said number which is less than one-half a unit, and any fraction of one-half or more above a unit above the next lowest whole number.” §46303(b).

Respondent CDE is a California state agency that administers the state’s public education system, primarily grades K-12. CDE is headed by an elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction and Director of Education (Respondent Tony Thurmond). JSF 1.

Among other responsibilities, CDE is responsible for determining each charter school’s eligibility for funding and for disbursing the correct amount of funds to each entitled school. JSF 2.

New Village is a non-profit high school chartered by LAUSD since 2006, with a campus at 147 N. Occidental Blvd. in the Rampart neighborhood of Los Angeles. New Village is the first single-gender public charter school in California with a mission to serve extremely high-risk young women. It provides academic instruction each year in grades 9-12. JSF 3.

New Village is a Dashboard Alternative School Status school with over 70% of its students falling within the “high risk” categories for not completing high school, as defined by CDE. JSF 4.

New Village’s charter provides that instruction will be “on-site, classroom-based instruction, for grades 9-12 over at least 180 instructional days annually.” JSF 5, Ex. A.

CDE maintains a school directory on its website, which includes information that is self-reported by local educational agencies, including New Village. The directory contains a disclaimer that information should not be relied upon for any purpose because it may be outdated or contain inaccuracies. In part, New Village’s page on CDE’s website lists the school as a charter school with “primarily classroom” instruction. JSF 7, Ex. B.

CDE also maintains a web page entitled “Charter Schools in California Counties.” New Village is listed in white cells under the name “New Village Girls Academy” and has “Site-based Instruction”. CDE’s web page provides a key to the shading of cells in the table –"white” is listed as “classroom based instruction (80% of annual instruction on a school site under the supervision of an employee of the school),” while “light pink” is listed as “Nonclassroom based Independent Study Site.” JSF 7, Ex. C.

Respondents require schools to self-report and certify certain attendance information using the PADC system. PADC requires schools to report the type of instruction it provides as “Classroom-based,” “Nonclassroom-based,” or “Combination.” PADC also requires schools to report “Classroom-based ADA” and “Nonclassroom-based ADA.” ADA totals are generated using inputs from schools, like New Village, as required by CDE. PADC only accepts numbers with the maximum of two decimal places for reporting ADA but whole numbers can be input by entering two zeros in the decimal places, assuming that the inputs are accurate to two decimal places. JSF 8.

Funding for California public schools, including charter schools, is calculated based on ADA. JSF 9.

In June 2022, the California Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, AB 181, which appropriated $413 million in emergency supplemental funding for public schools (including charter schools) following the COVID-19 pandemic, termed 2021-22 ADA Loss Mitigation and Charter Special Apportionment (“Supplemental Funding”). §42238.023; AB 181, §123. This Supplemental Funding was to be allocated by CDE to charter schools pursuant to the requirements of section 42238.023, which “exclude[es] a charter school classified as a nonclassroom-based charter school as of the 2021– 22 fiscal year second principal apportionment certification pursuant to Section 47612.5 of the Education Code.” CDE authorized payment of Supplemental Funding to schools in February 2023. JSF 10.

In email correspondence dated January 10, 2023, Respondents classified New Village as a “nonclassroom-based charter school and stated that nonclassroom-based “status is determined by the percentage of [nonclassroom-based] average daily attendance (ADA) reported at a specific point in time.” Respondents took the position that New Village “did not meet the threshold of a classroom-based charter school at the 2021-22 P-2 Apportionment certification” and denied Supplemental Funding to it. JSF 13, Ex. D.

Respondents also stated that “CDE does not compute ADA” and that “ADA is typically reported by a local educational agency to two decimal places, according to the forms and instructions prescribed by the Superintendent pursuant to Section 41601.” Respondents stated that the “reported ADA is used as reported and is not rounded to the whole number by the CDE for purposes of any funding calculations.” JSF 14, Ex. E.

New Village reported its classroom-based ADA as 45.68 and its nonclassroom-based ADA as 11.51 on PADC as of the 2021-22 P-2 Apportionment certification. Petitioner’s total ADA— the sum of the classroom-based ADA and nonclassroom-based ADA—was 57.19. JSF 15, Ex. F.

Respondents have calculated that, with no rounding, New Village’s percent of classroom-based ADA is 79.87% (45.68/57.19). JSF 16.

On or about January 2, 2023, New Village corresponded with Respondents regarding eligibility for Supplemental Funding. JSF 17, Ex. G.

On or about January 10, 2023, Respondents replied that New Village was classified as a nonclassroom-based charter school and ineligible for Supplemental Funding. CDE calculated that New Village’s nonclassroom-based ADA exceeded 20%. It did not include the percentage of classroom-based ADA. JSF 18, Ex. D.

On or about March 14, 2023, New Village wrote to Respondents requesting a meeting relating to its classification as a nonclassroom-based charter school and its ineligibility for Supplemental Funding. JSF 19, Ex. H.

On or about April 18, 2023, New Village met with members of CDE via web conference to discuss the issues presented in prior correspondence. JSF 20.

On or about May 10, 2023, Respondents sent a letter again stating their position regarding funding eligibility. JSF 21, Ex. E.

On or about July 20, 2023, New Village presented a timely governmental claim to Respondents. JSF 22, Ex. I. Respondents failed or refused to act on the governmental claim within 45 days of the claim being presented and was “deemed to have been rejected” on or about September 5, 2025, per Govt. Code section 912.4. JSF 23.

New Village contends that the term “nonclassroom-based charter school” should be interpreted in accordance with its plain meaning -- that is, a school in which nonclassroom-based instruction is the central or primary mode of teaching, and New Village has never been such a school. Respondents contend that the definition of “nonclassroom-based charter school” is the same as the definition “nonclassroom-based instruction” for present purposes. JSF 26.

