Advocacy Organizations in California File Second School Funding Lawsuit

Seeking to counter the impact of a state fiscal crisis that so far has resulted in over 16,000 teacher layoffs and cuts to core academic programs, a coalition of advocacy groups together with a number of parents and students, filed a second education adequacy case against the State of California and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger earlier this week. The four grassroots organizations—the Alliance for Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), Californians for Justice (CFJ), San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) and the Campaign for Quality Education (CQE)—represent thousands of students of color and children from poverty backgrounds. The case, Campaign for Quality Education, et al. v. State of California, follows Robles-Wong, et al. v. State of California, a lawsuit filed in May on behalf of the California School Boards Association and a number of other major educational organizations, and individual plaintiffs. Although plaintiffs in both cases rely on the same constitutional clauses, and the same basic facts and statistics in their complaints, the new case differs in its focus on the unique needs of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and its emphasis pre-school services and on the creation of data systems to ensure the most effective use of funds.

California has one of the most complex and notorious school finance systems in the country; the state, despite its relative affluence, ranks 47th in the nation per-pupil funding. Ironically, this arcane system, largely created by a series of constitutional provisions mandated by voter referenda, followed a major ruling from the state Supreme Court in 1971, Serrano v. Priest, that was one of the first cases in the country to hold a property tax based funding structure unconstitutional because of the disparities in per-pupil spending that it created. California students perform poorly on various achievement criteria, and the state as a whole has low graduation rates and NAEP scores, according to the CQE complaint.

Like the plaintiffs in Robles-Wong, the CQE coalition argues that the State’s funding system is “irrational,” “inadequate” and “wholly divorced” from educational realities. Specifically, they argue, the State’s reliance upon the existing financing scheme infringes upon students’ fundamental right to a “meaningful education,” violates the equal protection clause and contravenes the constitutional provision requiring the legislature to “first…set apart” funds for education—Articles IX, I, IV and XVI, respectively, of the California Constitution. The new complaint also goes further in arguing that it is “part of the State’s duty” to “ensure that low-income students—as early as possible in their educational experience—are able to overcome the impediments to learning that come with the effects of poverty through high-quality preschool services in order to guarantee an “equal and adequate opportunity for a meaningful education.” The complaint implies at several points that the State might be obligated to provide supplementary services for students from poverty backgrounds or students with other special needs, like English Language Learners. In their request for relief, for example, plaintiffs seek a declaration that a “meaningful education is one that imparts knowledge and skills needed…to compete on an equal footing in obtaining competitive employment.” (emphasis added)

Plaintiffs also contend that the State cannot spend money effectively as it “suffers from an inadequate data system and an inadequate system for ensuring uniform teacher quality,” requisites for accountability and access to a meaningful education. For example, without an adequate longitudinal data system, they argue, the State and districts cannot assess the effectiveness of intervention programs or the needs of individual students. Plaintiffs focus on data quality, an issue that has risen to the forefront of the education policy debate due, in part, to the Obama Administration’s focus on data, and especially data needed for teacher evaluation, as a major priority of its education initiatives.

The plaintiffs are represented by Public Advocates, counsel in the seminal Serrano v. Priest litigations. They have asked the Court to declare the existing school financing system unconstitutional, “provide injunctive relief as necessary to achieve compliance with the Constitution,” and retain jurisdiction.