STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
1102 Q STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-6511
(916) 445-8752
HTTP://WWW .CCCCO.EDU
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
L 03-15
Bob Balestreri
2
June 3, 2003
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
L 03-15
Bob Balestreri
3
June 3, 2003
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