New Village contends that even under Respondents’ interpretation, it is entitled to Supplemental Funding because its classroom-based ADA for the pertinent period was or exceeded 80%. New Village contends that, if rounded to a whole number prior to division, its percentage of classroom-based ADA is 80.7% (46/57). Respondents contend that New Village is not entitled to Supplemental Funding because its classroom-based ADA for the pertinent period was less than 80%. JSF 27.

If New Village is correct, the amount of Supplemental Funding due from Respondents is $214,868 in state funds, and $41,079 in in-lieu of property taxes transfers from New Village’s sponsoring local educational agency. JSF 28.

New Village is a public charter school that provides an individualized, high quality academic and social program to approximately 110 students each year in grades 9-12. Aguirre Decl., ¶2. New Village opened in 2006 as the first single-gender public charter school created under the Charter Schools Act and was designed to serve a high-needs population of young women, many of whom are at high risk of not completing high school. Aguirre Decl., ¶2.

The school serves women students, ages 14 to 21, who have experienced hardship at home or at school. Aguirre Decl., ¶4. Many of these women students have experienced previous failure or problems at other schools. Aguirre Decl., ¶4. Many have also been irregular in attendance or have previously dropped out of school. Aguirre Decl., ¶4.

The New Village campus is located on approximately 9,330 square feet, which includes a large external courtyard and meeting area. Aguirre Decl., ¶3. The campus has administrative offices and meeting spaces, together with nine classrooms, amounting to approximately 6,300 square feet of teaching facilities that are used by students and teachers on a daily basis during the school week. Aguirre Decl., ¶3. Each classroom is equipped with student and teacher desks, monitors, laptops, bookshelves, and teaching supplies specific to each subject. Aguirre Decl., ¶3.

New Village is and has always been a site-based school under the terms of its LAUSD charter and in the operation of the school. Aguirre Decl., ¶7. It’s classification as a site-based school has never changed. Aguirre Decl., ¶7. New Village has always certified that it is a “Classroom-based” school in the PADC system required to be used for reporting purposes. Aguirre Decl., ¶9. The apportionment allocation to New Village has always been made on the basis that it is a classroom-based institution. Aguirre Decl., ¶9.

During the COVID-19 pandemic and state of emergency, New Village maintained its faculty-student ratio of one fully credentialed teacher for every ten students. Aguirre Decl., ¶11. New Village also provided support for students including home visits, delivery of essential supplies, and mental health and counseling, in addition to a full curriculum via distance learning during this time. Aguirre Decl., ¶11.

Except for the period of school closure during the COVID-19 pandemic, and as mandated by law, independent study has never been a material part of the New Village instructional program. Aguirre Decl., ¶12. Independent study has been offered only on a temporary basis, when needed, for those unable to attend school in person due to illness, pregnancy, childbirth, or another comparable circumstance. Aguirre Decl., ¶12.

The decline in in-person attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic threatened New Village’s financial stability. Aguirre Decl., ¶13.

A major portion of charter school funding is based on ADA. Aguirre Decl., ¶13. PADC requires figures be reported to two decimal places, will not accept letters or characters, and will not allow numbers that do not report to two decimal places. Aguirre Decl., ¶9. Though certain values are explicitly instructed to be rounded up to the next whole number, there is nothing in the PADC instructions that permits rounding values relating to ADA to the nearest whole number. Aguirre Decl., ¶9.

At the 2021-22 P-2 certification, New Village reported classroom-based ADA of 45.68 and total regular ADA of 57.19, as required by the PADC. Aguirre Decl., ¶14. New Village does not independently calculate the percentage of ADA that is classroom-based or nonclassroom-based. Aguirre Decl., ¶14.

If New Village were required to calculate the percentage of classroom-based ADA by rounding the inputs to the nearest whole number -- 46 for classroom-based ADA and 57 for total regular ADA -- the calculated percentage would be 80.70% or 81%, if also rounded. Aguirre Decl., ¶15. If the figure was determined by dividing the classroom-based ADA of 45.68 and dividing it by the total regular ADA of 57.19, this calculation yields a 79.87% classroom-based ADA percentage, which, when rounded, yields 80%. Aguirre Decl., ¶15.

On or about January 2, 2023, New Village contacted Respondents to inquire about the Supplemental Funding. Aguirre Decl., ¶17. Respondents responded that New Village was ineligible to receive Supplemental Funding because it was classified as a nonclassroom-based charter school for these purposes. Aguirre Decl., ¶18. Respondents indicated that nonclassroom-based status was determined by the percentage of nonclassroom-based ADA reported at the P-2 certification and that New Village’s percentage did not meet the threshold of a classroom-based charter school at the P-2 certification. Aguirre Decl., ¶18.

On or about March 14, 2023, New Village submitted a letter to Respondents outlining its position. Aguirre Decl., ¶19. New Village explained that its LAUSD charter, certifications, general attributes as a site-based institution, and attendance calculations all qualified New Village as a classroom-based charter school. Aguirre Decl., ¶19. New Village also highlighted that the classroom-based charter school calculation should be calculated using classroom-based ADA, not by taking the inverse of nonclassroom-based ADA. Aguirre Decl., ¶19. New Village also noted that the Education Code requires ADA calculations to be rounded but PADC does not perform or allow for rounding. Aguirre Decl., ¶19.

On or about April 18, 2023, New Village met with Respondents via teleconference to present its position. Aguirre Decl., ¶20. On or about May 10, 2023, Respondents responded in correspondence that reiterated New Village was classified as a nonclassroom-based charter school based on less than 80% classroom-based ADA. Aguirre Decl., ¶21. Respondents indicated that they do not compute ADA at all. Aguirre Decl., ¶21.

On or about July 20, 2023, New Village filed a government claim against Respondents. Aguirre Decl., ¶22. Respondents failed or refused to act on the claim within 45 days of the claim being presented. Aguirre Decl., ¶22.

