SB 373 establishes a strengthened state certification regime for nonpublic, nonsectarian schools and agencies that provide special education and related services to pupils with exceptional needs. The bill prescribes what must appear on certification applications, mandates staff training in evidence‑based behavioral practices, requires specific administrator qualifications, and creates a multi‑year monitoring cycle with powers for unannounced visits and reporting.
The bill increases transparency and accountability for contracted providers — including additional procedural safeguards for foster children and extra review steps for facilities located outside California — while creating new compliance tasks and fees for providers and monitoring responsibilities for local educational agencies and the State Superintendent’s Office.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 373 requires applicants to submit detailed program descriptions, staff credential documentation, and written assurances on behavioral interventions and civil‑service compliance; it mandates initial and annual training for staff on evidence‑based behavioral supports and sets minimum administrator qualifications. The Superintendent must perform onsite reviews before certification and on a recurring three‑year cycle, with authority for unannounced investigations when immediate danger or significant deficiencies are alleged.
Who It Affects
Nonpublic, nonsectarian schools and agencies that serve pupils with IEPs (including providers located outside California), contracting local educational agencies that place pupils in those programs, and the State Superintendent’s Office and its monitoring staff. Parents and foster children are also affected through new disclosure and placement‑decision requirements.
Why It Matters
The bill codifies operational and staffing standards that many districts and parents have sought to assure safety and fidelity of services in external placements; it centralizes documentation and makes the department the focal point for certification status, corrective actions, and long‑term records of compliance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 373 turns the Superintendent’s certification of nonpublic, nonsectarian special education providers into a granular, document‑driven process. An applicant must describe the special education and designated instruction it provides, list each staff member who delivers services with copies of the credential/license/registration that qualifies them, and submit an annual operating budget plus affidavits and criminal‑record assurances.
The bill also requires written assurances about behavioral intervention policies and retention of training records.
Training is a central compliance hook: the bill requires evidence‑based behavioral practices training for any staff who have contact with pupils during the schoolday. New hires must receive training within 30 days of employment and all applicable staff must be trained annually.
The bill sets qualitative constraints on that training (it must be conducted by licensed/certified professionals, align with IEP development and implementation, and be consistent with California pupil‑discipline law) and gives contracting LEAs the role of verifying compliance and including training plans in master contracts.SB 373 spells out a monitoring cadence: an onsite review before certification, an initial certification that cannot exceed one year, and a three‑year monitoring cycle that combines provider self‑review, an onsite visit by the Superintendent in year two, and a followup visit in year three. The Superintendent must decide an application within 120 days or the applicant receives automatic conditional certification through August 31 of the current school year.
For facilities located outside California the bill adds extra pre‑certification reviews beginning in the 2026–27 school year — including verification that pupils received notice of their rights; confidential grievance processes; behavior intervention and abuse/neglect screening practices; and interviews with pupils.The bill tightens who may deliver and administer services: by statute, staff who render special education services must hold the same credential/permit required in public schools (with some out‑of‑state equivalency for providers outside California), and starting with the 2021–22 school year administrators must hold or be pursuing one of several enumerated credentials, licenses, or master’s degrees tied to education, psychology, counseling, social work, or special education. SB 373 also regulates financial and organizational transparency where a provider also operates a licensed children’s institution, requires separation of records and entity‑level audits, sets a tiered fee schedule to fund onsite reviews, and creates reporting duties for pupil‑involved incidents where law enforcement was contacted.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Superintendent must act on certification applications within 120 days; failure to act grants the applicant automatic conditional certification through August 31 of the current school year.
Staff training: new employees with pupil contact must be trained within 30 days of hire and all such staff must be trained annually in evidence‑based behavioral practices, including PBIS, de‑escalation, and data‑driven interventions.
Administrator qualifications: beginning 2021–22, an administrator must hold or be obtaining one of a defined list of credentials, licenses, or a master’s degree in fields such as special education, psychology, counseling, social work, or behavioral analysis.
Monitoring and records: certification triggers a three‑year monitoring cycle (self‑review, onsite review, followup), unannounced investigations when there is immediate danger, and retention of violation records for 10 years.
Fees and financial rules: certification applicants pay a tiered fee (e.g.
$300 for 1–5 pupils up to $2,000 for 76+ pupils) and entities that also run licensed children’s institutions must maintain separate financial records, budgets, and entity‑level audits.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Application contents, staff credentials, and training requirements
Subdivision (a) lists the core documentation the department expects for certification: program descriptions (differentiated for schools versus agencies), a roster of appropriately qualified staff with credential/license copies, an annual budget, and criminal‑history affidavits. It also embeds the training mandate: applicants must document plans for evidence‑based behavioral practices training, with specific timelines for new hires and annual refreshers, and the training must be delivered by licensed or certified professionals and aligned with IEP processes and state discipline law. Practically, this forces providers to formalize training curricula, maintain verifiable attendance and content records, and build credential‑verification into hiring and contract workflows.
Local educational agency notice and multi‑site certifications
These provisions require applicants to notify the special education local plan area (SELPA) where they operate and give SELPA representatives defined windows to review initial applications (60 days) and renewals (30 days). If the SELPA does not acknowledge within those periods, applicants may proceed to the state. The statute also requires separate certification for each site if the program runs on multiple locations, which increases administrative overhead for multi‑site providers and ensures site‑level accountability.
Onsite review before certification and three‑year monitoring cycle
Before granting certification the Superintendent must perform an onsite review and may use SELPA representatives and an external nonconflicted provider for assistance. After certification, the bill prescribes a three‑year monitoring cadence: year one self‑review, year two onsite by the Superintendent, and year three followup. For conditional certifications or formal complaints the Superintendent must review annually. The practical impact is a predictable schedule for reviews that also preserves the Superintendent’s ability to escalate oversight when safety or quality concerns arise.
