Stockton Unified delays Franklin High SPSA approval after parents raise transparency, quorum concerns

The Stockton Unified School District Board of Education on Tuesday declined to approve Franklin High School’s 2026–27 School Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) after parents and trustees raised concerns about missing documentation and inadequate parent engagement.

Several Franklin parents addressed the board during public comment, saying recommended changes gathered at school-site meetings were not reflected in the SPSA. "If the school site council does not want to take the time to discuss, review and make changes before presenting it to the Stockton School Board, then why should you vote tonight to approve the 2026–27 SPSA that was not appropriately discussed at the school site council?" Monica Olivares, who identified herself as the newly elected parent representative for Franklin High School’s school-site council, told trustees.

Lorena Duran told the board the district’s SPSA templates and public records lacked transparency: "What is missing is, for example, the date of that ELAC meeting … and when these recommendations were also given to the school-site council for consideration." Angeles Romero de Cortez, the school-site council vice president, told trustees she had documentation that some members were absent from meetings where recommendations were claimed to have been made.

District staff explained the SPSA review process and recent template changes intended to increase transparency. "We actually end up using the recommendations and assurances page that's provided within the template … it is different because now it actually has an explicit spot for them to provide either their school-site council chair ... along with the principal's name and an additional spot for any advisories that were explicitly referenced," said Ashley Freitas, a district representative responsible for the SPSA review process. Freitas said the district requires sites to post meeting agendas and to upload pictures of posted notices; she also described planned training for school-site council members.

Trustees spent substantial time examining Franklin’s records: members questioned whether quorum had been met at the school-site council meetings and whether parents had meaningful opportunities to provide feedback. One trustee noted data in the plan showing English learners performing well below standards while the Franklin SPSA included limited site-directed funding for English-learner supports (a commenter referenced a $500 allocation in the SPSA for a particular EL strategy).

The board first voted on full approval of all SPSAs and the motion failed on a 3–3 roll-call (three yays, three nays). Vice President Shauna Priest then moved to remove Franklin High School from the consolidated approval and to approve the remaining SIPSA/SPSAs; that motion passed unanimously (6–0).

Board members instructed staff to provide Franklin a written statement listing the reasons for denial under Education Code requirements and to work with the school on three specific items: expand meaningful, documented family feedback opportunities (including in‑person options), clearly show which parent recommendations were incorporated or not (and why), and provide student data demonstrating impact of funds and strategies. The board was advised that Franklin cannot use Title I funds tied to an approved SPSA until its plan is brought into compliance.

The board did not set a specific deadline during the meeting; trustees asked staff to return with the revisions and documentation needed for the site to regain approval. The rest of the SPSAs that were not specific to Franklin were approved that night.