In 2022, the Legislature passed AB 181, which included the 2021-2022 ADA Loss Mitigation and 2021-22 Charter School Declining Enrollment Relief. Heredia Decl., ¶2. This funding was appropriated for schools with declines in attendance and enrollment in the 2021-22 fiscal year. Heredia Decl., ¶2. AB 181 included language which excluded charter schools classified as nonclassroom-based as of the 2021-22 fiscal year second principal apportionment. Heredia Decl., ¶3.

In January 2023, CDE was contacted by New Village because it had been informed by its chartering authority, LAUSD, that it was classified as nonclassroom-based as a result of the ADA reported in the second principal apportionment. Heredia Decl., ¶4. CDE confirmed that the ADA reported by New Village reflected that the school had provided less than 80% of its instruction at the school site and was therefore classified as nonclassroom-based for the 2021-22 fiscal year. Heredia Decl., ¶4.

New Village challenged the classification and insisted that CDE had to round the reported ADA. Heredia Decl., ¶5. The CDE disagreed, noting that the classification pursuant to section 47612.5 was not a “computation of ADA.” Heredia Decl., ¶5. CDE also let New Village know that even if the numbers were rounded, it would not change its classification. Heredia Decl., ¶5. It is not uncommon for charter schools to report increased or decreased classroom-based instruction and be deemed classroom-based or nonclassroom-based one year and not the next year. Heredia Decl., ¶6.

CDE maintains a charter school locator, which lists approved charter schools across California. Park Decl., ¶4. The list is based on the information submitted by the charter school at the time the charter school is authorized and is not verified by CDE. Park Decl., ¶4. The list is not used for purposes of funding but is offered as an aid to the public looking for charter schools. Park Decl., ¶4. The spreadsheet uses pink shading to differentiate those charter schools which operate a full or predominantly nonclassroom based model of instruction, while those not shaded in pink include school that are both site-based and a combination of site-based and independent study. Park Decl., ¶4.

Charter schools classified as nonclassroom-based for funding purposes must submit a funding determination to the State Board of Education (“SBE”) to receive funding for the nonclassroom-based instruction the school provides. Park Decl., ¶2. New Village submitted a funding determination as a nonclassroom-based school for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 fiscal years. Park Decl., ¶3. The funding determination was heard and approved at the May 2022 SBE meeting. Park Decl., ¶3, Ex. 1.

On or about August 13, 2021, CDE published guidance alerting charter schools that “a funding determination is required to receive Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) funding” for nonclassroom-based ADA “if [a charter school’s] classroom-based ADA falls below the 80 percent minimum.” Quiñones Decl., ¶3, Ex. A.

The August 13 letter advised that, given the uncertainties of the COVID-19 pandemic, charter schools “may obtain a funding determination to ensure against LCFF funding impacts should they unexpectedly fall below the 80 percent [classroom-based] minimum.” Quiñones Decl., ¶4. CDE did not require charter schools to be classified as nonclassroom-based in order to file a Funding Request or to obtain a precautionary funding determination in circumstances where schools did not know how students would react in returning to school facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Quiñones Decl., ¶4. Because CDE expected “some schools may see an unanticipated demand for additional independent study” due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it advised charter schools that they should take that into consideration “when evaluating whether to seek a funding determination to avoid any potential future fiscal impacts.” Quiñones Decl., ¶4, Ex. A.

Based on this guidance from CDE and the uncertainty created by the COVID-19 pandemic, New Village submitted such a Funding Request in February 2022 as an alternative if its figures fell below the required threshold. Quiñones Decl., ¶5. Given that ADA figures were not available for 2021-2022 P2 period at the time of the Funding Request, New Village could only provide possible estimates of total ADA, as requested by CDE. Quiñones Decl., ¶5. The Funding Request was submitted as a precaution. Quiñones Decl., ¶5.

Subsequently, when CDE made clear that it classified New Village as a nonclassroom-based charter school that was ineligible for Supplemental Funding, New Village made its position clear in written correspondence, in a meeting, and in a governmental claim that it was a classroom-based charter school entitled to the Supplemental Funding. Quiñones Decl., ¶6.

LAUSD is the chartering authority for New Village. Quiñones Decl., ¶8. LAUSD does not make determinations whether a charter school is nonclassroom-based for funding determination requests. Quiñones Decl., ¶8.

LAUSD requires classroom-based charter schools that become classified as nonclassroom-based charter schools to make a material revision to their charter. Quiñones Decl., ¶9. New Village has never been classified as a nonclassroom-based school by LAUSD. Quiñones Decl., ¶9.

New Village reports certain attendance data to LAUSD on a monthly basis, including ADA, but LAUSD does not make ADA computations or funding determinations. Quiñones Decl., ¶10.

On or about August 19, 2021, LAUSD alerted charter schools that a charter school “must monitor its ADA to determine whether the charter school will begin offering ‘nonclassroom based instruction’” and that a material revision to its existing charter would be required if the charter school would be adding a nonclassroom-based program. Quiñones Decl., ¶11, Ex. B.

Ronnie Barnes ("Barnes") specializes in financial, accounting, and economic analysis. Barnes Decl., ¶1, Ex. A. Barnes was retained by the law firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, on behalf of New Village, to provide an expert opinion based on his education and training as a mathematician. Barnes Decl., ¶1.

To the extent that the calculations in Paragraphs 4 and 16 of the Joint Stipulation comprise a “computation of average daily attendance made under, or necessitated by, any provision of law” and the “rounding provisions” of section 46303 apply, New Village’s percentage of classroom-based ADA would be calculated as the ratio of 45.68 rounded up to 46 and 57.19 rounded down to 57 -- i.e., 46/57, or 80.70%. Barnes Decl., ¶7.

