California Settles Williams School Funding
Case; News in New York, Kansas, Wyoming, Pennsylvania
and Connecticut Cases
On August 13, the plaintiffs in Williams
v. State of California announced that they had
entered into a settlement with the State of California
to end California's school funding case. The lawsuit
was filed in 1999 on behalf of a class of California
students who attended substandard schools. Among the
features of the schools were: inadequate, unsafe and
unhealthy facilities, a lack of instructional material,
a shortage of qualified teachers, a lack of educational
resources such as libraries, and overcrowded schools
which resulted in a staggered and shortened school year,
known as Concept 6.
Mark D. Rosenbaum, Legal Director for the ACLU
of Southern California and one of the lead plaintiff
lawyers for the case, hailed the settlement as a "watershed
moment for public education in California."
Sweetie Williams, the father of the named plaintiff
in the case, Eliezer Williams, agreed, stating, "I'm
so glad that the governor has stepped forward to make
education a top priority and to bring closure to this
case." His son, Eliezer, now a high school senior
remarked that "Being a part of this case has taught
me that people can really make a difference if they
have the energy and desire to fight for equality."
A spokesperson for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was
quoted in the Los
Angeles Times as stating that "the governor
believes that we should spend our time, energy and money
fixing what is wrong with our schools and not fighting
them."
Not everyone in California is as optimistic as the
parties about the settlement, however. The Contra
Costa Times reported on August 23 that California
School Boards Association Director Scott Plotkin
voiced a concern that the settlement may focus too much
on monitoring and compliance and not enough on the goal
of educating every child. Jack O'Connell, the state
superintendent of public instruction, echoed that worry
in the Los Angeles Times, where he stated that
the settlement "relies heavily on bureaucratic
solutions." Other school officials are concerned
that the amount of the settlement may be insufficient
to repair every school and provide books to all children.
The
settlement calls for legislation which will: (1)
provide $800 million over the next several years for
school repairs; (2) create a School Facilities Needs
Assessment program; (3) create standards for instructional
materials and facilities, and require the Concept 6
calendar to be eliminated no later than 2012; (4) require
a uniform complaint process in every district for complaints
on inadequate instructional materials, teacher vacancies
and misassignments, and emergency facilities problems;
(5) intervene in schools ranked in the bottom 30% under
the 2003 Academic Performance Index, if the instructional
materials and facilities standards are not met; (6)
improve the teacher supply by streamlining requirements
for out-of-state credentialed teachers to obtain California
credentials; and several other provisions. The settlement
also calls for an allocation of about $139 million for
instructional materials in 2004-2005.
The settlement has been submitted for approval by the
court. In addition to the ACLU, plaintiffs were also
represented by Morrison
and Foerster, Public
Advocates, Inc. and the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF).
New York (CFE v. State)
New York's highest court had set
a deadline of July 30, 2004 for the State to bring
the state school funding system into constitutional
compliance. The deadline passed with no state action.
On August 3, the state conceded non-compliance with
the Court's order. The trial judge, Justice Leland DeGrasse,
then appointed a panel of three special masters, or
referees, to hold hearings on the matter and issue recommendations
to the court. The referees are two former New York State
appellate judges, Hon. William C. Thompson and Hon.
Leo E. Milonas, and the former dean of Fordham University
Law School, John D. Feerick. CFE
has submitted its plan to the referees, and the state
has submitted the Governor's plan. The referees have
indicated that they are committed to public input and,
to that end, they are accepting applications for amicus
briefs and will consider allowing certain non-parties
to present oral arguments. The referees are to submit
their report to Justice DeGrasse by November 30, 2004.
Kansas
Oral argument in the State's appeal to the Kansas Supreme
Court in Montoy
v. State is scheduled for August 30. The argument
will be broadcast live on the internet on the following
sites: www.kscourts.org
and www.kanedlive.org.
The State is appealing a trial
court decision declaring Kansas' school funding
system unconstitutional. As reported in the Wichita
Eagle, eleven organizations have filed amicus
curiae briefs, most of whom support the trial court's
decision.
Connecticut
Plaintiffs in Sheff
v. O'Neill, Connecticut's landmark desegregation
case, announced on August 3 that they were returning
to court because the State has failed
to comply with a 2003 court order--negotiated by
the parties--that required the State to take certain
steps toward desegregation. The order,
which had been agreed upon by the plaintiffs and the
State, had followed a 1996 finding by the Connecticut
Supreme Court that boundary lines establishing school
districts in Hartford were unconstitutional. The order
established a timetable for the state to open magnet
schools, at a rate of two a year and to reduce the concentration
of African-American and Latino students in schools in
Hartford and its surrounding area to no more than 68%
by 2007.
The plaintiffs' expert published a report indicating
that the State has opened enough magnet schools to accommodate
fewer than 900 students, when the target for this year
was 2400 students. Connecticut's Commissioner of Education,
Dr. Betty Sternberg, acknowledged the delay in a New
York Times article. She further remarked that
the State would probably not be able to reach the court
ordered target until 2010 or 2011.
Wyoming
A coalition of education groups has returned to court
to challenge the state's system of funding a variety
of school programs, from operation to capital construction.
This announcement is another step in the school
funding lawsuit which began in 1992. On May 10,
the Wyoming Supreme Court denied the State's request
to deem the state's school construction system constitutional.
The court also denied the plaintiffs' request to appoint
a special master in the matter, indicating that any
remaining questions can be resolved through judicial
channels.
Reading, Pa. District Loses NCLB
Case
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania rejected an appeal
by the Reading School District challenging the designation
of 13 of its 19 schools as either "in need of improvement"
under NCLB or as in danger of being labeled "in
need of improvement." The Pennsylvania
Department of Education (PDE) had labeled six schools
as failing to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) under
NCLB for two years in a row, and an additional seven
as being on the warning list for sanctions because they
failed to make AYP last year. Reading, Pennsylvania
is a diverse school district with many disaggregated
subgroups. Under NCLB, each subgroup must make
AYP in order for schools and districts to make AYP.
The school district contested the PDE designation,
arguing that (1) the State did not provide students
with Limited English Proficiency tests in Spanish, as
required by NCLB; (2) the size of the disaggregated
subgroups, 40 students, was too small and therefore
produced unreliable results; and (3) the State imposed
an "unfunded mandate" on the impoverished
school district, in violation of NCLB, by failing to
provide technical assistance. An administrative judge
ruled in favor of the Pennsylvania Department of Education.
The district then appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
In rejecting the appeal, the court noted its limited
scope of review, which allowed it only to rule whether
or not there was sufficient evidence to support the
administrative judge's decision. It is interesting to
note that the court did not explicitly decide the question
of an "unfunded mandate." It merely noted
that the Department of Education was providing technical
assistance and was not required to do so all at once.
Texas and South Carolina
The trial in the Texas school funding case, West
Orange Grove Consolidated ISD v. Nelson, began
on August 9. South Carolina's school funding trial,
Abbeville
v. State, is expected to conclude soon.
Prepared by Wendy C. Lecker, August 26 2004
|
