3

Bob Balestreri June 3, 2003

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
California Community Colleges
Chancellor's Office
1102 Q street
Sacramento, Ca 95814-6511
(916) 445-8752
http://www.cccco.edu /

L 03-15

3

Bob Balestreri June 3, 2003

June 3, 2003

Bob Balestreri

Dean, Admissions and Records

San Francisco Community College District

50 Phelan Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94112

Re: Academic Renewal

Legal Opinion L 03-15

Dear Dean Balestreri:

You have asked for an interpretation of section 55764 of title 5 of the California Code of Regulations as it pertains to maintaining student academic records within the context of academic renewal. Section 55764 provides:

"The governing board of a district maintaining a community college shall adopt and publish procedures or regulations pertaining to the alleviation of previously recorded substandard academic performance, as defined in section 55761, which is not reflective of a student's demonstrated ability. Such procedures or regulations shall include a clear statement of the educational principles upon which they are based, and shall be referred to as academic renewal regulations. When academic renewal procedures or regulations adopted by the districts permit previously recorded, substandard course work to be disregarded in the computation of grade point averages, the permanent academic record shall be annotated in such a manner that all work remains legible, insuring a true and complete academic history."

You have not provided us with a copy of the District's procedures or regulations that were adopted to implement section 55764, so we have not reviewed those items. Therefore, our review is limited to the terms of section 55764.

We understand that for each student who is eligible for academic renewal pursuant to section 55764, the District removes the "D" or "F" related to the courses for which academic renewal is granted from the calculation of the student's grade point average. (We realize that "no credit" is also considered "substandard," but it does not affect the grade point average.) The District retains the previously recorded grade on the transcript, but adds a notation that the grade was excluded from the GPA.

Some students have asked the District to remove all references to the substandard grades and to simply note on the transcript that no grade from the course is included in the students' grade point averages. The students apparently believe that they have a better chance of being accepted into other colleges or universities if there is no specific reference to substandard grades on their records or the record of the exact substandard grade is unknown. Of course, other colleges that are familiar with the academic renewal process will be alerted by the notation itself to the fact that the student had substandard work. However, the college will not know if the student received a "D," "F," or "no-credit."

In our view, the District's current practice is fully consistent with the regulation. It ensures that the grade point average is not affected by the substandard work, and yet it retains a "true and complete academic history." By contrast, the process suggested by the students masks the exact prior substandard academic grades, and we believe such a process would not comply with section 55764. First, section 55764 refers to the "permanent record" of the student. If previous grades can be erased, it is hardly a "permanent record."

Second, the section permits the "annotation" of the record, not a record change.

Third, the section requires that "all work" must remain legible. We must assume that this truly means "all" work, including previously recorded substandard grades.

Fourth, at the end of the process, the District must have "a true and complete academic history." If the District were to remove previously recorded grades, the academic history would not be "true and complete."

Not only does the clear language of section 55764 lead to this result, but the requirements of section 55765(a) further inform the proper implementation of the process. Section 55765 provides, in part:

"In adopting procedures or regulations pertaining to the alleviation of previously recorded, substandard academic performance, as defined in section 55764, which is not reflective of a student's demonstrated ability, the governing board of a district maintaining a community college:

(a) Shall not adopt any regulation or procedure which conflicts with:

(1) Education Code section 76224, pertaining to the finality of grades assigned by instruction, and

(2) Chapter 2.5 (commencing with section 59020) of division 10 of this part pertaining to the retention and destruction of records, and particularly subdivision (d) of section 59023, relating to the permanency of certain student records."

Section 55765(a)(1) refers to Education Code, section 76224, that declares that instructors' grades are generally final. Only when an instructor's grade is based on mistake, fraud, bad faith, or incompetency may the student's record be changed. In such a case, the flawed grade must be expunged from the record. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 55760(a).) These conditions for grade changes are the exclusive bases for intruding on the finality of an instructor's grade without the instructor's permission. In the case of academic renewal, there is no claim that the grade was based on mistake, fraud, bad faith, or incompetency. Academic renewal permits a student's grade point average to be rejuvenated by the deletion of certain substandard grades, but it does not invoke any of the bases for actually expunging the grade. If the academic renewal process permitted the expunging of grades, it would conflict with the principle of the finality of such grades.

Section 55765(a)(2) also refers to sections 59020 et seq. of title 5; these provisions describe the retention and destruction of records. Permanent records for students include "the grades and number of credits toward graduation allowed for work taken." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5,

§ 59023(d)(1)(G).) Once again, academic renewal may not be implemented so as to conflict with the permanent record regulations. If grades were removed from the record, the conflict is clear.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the process used by the District satisfies the regulatory requirements for maintaining academic records under the academic renewal process. The alternate proposed process described above would not satisfy the regulations.

Sincerely,

Ralph Black

General Counsel

RB:VAR:sj

cc: Ronald T. Lee, General Counsel, San Francisco Community College District

L 03-15

L 03-15