“Roundoff error” is “the difference between an approximation of a number used in computation and its exact value.” Barnes Decl., ¶7. In certain types of computation, roundoff error can be magnified as any initial errors are carried through one or more intermediate steps”. In other words, the earlier rounding is performed, the larger the roundoff error potentially is. Barnes Decl., ¶8. It is well known that a manifestation of roundoff error is that percentages that would add to 100% without rounding may not do so with rounding. Barnes Decl., ¶9.

Respondents observe that “[i]f the ADA numbers submitted by New Village were rounded, the classroom-based ADA would be rounded up from 45.68 to 46, and the nonclassroom-based ADA would be rounded up from 11.51 to 12, resulting in a final total ADA of 58.” Barnes Decl., ¶10. Barnes sees no mathematical justification for the final step. Barnes Decl., ¶10.

From a mathematical perspective, if the objective of rounding is to make a number “‘easier’ to use or understand whilst also keeping [it] close to its original value,” the most appropriate approach would be to round only at the final stage—in other words, to calculate the unrounded value of Petitioner’s percent of classroom-based ADA at 79.87% and only then to round. Barnes Decl., ¶11.

Petitioner New Village seeks mandamus directing Respondent CDE[2] to lawfully determine its eligibility to receive Supplemental Funding as a classroom-based charter school.

This case involves issues of statutory interpretation. In construing a statute, a court must ascertain the intent of the legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 724. The court first looks to the language of the statute, attempting to give effect to the usual, ordinary import of the language and seeking to avoid making any language mere surplusage. Id. Significance, if possible, is attributed to every word, phrase, sentence and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose. Orange County Employees Assn. v. County of Orange, (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 833, 841. The statutory language must be harmonized with provisions relating to the same subject matter to the extent possible. Id. “’The statute's words generally provide the most reliable indicator of legislative intent; if they are clear and unambiguous, ‘[t]here is no need for judicial construction and a court may not indulge in it. [Citation.]’” MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. California Dept. of Tax & Fee Administration, (“MCI”) (2018) 28 Cal. App. 5th 635, 643.

New Village argues that the issues are clear and straightforward. Respondents cannot dispute that section 42238.023(b) created a ministerial duty for CDE to distribute Supplemental Funding to charter schools that are not “classified as a nonclassroom-based charter school” -- i.e., are classified as classroom-based charter schools. Accordingly, the principal question is whether CDE erroneously interpreted section 42238.023(b)’s phrase “classified as a nonclassroom-based charter school” to apply to New Village. Pet. Op. Br. at 8; Reply at 3.

This statutory interpretation is a legal question for which CDE is not entitled to any deference. The phrase “classified as a nonclassroom-based charter school” is not defined in the Education Code and therefore should be interpreted in accordance with its plain meaning and common usage. “When a term goes undefined in a statute, we give the term its ordinary meaning.” De Vries v. Regents of University of California, (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 574, 590-91. See In re Establishment of Eureka Reporter, (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 891, 897 (relying on the “plain and commonsense meaning” of term not defined in statute). Pet. Op. Br. at 9; Reply at 4.

Any plain meaning of the phrase “classified as a nonclassroom-based charter school” does not encompass New Village. The New Village Charter (approved by the LAUSD Board) states that it provides “on-site, classroom-based instruction.” JSF 5, Ex. A, p.18. To this day, New Village is identified on CDE’s website as a charter school with “Site-based Instruction” that is listed as “Primarily Classroom.” JSF 6-7, Exs. B, C. CDE’s list of “Charter Schools in California Counties” identifies New Village as providing “[c]lassroom based instruction” and distinguishes it from a “[n]on-classroom based Independent Study Site” in which “[s]tudents may be served in contiguous counties.” JSF 7, Ex. C. New Village has always certified its “Type of Instruction” for reporting purposes as “Classroom-based,” as opposed to “Nonclassroom-based” or “Combination,” and CDE’s apportionment allocation to New Village has always been made on the basis that it is a classroom-based institution. JSF 8, Ex. F, p.57; Aguirre Decl., ¶9. Pet. Op. Br. at 9; Reply at 4-5.

New Village contends that the only judicial usage of the phrase “nonclassroom-based charter school” is inconsistent with CDE’s attempt to apply it to New Village. See J.J. MacIntyre Co. v. Duren (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16, 18 (noting relevance of prior “appellate court decisions interpreting similar terms” “for the definition and application of [undefined statutory] terms”). Pet. Op. Br. at 9-10; Reply at 6-7.

In Anderson Union High School District v. Secondary Home School, (“Anderson”) (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 262, 268, the court considered a school’s argument that certain statutory geographical restrictions applied only to classroom-based charter schools, not to nonclassroom-based charter schools. Id. at 276. The court note that the school was a “nonclassroom-based charter school” that had been chartered by the school district to use “an individualized learning model which consists of a combination of (1) homeschooling, (2) optional group classes, (3) online courses, (4) student driven electives, (5) concurrent enrollment at a campus site of the authorizing school district, and (6) college level courses.” Id. at 268-69. The school did not have any classrooms—just three “resource centers” that provided space for tutoring, “computer and science labs, and student work spaces.” I d. at 269. A student was only required to “meet with his or her facilitator at least once every 20 days, with a parent or guardian in attendance,” and the resource centers were only open a few days a week. See id. The Anderson court held that the geographical restrictions of the Charter School Act applied to all charter schools, including nonclassroom-based charter schools. Id. at 283.

