California’s Justice Department and Natomas Unified School District have agreed to a two-year court-supervised plan addressing student-record privacy, discriminatory discipline and unlawful suspensions. The state agreement, announced Oct. 2, requires policy revisions, staff training, public reporting and outside technical support across the Sacramento County district.
The action follows an investigation that began in January 2023. In its court complaint, the attorney general’s office said district staff disclosed confidential education records without required consent, including instances involving individualized education plans and Section 504 plans. The district cooperated with the investigation and had already begun changes before the agreement was filed, according to the state.
Investigators also reviewed discipline data from the 2018-19 through 2024-25 school years. The state concluded that Black students and students with disabilities were overrepresented in referrals and more likely to receive exclusionary punishments. The complaint alleges those disparities violated state anti-discrimination protections and, for students with disabilities, federal law.
A separate finding concerns “willful defiance” and classroom disruption. California law bars suspending students in kindergarten through 12th grade on that ground. The state says Natomas issued out-of-school suspensions for defiance or disruption during the period examined, including cases involving students in kindergarten through eighth grade.
The proposed court order assigns the district’s chief of staff to coordinate compliance and report directly to the superintendent. It requires a districtwide review of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, followed within 150 days by a written plan emphasizing consistent, culturally responsive and restorative practices. A technical-assistance provider will help assess whether the system is being used as designed.
The district must also conduct demographic reviews of suspensions, expulsions, arrest referrals and other exclusionary outcomes at the end of the 2026-27 and 2027-28 school years. Results are to be provided to both the school board and the attorney general, creating a measurable record of whether disparities and high discipline rates are declining.
Privacy changes have specific deadlines. Within 90 days, Natomas must submit revised policies covering federal and state student-record rules, designate personnel responsible for implementation and establish procedures for notifying families after unauthorized disclosures. Within 120 days, it must create a student-privacy section on its website linking policies, required annual notices and state guidance.
The agreement also requires annual training for staff who handle confidential records and yearly information sessions for parents and guardians. For disciplinary agreements used instead of formal expulsion, the district must provide families the full proposed terms at least 24 hours before a meeting and explain their rights.
The filing resolves the state investigation through a structured remedy rather than a contested trial. It does not by itself establish that every individual discipline decision was discriminatory. Its practical effect is to place the district’s policies, data and implementation under sustained review, with deadlines that parents, the board and state officials can track over the next two school years.
