CAPSES and CACFS Opposition to Reduction of ESY Minimum Days from 20 to 15

CAPSES and CA Alliance 

Public Comment and Formal Position

CAPSES and CACFS Opposition to Proposed Amendments to CCR Section 3043(d): Reduction of ESY Minimum Days from 20 to 15

Submitted to:

California State Board of Education45-Day Public Comment Period on Extended School Year (ESY) Waivers Regulations

Introduction

The California Association of Private Special Education Services (CAPSES) and the California Alliance of Child and Family Services (CA Alliance) respectfully submit this comment in opposition to the proposed amendment to California Code of Regulations section 3043(d), which would reduce the minimum number of instructional days for Extended School Year (ESY) programs from 20 to 15 days.

CAPSES represents nonpublic schools (NPSs) and nonpublic agencies (NPAs) that serve students with disabilities across California, providers that deliver critical educational instruction, therapeutic services, behavioral intervention, and related supports required for students to receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  The CA Alliance represents over 200 nationally accredited non-profit community-based organizations serving children, youth, and families in public human services systems. 

While we acknowledge the State’s stated goal of aligning ESY regulations with general instructional time statutes and reducing administrative burden, we believe the proposed change would have unintended and harmful consequences for students with disabilities, service continuity, workforce stability, and the long-term effectiveness of ESY as a tool to prevent regression.

ESY Is a Substantive Educational Safeguard, Not a Scheduling Exercise

Extended School Year services exist for a narrow and critical purpose: to prevent significant regression and ensure timely recoupment for students with disabilities whose educational progress would otherwise be jeopardized by extended breaks in instruction.

Reducing the minimum number of ESY instructional days, regardless of how instructional minutes are reallocated, undermines the educational intent of ESY. Fewer instructional days mean:

• Fewer opportunities for reinforcement of learned skills

• Less consistency for students who rely on routine and structured environments

• Increased risk of regression not only in academics, but in behavioral regulation, daily living skills, independence, and social-emotional functioning

Regression and recoupment are not linear processes measured solely by minutes. They are deeply tied to consistency, repetition, and predictable instructional rhythms. CAPSES and CA Alliance believe all of these are weakened by compressing ESY into fewer days.

Instructional Minute Requirements Create New Barriers in Practice

The proposed grade-band instructional minute requirements over a 15-day period introduce practical challenges that disproportionately impact students with higher support needs.

For example:

• Students in grades 4–8 would be required to attend five-hour-and-20-minute instructional days, compared to the four-hour ESY schedules many programs currently run successfully.

• Longer instructional days during summer months can be counterproductive for students with disabilities, particularly those with sensory sensitivities, behavioral regulation challenges, or medical needs.

• These extended daily schedules risk increasing student fatigue, dysregulation, and absenteeism, which directly conflict with ESY’s purpose.

In practice, this proposal trades distributed, developmentally appropriate instruction for compressed schedules that may meet technical time requirements while diminishing educational effectiveness.

Financial and Workforce Impacts Cannot Be Ignored

Although the State asserts there are no fiscal impacts, CAPSES and CA Alliance members experience this proposal very differently.

For Nonpublic Schools (NPSs):

• ESY daily rates have historically assumed a 20-day minimum.

• Reducing ESY to 15 days represents an effective 2.6% reduction in annual Basic Education revenue, based on a 200-day instructional model.

• These reductions affect program sustainability, staffing continuity, and the ability to maintain year-round educational models for high-need students.

For Nonpublic Agencies (NPAs):

• Many NPAs are paid per instructional or service minute.

• While total minutes may theoretically remain comparable, the reduction to 15 days:

  • Shortens employment duration for staff

  • Increases the likelihood of staff seeking alternative summer employment

  • Exacerbates already critical workforce shortages and turnover, particularly among behavior interventionists and therapists

Workforce instability directly undermines service quality and continuity for students with disabilities. Considering the dire realities of workforce shortages in education and especially in Special education, this outcome should be weighed heavily in any ESY policy decision.

Risk of De Facto Funding Caps and Uneven Implementation

CAPSES and the CA Alliance are also concerned that, despite the proposal’s framing of “minimum” requirements, LEAs and SELPAs may interpret the 15-day standard as a de facto funding cap, particularly during fiscally constrained years.

This creates a risk of:

• Reduced ESY offerings across regions

• Increased inconsistency in ESY access and duration

• Heightened disputes during IEP development regarding what constitutes “necessary” ESY services

Such variability runs counter to the State’s stated goal of clarity and consistency.

CAPSES and CA Alliance Position and Request

CAPSES and the CA Alliance respectfully urges the State Board of Education to reject the proposed amendment to CCR section 3043(d) as currently drafted.

At a minimum, we request that the State:

1. Maintain the 20-day minimum for ESY programs, or

2. Provide clear safeguards ensuring that reductions in minimum days:

   • Do not diminish student access to meaningful ESY services

   • Do not incentivize shortened programs driven by fiscal rather than educational considerations

   • Explicitly recognize regression and recoupment across academic, behavioral, functional, and independence domains

ESY is not a matter of administrative efficiency alone. It is a critical educational safeguard for students whose progress depends on continuity, structure, and sustained instructional engagement.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment and welcome continued dialogue to develop ESY policies that truly serve California’s students with disabilities.