New Village argues that it is nothing like the school in Anderson. It is a campus-based school with classrooms, teachers, and an expectation that students come to class each day to learn. See Aguirre Decl., ¶3. The school campus covers over 9,300 square feet, which includes a large external courtyard and meeting area and approximately 6,3000 square feet of teaching facilities. Id. New Village has nine classroom equipped with student desks, a monitor/screen, a teacher’s desk, a set of laptops, bookshelves, books, and subject-specific teaching supplies. Id. The campus includes a counseling office, which hosts the school psychologist, and a student support office, which houses the school’s academic counselor, internships coordinator, community school coordinator, case manager, and enrollment and outreach coordinator. Id. In-person attendance is expected, and independent studies are offered only on a temporary basis for those unable to attend school in person due to illness, pregnancy, childbirth, or other comparable circumstance. Aguirre Decl., ¶12. The fact that New Village offers an independent study program does not detract from the fact that it offers an entirely schoolsite-based curriculum. Quiñones Decl., ¶12. Under any commonly used understanding of the phrase “classroom-based charter school,” New Village is included. Pet. Op. Br. at 10-11; Reply at 7.

CDE correctly responds (Opp. at 4) that whether a charter school is nonclassroom-based is determined by the percentage of instruction occurring remotely, not the charter school’s self-identification. Section 42238.023 and AB 181 section 123 reference section 47612.5 for the determination whether a charter school is “nonclassroom based” as of the 2021-22 fiscal year P-2 certification. The Legislature frequently has referred to the classification of charter schools as nonclassroom-based through a section 47612.5 determination. See, e.g., §§ 42238.024(c)(1), 43521(c)(1), 46211(g)(1), 47605(a)(5)(D)(ii), 47612.7, 51747(j)(2). AB 181 and section 42238.023 must be read and interpreted through their reference to section 47612.5. Banerjee v. Superior Court, (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 1093, 1113 (various parts of statutory scheme should be harmonized).

As reflected in section 47612.5, a nonclassroom-based charter school for purposes of funding is one that does not qualify as classroom-based due to the percentage of pupils receiving instruction through independent study. Section 47612.5 defines “classroom-based instruction” as a circumstance where more than 80% of instruction is offered at the schoolsite and under the immediate supervision and control of a certificated employee of the charter school. §47612.5(e)(1). “Nonclassroom-based instruction” is defined as a circumstance where instruction does not meet the 80% requirement in subdivision (e)(1). §47612.5(e)(2).

The determination whether a charter school is classroom-based or nonclassroom-based for funding purposes is made on an annual basis, based on the charter school’s certified ADA at the P-2 certification. Heredia Decl., ¶7. The charter school reports both its site-based ADA and its independent study ADA. If the percentage of pupils receiving independent study exceeds 20%, the school is classified as nonclassroom-based for that fiscal year. Section 42238.023 and section 123 of AB 181 exclude those charter schools classified as nonclassroom-based based on the 2021-22 second principal apportionment, regardless of how those schools were classified in the fiscal year before or after. It is not uncommon under section 47612.5 for the classification of a charter school to move from year-to-year between classroom-based and nonclassroom-based, as the percentage of pupils receiving instruction through independent study increases or decreases. Heredia Decl., ¶6.

New Village’s argument that it has always identified as classroom-based, and therefore is eligible for the Supplemental Funding, is not controlling for the determination whether the school properly was classified as nonclassroom-based in the 2021-22 fiscal year.[3] If the determination were made solely based on how a charter school identifies, there would be no need for the calculations pursuant to section 47612.5. Section 47612.5’s language concerning the determination whether a charter school is classified as nonclassroom-based for purposes of apportionment cannot be ignored as mere surplusage but rather defines what a “nonclassroom-based charter school” is for purposes of this funding. See State of South Dakota v. Brown, (1978) 20 Cal.3d 765, 776-77 (cardinal rule of construction is to avoid surplusage).

New Village replies that none of the provisions incorporating section 47612.5, including section 42238.023, define the operative phrase “classified as a nonclassroom-based charter school”. Section 47612.5(e)(1) defines when classroom-based instruction occurs -- i.e., when charter school pupils are engaged in educational activities required of those pupils and are under the immediate supervision and control of an employee of the charter school who possesses a valid certification. It then provides a long explanation of what is required of a charter school “[f]or purposes of calculating average daily attendance for classroom-based instruction apportionments.” – i.e., at least 80% of instruction is offered at the schoolsite and under the immediate supervision and control of a certificated employee of the charter school. §47612.5(e)(1). Reply at 4.

New Village argues that, while section 47612.5(e)(1) states that its purpose is for calculating ADA for classroom-based instruction apportionment, CDE insists that section 47612.5 “determines what percentage of ADA reported by the charter school was for instruction at the schoolsite…versus the percentage of certified ADA for independent study.” Opp. at 7. From there, CDE jumps to the conclusion that this percentage also somehow “determine[s] if a charter school [is] classified as nonclassroom-based.” Opp. at 5. Yet, there is nothing in section 47612.5 regarding classification. Reply at 4.

New Village’s argument ignores section 42238.023(b)(3) and AB 181 section 123(a)(2), both of which describe the section 47612.5 determination as the classification of a charter school: “excluding a charter school classified as a nonclassroom-based charter school as of the 2021-22 fiscal year second principal apportionment certification pursuant to Section 47612.5.” (emphasis added). Section 47612.5’s determination can only be reasonably interpreted as setting forth the procedure for classifying a charter school as nonclassroom-based or classroom-based for purposes of apportionment. Pursuant to the statute, this classification is based on a calculation of ADA through a determination of the percentage of instructional time offered by the charter school at the school site, and at least 80% of the instructional time must be offered at the schoolsite for a charter school to be classified as classroom-based.[4]

In reply, New Village argues that, if section 47612.5 creates a classification system, it does so by evaluating what percent of “instructional time offered by [a] charter school” is offered at the schoolsite. §47612.5(e)(1) (emphasis added). CDE’s interpretation conflates “time offered” with “ADA” and this interpretation is contrary to the plain wording of the statute. ADA is a measure of how many students attend school each day. See, e.g., tit. 5, Cal. Code Regs. §11960 (“‘Regular average daily attendance’ shall be computed by dividing a charter school’s total number of pupil-days of attendance by the number of calendar days on which school was actually taught in the charter school.”). As its name implies, ADA is a measure of attendance. The amount of instructional time offered is a different measurement. The Education Code strictly mandates how many minutes and days of instruction must be offered by a school. See, e.g., §47612.5(a) (64,800 minutes); §46200 (180 days). The definition of “offered” is “to make available” (merriam-webster.com/dictionary) or “presenting something for acceptance” (Black’s Law Dictionary). The Education Code acknowledges this distinction in, for example, section 47634.2 where it distinguishes the “offering [of] nonclassroom-based instruction” from “the portion of [ADA] that is generated through nonclassroom-based instruction.” §47634.2(c) (emphasis added). Reply at 5-6.