Decision timeline, disclosure, and parental access to findings
Subdivision (f) sets the 120‑day decision clock and requires the Superintendent to certify, conditionally certify, or deny. It also creates a mechanism for sharing certification status, summaries of findings, and supporting documentation with SELPAs and LEAs — and requires LEAs to disclose that information to parents during IEP placement discussions. While the law protects personally identifiable data, it formalizes documentation that LEAs must provide parents when considering placements, increasing transparency in placement decisions.
Investigation powers, incident reporting, and pupil interviews
The Superintendent gains authority to conduct unannounced onsite investigations when there is substantial reason to believe immediate danger exists, and the bill obligates providers to notify the department and the contracting LEA in writing within one business day when law enforcement is involved in a pupil‑involved incident. For out‑of‑state schools the Superintendent must interview pupils in certain review contexts and develop a standardized pupil interview tool by July 1, 2026, to assess perceptions of respect, dignity, and professional boundaries. These are practical tools for detecting systemic problems that records alone may not reveal.
Restrictions on conversions and entities that operate licensed children’s institutions
The bill forbids certification of providers that propose to initiate or expand services by shifting pupils from juvenile court, community schools, or certain nonspecial education programs without earlier notice to the county superintendent and SELPA (no later than December 1 before the fiscal year). For entities that also operate licensed children’s institutions, the bill requires separate financial records, entity‑level budgets, and an annual audit that documents funds spent on the educational program. These provisions aim to prevent backdoor conversions and opaque cross‑funding among co‑located services.
Fees, credential standards, and criminal‑history verification
Subdivision (n) establishes a tiered certification fee structure tied to pupil enrollment and permits annual inflation adjustments; fees fund onsite reviews. Subdivision (o) requires that instructional staff hold credentials, permits, or licenses equivalent to public‑school staff, and it enumerates acceptable administrator credentials and degrees for certification eligibility. Subdivision (q) authorizes the Superintendent to demand evidence of successful criminal background checks and subsequent arrest‑notification enrollment and requires providers to store those records securely. Combined, these mechanics create continuous credential and safety verification obligations for providers.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Foster children placed in nonpublic schools: the bill requires assurances that schools will serve as a pupil’s school of origin and allow continuity of placement, plus enhanced disclosure and protections tailored to foster pupils.
- Parents and guardians: they gain access to certification status, summaries of findings, and supporting documentation during IEP placement discussions, improving informed consent and placement decisions.
- Local educational agencies (LEAs) and SELPAs: they receive clearer standards and reporting tools for monitoring contracted placements, including a department interview tool and a standardized onsite‑visit form to report findings.
- State oversight (Department of Education and Superintendent): the department gains standardized application materials, a decision timeline, tools for investigations, and a 10‑year retention requirement for violation records, increasing institutional memory and enforcement capacity.
- Pupils in out‑of‑state placements: the law mandates additional checks (rights notifications, grievance processes, pupil interviews) intended to improve protections for students placed outside California.
Who Bears the Cost
- Nonpublic, nonsectarian schools and agencies: they must compile detailed applications, pay tiered fees, deliver mandated training, maintain credential and criminal‑history records, separate finances when operating multiple entities, and face potential more frequent onsite reviews, all of which raise compliance costs.
- Contracting LEAs and SELPAs: the statute requires pre‑placement site visits, annual monitoring visits, verification of training and master‑contract provisions, and additional reporting to the department, increasing staff time and travel costs.
- Department of Education and Superintendent’s Office: expanded inspection, investigation, record management, and review responsibilities — including development of tools and updating forms by set deadlines — create resource needs that the bill only partially offsets with provider fees.
- Out‑of‑state providers: these entities face new documentary checks, pupil‑interview expectations, and direct supervision from California authorities beginning in specified school years, complicating cross‑jurisdictional compliance.
- Entities that operate licensed children’s institutions: they must perform separate accounting, submit entity‑level audits, and document inter‑entity relationships, exposing them to auditing costs and potentially limiting cross‑program funding flexibility.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma SB 373 creates is between increasing safeguards (credential checks, mandatory training, frequent inspections, parental disclosure, and financial transparency) and preserving an adequate network of external placement options: stronger oversight protects pupils and standardizes quality, but it also raises costs and administrative barriers that may shrink the pool of available providers — precisely when districts need more placements for students with intensive needs.
SB 373 advances oversight but raises implementation questions. The law delegates substantial verification duties to contracting LEAs — for example, confirming training plans are in master contracts and conducting monitoring visits that include in‑person pupil interviews for out‑of‑state placements — yet provides limited new funding for LEA monitoring capacity.
That gap could result in uneven enforcement: districts with resources will meet the bill’s verification and reporting expectations, while underresourced SELPAs may struggle to comply, producing geographic disparities in oversight.
Another tension involves the bill’s record and disclosure obligations. Requiring the department and LEAs to share certification status and findings with parents enhances transparency, but the statute also restricts disclosure of personally identifiable information.
Practical questions arise about how much contextual detail LEAs can provide during IEP placement discussions without running afoul of pupil‑privacy laws. Similarly, mandatory retention of violation records for 10 years increases institutional memory but raises data‑management, confidentiality, and due‑process concerns if findings are not uniformly distilled into clear, appealable corrective actions.
Finally, the administrative credentialing and training requirements improve professional standards but risk narrowing the provider pool, especially in regions already struggling to find qualified staff. Tighter credential and audit requirements for entities that also run residential or medical programs will likely increase operating costs; some providers may stop accepting complex placements or exit the market, which could reduce placement options for high‑need pupils unless LEAs expand in‑district services or fund alternative providers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.