The California Community Colleges, Chancellor’s Office has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking titled “Academic Progress Notice and Pause & Academic Renewal.” Comments must be received by the Regulations Coordinator prior to 4:00 p.m. October 17, 2025. As stated in the notice, please email any comments to the regulations email account, regcomments@cccco.edu.
The notice and proposed text are available on the Office of General Counsel page of the Chancellor’s website at .
Districts Can Still Be Liable For Abuse At Overnight Field Trips.
Mount Pleasant Elementary School District (District) contracted with the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE), which owned and operated Walden West Outdoor Science School (Walden West), to provide a four-day overnight science program to District students. SCCOE staff directly supervised students overnight, while District teachers assisted with activities and remained on call. During the program, an SCCOE night supervisor sexually assaulted a fifth-grade District student, “Jane Doe,” multiple times.
Doe’s parents sued the SCCOE and the District for negligence, alleging they knew or should have known that the supervisor had engaged in sexual misconduct and was under investigation for child pornography. The complaint alleged the District failed to protect the students, claiming the District assured parents of constant supervision of students, yet permitted a high-risk supervisor to oversee children overnight.
The District moved for summary judgment, arguing that Education Code section 35330 (Section 35330) barred the claims because parents waived liability for injuries during field trips or excursions, and that Education Code section 44808 (Section 44808) shielded the District from liability because the injury occurred off campus when the student was not under the immediate or direct supervision of District staff. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeal reversed, holding that neither statute protected the District from liability.
The court of appeal first addressed Section 35330, which deems parents to have waived claims for injuries during “field trips or excursions.” It clarified that not every school-sponsored outing qualifies, since the statute applies to recreational or observational activities, not curricular programs that meet state-mandated requirements. Walden West satisfied the District’s science curriculum requirements, and students who opted out received science instruction at their home school, showing that the program substituted for coursework rather than providing an optional outing. The court of appeal also emphasized that Section 35330 creates only a deemed waiver of ordinary negligence claims and does not grant absolute immunity or bar suits alleging gross negligence or intentional torts. Public policy weighed against immunity because Doe alleged gross negligence, claiming the District knew or should have known the nighttime supervisor was unfit, failed to provide promised overnight monitoring, and misled parents about constant supervision. The court of appeal, therefore held that Section 35330 did not apply and that the District could not rely on its protections to bar the claims.
Section 44808 limits a district’s liability for off-campus injuries to prevent unlimited exposure once students leave campus, but the court of appeal clarified that it does not apply when district employees actually supervise or should supervise students. Here, the District failed to show its staff had no duty of immediate and direct supervision at Walden West because the District communicated to parents that teachers were expected to supervise students throughout the program and promised parents constant supervision. Additionally, allegations that the nighttime supervisor was dangerous and unfit created a factual dispute over whether the District needed to provide closer oversight instead of leaving students solely under SCCOE’s care. The court of appeal stressed that allegations of gross negligence, such as ignoring known risks and failing to provide promised supervision, raise factual issues for a jury. Because the District presented no evidence that eliminated these issues, the court of appeal concluded that Section 44808 could not bar the claims.
Implications for Districts
For districts operating field trips, Doe signals that courts will take a narrow view of statutory defenses under Education Code sections 35330 and 44808. Districts cannot assume that every off-campus program qualifies as a “field trip or excursion” simply because it occurs away from campus. The court of appeal emphasized substance over labels, finding that Walden West fulfilled state science requirements and therefore served a curricular purpose. This distinction matters because programs tied to curriculum may not fall within the statutory waiver provisions of Section 35330.
The court of appeal also made clear that Section 35330 does not grant absolute immunity. Even if a program qualifies as a field trip, claims alleging gross negligence or intentional misconduct survive. Allegations that a district ignored known risks, failed to provide promised supervision, or allowed unsafe staff to oversee students will likely proceed to trial.
Section 44808 received similar treatment. The court of appeal stressed that this provision does not eliminate all liability for off-campus injuries. If a district promises or undertakes “immediate and direct supervision,” courts will examine whether district employees actually fulfilled that responsibility. In Doe, evidence that teachers were expected to supervise at all times, combined with parental assurances of constant monitoring, created a triable issue of fact.
Ultimately, the case underscores that statutory defenses cannot substitute for clear supervision policies, robust risk assessments, and accurate communication with families. Districts must honor supervision commitments and deliver on any assurances that students will be under constant supervision. Courts may scrutinize relationships with outside providers, asking whether the District vetted staff, documented safety procedures, or secured contractual assurances of student protection. In practice, Doe suggests that courts will favor the protection of minors over strict reliance on statutory defenses.
Doe v. Mount Pleasant Elementary School Dist. (Aug. 29, 2025, No. H050830) ___Cal.App.5th___.