New Village argues that the essential question under section 47612.5 is whether at least 80% of the instruction time “ma[de] available” by a charter school is at the schoolsite. New Village offers all required instructional time in classrooms on a campus with in-person teachers. Quiñones Decl., ¶¶ 12-15; Aguirre Decl., ¶¶ 3, 8. Because “at least 80 percent of the instructional time offered by [New Village]” is “at the schoolsite, and [New Village] require[s] the attendance of all pupils… at the schoolsite for at least 80 percent of the minimum instructional time required to be offered” by the state, it is a classroom-based charter school pursuant to section 47612.5(e)(1). Reply at 7.

New Village’s argument also is substantively erroneous. First, it ignores the temporal issue. Section 42238.023(b)(3) and AB 181 require that the classroom-based determination be made for the 2021-22 P-2 certification, not a general requirement of 80% instructional time for an undefined period. New Village must show that it offered 80% of instructional time at the schoolsite during the 2021-22 P-2 certification. See §47612.5(e)(1).

Second, it is true that section 47612.5(e)(1) refers to the instructional time offered, not ADA, but it requires the “offer” to be backed by the charter school’s requirement of attendance at the schoolsite for all pupils for whom a classroom-based apportionment is claimed. In other words, section 47612.5(e)(1) requires that, for purposes of calculating the ADA for classroom-based instruction apportionment, at least 80% of the instructional time be offered and required in the classroom. CDE does conflate “time offered” with “ADA” but New Village fails to show this was an error. If 80% of the instructional time must occur in the classroom, then it is acceptable to make this determination based on 80% ADA in the classroom.

In sum, section 42238.023(b) created a ministerial duty for CDE to distribute Supplemental Funding to charter schools not “classified as a nonclassroom-based charter school” -- i.e., classroom-based charter schools -- as of the 2021-22 fiscal year P-2 certification. The classification is performed annually, and eligibility for Supplemental Funding depends on the classification for the 2021-22 P-2 certification, regardless of how those schools were classified in the fiscal year before or after. Heredia Decl., ¶6. The means of classifying a charter school for purposes of Supplemental Funding is set forth in section 4612.5(e)(1) and is performed by calculating the ADA for classroom-based instruction as a percentage of total ADA.

New Village argues that CDE miscalculated the percent of its classroom-based instruction. Section 47612.5 provides that, “[f]or purposes of calculating [ADA] for classroom-based instruction apportionments, at least 80 percent of the instructional time offered by the charter school shall be at the schoolsite.” To determine the percent of instruction time offered at the school site, CDE divided New Village’s reported classroom-based ADA by its reported total ADA (classroom-based and nonclassroom-based ADA). New Village reports its ADAs using the PADC system required by CDE. JSF ¶8. PADC requires ADA to be input accurately to two decimal places. JSF ¶8; Aguirre Decl., ¶9. Pet. Op. Br. at 11.

Although PADC requires schools to report their computed ADA to the hundredths decimal place, section 46303(a) requires that “any computation of [ADA] made under, or necessitated by, any provision of law . . . shall be” rounded to a whole number. Because New Village’s computed ADAs were—as required by CDE’s mandated system—not reported as whole numbers without decimal places, CDE was required to round those reported ADAs before calculating the percent of instruction time offered at the school site. It is undisputed that New Village’s total ADA is 57.19 and its classroom-based ADA is 45.68. JSF 15-16. New Village’s classroom-based ADA of 45.68 rounds to 46. Its total reported ADA of 57.19 rounds to 57. Therefore, New Village’s percent of instruction time is 46 divided by 57, which equals 80.79%

Properly calculated, New Village’s percent of instruction time offered at the school site for the pertinent period of time exceeded 80%.[6] As a result, New Village was a classroom-based school under section 47612.5. Pet. Op. Br. at 11-12; Reply at 6, 8.

New Village argues that CDE concedes that it failed to round at all when computing New Village’s percent of classroom-based instruction. JSF ¶¶ 14,16. CDE thus admits that it denied New Village the Supplemental Funding it is due because it failed to apply the legislative directive to round to a whole number in calculating ADA as required by section 46303(a). No post hac rationalizations can change CDE’s failure to comply with applicable law. Pet. Op. Br. at 12.

CDE first responds that section 46303 applies to “any computation of average daily attendance made under, or necessitated by any provision of law,” and provides that if such computation does not equal a whole unit, it is rounded up or down. But section 47612.5 does not involve a “computation of ADA.” Instead, it merely determines what percentage of ADA reported by the charter school was for instruction at the schoolsite versus the percentage of certified ADA for independent study. Section 46303 is therefore inapplicable, and CDE correctly determined that New Village was a nonclassroom-based charter school as of the 2021-22 fiscal year second apportionment. Opp. at 7.

This argument is apparently based on the fact that the charter school, not CDE, calculates the school’s classroom-based ADA and total ADA. Specifically, New Village explains that, in compiling the data for PADC reporting as required by CDE, New Village first calculates its total ADA, then separately calculates classroom-based and nonclassroom-based ADA. Quiñones Decl., ¶15, Ex. E. CDE then uses these numbers to determine the percentage of classroom-based ADA. Omargiomg that there is no computation of ADA, CDE is relying on its involvement to only calculate percentages at the end of the classification process.

CDE’s argument fights the express language of section 47612.5, which states that at least 80% of the instructional time be offered and required in the classroom shall be used “[f]or purposes of calculating average daily attendance for classroom-based instruction apportionments.” Thus, the entire section 47612.5 classification process is a computation of ADA -- specifically a computation of the ADA percentage for classroom-based instruction. The fact that CDE accepts the ADA numbers from a charter school and only makes the end percentage calculation does not make the section 47612.5 classification process any less of an ADA computation. As such, section 46303’s rounding requirement applies.

CDE next argues that New Village reported classroom-based ADA of 45.68, and nonclassroom-based ADA of 11.51 at the 2021-22 fiscal year second principal apportionment. Heredia Decl., Ex. F. Opp. at 6. If section 46303 applies to the determination under section 47612.5, section 46303 does not state at what point any rounding must occur. As the ADA numbers are reported separately and then added together for the total ADA, it would be reasonable to round the certified numbers first, and then add them to get the total ADA. See Ex. F, pp. 58-59. If the ADA numbers submitted by New Village are rounded, the classroom-based ADA would be rounded up from 45.68 to 46, and the nonclassroom-based ADA would be rounded up from 11.51 to 12, resulting in a total ADA of 58. Dividing classroom-based ADA of 46 by total ADA of 58 yields a classroom-based ADA percentage of 79.31% for New Village, which is still below the 80% threshold of section 47612.5(e)(1). Heredia Decl., ¶5, Ex. E. Dividing nonclassroom-based ADA of 12 by total ADA of 58, New Village would have nonclassroom-based ADA of 20.68%, which is still above the 20% threshold. Therefore, pursuant to section 46303’s rounding, New Village would be classified as nonclassroom-based as of the 2021-22 fiscal year second principal apportionment and ineligible for Supplemental Funding. Opp. at 7-8.

CDE contends that New Village’s calculation creates less reliable results. If both ADA numbers are rounded and added for a total ADA, the resulting percentages of classroom-based and nonclassroom-based ADA are 79.31% and 20.68%. The total of these percentages is 99.99%. If New Village’s calculation is used to round both classroom-based ADA from 45.68 to 46 and nonclassroom-based ADA from 11.51 to 12, and again rounding the total reported regular ADA from 57.19 to 57, the classroom-based percentage is 80.70% (46 divided by 57) but the nonclassroom-based percentage is 21.05% (12 divided by 57). This would be a total of 101.75%. Opp. at 8.

New Village replies that its ADA is not simply “reported,” it is the result of computation. See §46300 (method of computing ADA). As CDE argues, section 47612.5 must be read in conjunction with the other provisions of the Education Code. Because schools are required by CDE to report ADA to two decimal places (JSF 8), section 47612.5 must be read in light of section 46303, which provides that “[i]f any computation of average daily attendance made under, or necessitated by, any provision of law, results in a fraction,” “the average daily attendance shall be taken as the next . . . whole number.” §46303(a) (emphasis added). Section 46303 mandates that the computed ADA of 45.68 “shall be taken as” 46 and the computed total ADA of 57.19 “shall be taken as” 57. Barnes Decl., ¶¶ 6-7. Reply at 8.

CDE violated the mandate in section 46303 that any computed ADA shall be taken as the next whole number in “any” computation of ADA because CDE did not round in calculating New Village’s percent of classroom-based ADA. CDE calculated New Village’s classroom-based ADA to be “79.87% (45.68/57.19).” JSF 16. The “results” of this computation therefore appropriately get rounded to 80%. Barnes Decl., ¶¶ 11-12. Even if the stipulated inputs of 45.68 and 57.19 were rounded (which is an alternative given that both inputs involve a specific computation of ADA), the “results” would be at least 80%—45.68 is rounded to 46 and 57.19 is rounded to 57. Barnes Decl., ¶¶ 7, 11. Dividing 46 by 57 results in 80.7% of New Village’s ADA that is classroom-based. Id. Reply at 8-9.

Even though CDE admits the denominator in the equation is 57.19 (JSF 16), it now argues that this number is not New Village’s total ADA and suggests that the total ADA is the sum of its rounded classroom-based and nonclassroom-based ADAs (58). This interpretation finds no support in math or the law. Charter schools are required to report “Total Regular ADA” as a line item. See JSF Ex. F, p.59. This accords with the many times that the Education Code refers to “total average daily attendance” without mention of classroom- or nonclassroom-based ADA. See, e.g., §§ 88827, 41602, 47638. In compiling the data for PADC reporting, New Village first calculates its total ADA, then separately calculates classroom-based and nonclassroom-based ADA. Quiñones Decl., ¶15, Ex. E. The total ADA of 57 is thus the only proper “result” of rounding the stipulated denominator, and there is no mathematical justification for 58. Barnes Decl. ¶¶ 7, 10-11.[7] Reply at 9.

The court agrees with New Village’s expert that rounding inevitably introduces “roundoff errors”—differences between the result exact arithmetic and rounded arithmetic would produce. Barnes Decl., ¶¶ 7-11. For example, percentages that otherwise would add up to 100% might instead add up to slightly less or slightly more. That is a natural occurrence with rounding. CDE suggests that less than 80% or more than 20% can be used interchangeably, but section 47612.5(e)(1) does not say that. Section 47612.5(e)(1) evaluates only the percent of classroom-based instructional time offered, and not also the percent of nonclassroom-based instructional time offered. The percentages of classroom-based and nonclassroom-based instruction need not add to 100%. Reply at 9-10.

Section 46303 states that “[i]f any computation of average daily attendance…results in a fraction,” “the average daily attendance shall be taken as the next . . . whole number”. Arguably, the phrase “any computation” could be interpreted as requiring rounding at the input stage, meaning that classroom-based ADA of 45.68 would be rounded to 46 and nonclassroom-based ADA of 11.51 would be rounded to 12. But that interpretation of section 46303 does not require the total ADA to be 58. Section 47612.5(e)(1) does not require a computation of the percentage of nonclassroom-based instruction; it only requires that 80% of total instruction be classroom-based. This means that only the classroom-based ADA and total ADA are relevant to the computation. The parties stipulated that the total ADA is 57.19, which rounds to 57. Rounding in this circumstance would lead to classroom-based ADA of 45.68 rounded to 46 and total ADA of 57.19, which rounds to 57. The classroom-based ADA percentage would be 80.7%.

However, this is not the proper interpretation of section 46303’s
any computation”. As CDE states, section 46303(a) calls for rounding but does not say at what stage rounding should occur. The statute should be interpreted to require rounding that is as accurate as possible. The court agrees with New Village’s expert that rounding should occur at the end of the process. From a mathematical perspective, if the objective of rounding is to make a number “‘easier’ to use or understand whilst also keeping [it] close to its original value,” the most appropriate approach would be to round only at the final stage. Barnes Decl., ¶11. As a result, the court interprets section 46303’s reference to “any computation” to mean the final calculation in a calculation. Applying this interpretation of section 46303, New Village’s unrounded percent of classroom-based ADA is 79.87% (classroom-based ADA of 45.68 divided by total ADA of 57.19), which rounds to 80% under section 46303(a).

The Petition is granted. A judgment and writ shall issue requiring CDE to lawfully determine its eligibility to receive Supplemental Funding as a classroom-based charter school and to disburse the funding due to New Village. The declaratory relief claim is subsumed within this mandamus ruling.

Petitioner New Village’s counsel is ordered to prepare a proposed judgment and writ of mandate, serve them on Respondents’ counsel for approval as to form, wait ten days after service for any objections, meet and confer if there are objections, and then submit the proposed judgment and writ along with a declaration stating the existence/non-existence of any unresolved objections. An OSC re: judgment is set for January 16, 2025.

[1] Respondents request the court to take judicial notice of (1) Senate Bill 98, California 2020 Legislative Service Chapter 24 (RJN Ex.1); (2) Senate Bill 820, California 2020 Legislative Service Chapter 110 (RJN Ex.2); and (3) Assembly Bill 181, California 2022 Legislative Service Chapter 52 (RJN Ex.3). All three exhibits are judicially noticed. Evid. Code §452(b).

[2] For ease of reference, the court will refer to CDE and not the Superintendent.

[3] CDE adds that New Village relies on the School Directory Details available on the CDE website despite the website’s disclaimer that the information “is voluntarily self-reported by local educational agencies (LEAs) to the CDE as a public convenience” and “should not be relied upon for any purpose and should be used only to contact the LEA.” Ex. B, p. 22. The Charter Schools in California Counties lists also do not dictate whether a charter school is nonclassroom-based for funding purposes. Park Decl., ¶4; Heredia Decl., ¶7; Ex. B, p. 22. The county directory is based on a charter school’s self-reported information. The “pink” designation is only for those schools that are fully or predominantly nonclassroom-based, and those schools not shaded pink may still be offering independent study instruction which exceeds 20% in some years, making the school nonclassroom based for those fiscal years under section 47612.5. Park Decl., ¶4. Opp. at 6.

[4] CDE suggests that New Village has admitted that it was properly classified as a nonclassroom-based charter school because it sought and received a nonclassroom based funding determination from the SBE for fiscal years 2021-22 through 2022-23. Park Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 1. In making this funding request, New Village recognized that it needed a funding determination as a nonclassroom based charter school to receive funding if it provided less than 80% of instruction offered at the schoolsite pursuant to sections 47612.5(d)(3) and 47634.2, and Title 5 California Code of Regulations sections 11963 through 11963.6. Opp. at 7.

New Village rebuts this argument. It filed a request for funding determination in February 2022 at the behest of CDE, which urged all charter schools to file at the beginning of the school year due to the uncertainty of how the COVID-10 pandemic would affect student attendance. Quiñones Decl., ¶¶ 2-7, Ex. A; JSF ¶¶ 17-24, Exs. D, E, G-I. New Village made this request solely as a precaution against loss of funding if it had significant nonclassroom instruction as the campus reopened, and it was based entirely on estimates since actual attendance figures for P-2 were not reported until four months later. Quiñones Decl., ¶5. After New Village certified its 2021-22 P-2 ADA numbers in late June 2022, it made clear to CDE that it was a classroom-based charter school entitled to Supplemental Funding. Ibid. Reply at 5.

Likewise, LAUSD may have “notified” New Village regarding nonclassroom-based instruction (JSF 16, Ex. G), but LAUSD does not make classifications or computations for funding determination requests or pursuant to the relevant statutes; CDE does. In fact, LAUSD requires classroom-based charter schools later classified as nonclassroom-based to make a material revision to their charter, which has never been required of New Village. Quiñones Decl., ¶¶ 8-11. Reply at 5.

[5] The parties do not address section 46303(b), which provides: “Whenever a reference is made to a specific whole number of units of average daily attendance said number shall include any fraction above said number which is less than one-half a unit, and any fraction of one-half or more above a unit above the next lowest whole number.” §46303(b). It is unclear what this provision means or when it applies.

[6] New Village argues that it is immaterial when the necessary rounding should occur. Whether the reported ADAs are rounded before or after division, or both, New Village’s percent of instruction time offered at the school site was at least 80%. Pet. Op. Br. at 12, n.2.

[7] CDE’s calculation highlights how it is disproportionately influenced by New Village’s nonclassroom-based ADA, which rounds up because (at 11.51) it is just barely above 11.49. In short, CDE’s proposed method compounds the rounding differential. Reply at 9, n.1.