California

Costing Out | Recent Events |Useful Resources


Historical Background

Serrano v. Priest

In 1971, the California Supreme Court ruled education a fundamental constitutional right and remanded Serrano v. Priest, 487 P.2d 1241, for trial in what is generally regarded as the first of the modern-era education finance litigation decisions. In 1976, in Serrano v. Priest (Serrano II ), 557 P.2d 929, the same court affirmed the lower court's finding that the wealth-related disparities in per-pupil spending generated by the state's education finance system violated the equal protection clause of the California constitution. The court distinguished the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Rodriguez decision, which applied only to the federal constitution.

When the subsequent Serrano remedy was challenged in 1986, 93% of California students were in school districts whose per-pupil spending was within $100 of each other. The court held, in Serrano v. Priest, 226 Cal. Rptr. 584 (Court of Appeal, 2d District 1986), that this level of disparity satisfied California's equal protection requirements.

Williams v. State

In 1999, several California organizations filed a school funding case, Williams v. State, in state superior court on behalf of a class of students attending substandard schools. The complaint cited inadequate, unsafe, and unhealthy facilities, a shortage of qualified teachers, missing libraries, a lack of instructional materials, and overcrowded schools that resulted in a staggered and shortened school year (together known as Concept 6). The state filed cross-claims against 18 school districts, but in 2000 plaintiffs won a motion to sever and stay proceedings on the cross-claims.

The court granted class certification in 2001, the Williams plaintiffs released their experts' reports in 2002, and the trial was scheduled to begin in 2004. Instead, in August 2004 the parties announced a settlement – later approved by the court – to: (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; (4) require a complaint process for inadequate instructional materials, teacher vacancies, and emergency facilities problems; (5) intervene in schools ranked in the bottom 30% under the 2003 Academic Performance Index if instructional materials and facilities standards are not met; (6) streamline California credentialing for out-of-state credentialed teachers; (7) allocate about $140 million for instructional materials in 2004-2005; and several other provisions.

While the parties were optimistic about the settlement, leaders of some education organizations were concerned that it might focus too much on monitoring and compliance and not enough on educating every child, and that the amount of the settlement may be insufficient to repair every school and provide books to all children.

Plaintiffs were represented by a team of organizations, led by Public Advocates, Inc., the ACLUs of Northern and Southern California, Morrison & Foerster, LLP , and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF).

Renee v. Duncan

In Renee v. Duncan, a coalition of parents, students, community groups, and legal advocates sued the United States Department of Education in federal district court in San Francisco in August 2007 because it allows novice teachers in training to be considered “highly qualified,” the central teacher qualification requirement under NCLB.. The plaintiffs claimed that classification of intern teachers as highly qualified harms students, especially the “large numbers of poor and minority students” served by these “intern teachers.” “A primary purpose of NCLB was to address this problem,” said one plaintiff.

In July 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the regulation. While trial court had upheld the Department’s interpretation of the statute, the appeals court did not even reach the substantive issues, since they held that plaintiffs had not shown sufficient legal injury to qualify them to bring the case. The reasoning was based on the fact that under the amorphous NCLB definition of “highly qualified,” which leaves it to the states to define the requirements for “full State certification,” the State, even in the absence of the challenged federal regulation, could hold that teachers participating in alternative internship programs were credentialed.

In an unusual reversal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals revoked its earlier decision and accepted jurisdiction for the Renee case. In October 2010 the court ruled that intern teachers cannot be labeled “highly qualified” under NCLB standards. The results of this decision may affect the 10,000 teaching interns enrolled in alternative certification programs in California, who disproportionately fill many low income and minority school districts. Currently sixty-two percent of interns teach in the poorest half of California’s schools. Under the new ruling, California will have to re-write legislation labeling these teachers as “highly qualified,” and enforce the legislation by ensuring teaching interns are distributed proportionately throughout the state.

Recent Events

Reed v. State of California

In February 2010, families of three Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) filed suit against the State and district over the State’s decision to reduce education funding levels in response to the fiscal crisis and LAUSD’s subsequent choice to layoff thousands of teachers. The plaintiffs’ schools, which primarily serve students of color, children from poverty backgrounds and English Language Learners, suffered greater reductions in staff than many of their affluent counterparts due to seniority rules.

Due to the layoffs, the plaintiffs’ schools lost teachers whose efforts had resulted in significant increases in student performance, as well as entire departments in core subject areas. According to the complaint, vacancies were filled by long-term substitutes and permanent teachers from the rehire pool, including many without credentials to teach in their assigned subject areas and grade levels. Since the case was filed in February, over 20,000 teachers have received pink slips.

Plaintiffs charged the State with violating the equal protection, education and privileges and immunities clauses of California’s constitution. In addition to declaratory relief, the plaintiffs requested that the Court prohibit defendants from laying off teachers at Gompers, Liechty and Markham in the 2010-2011 year, laying off a greater percentage of teachers at these schools than at the average LAUSD school, contributing to a higher rate of turnover at these schools than in the average LAUSD school, and inflicting any “further educational harm.”

On May 13, 2010 the Court issued an order granting a preliminary injunction. The Court accepted many of plaintiffs’ allegations and held that the school system “could not bargain away students’ constitutional rights.” The order enjoined the school district from implementing any budget-based layoffs of classroom teachers at the three schools that were the subject of the litigation during the pendency of the case.

In October 2010, the Plaintiffs reached an agreement with Los Angeles Unified School District and the State of California to settle the Reed case, which will prevent budget-based layoffs from up to 45 schools in LAUSD. Targeted schools, chosen by the District based on schools they determine likely to be negatively and disproportionately affected by teacher turnover, will be exempt from “last hired, first fired” practices typical of districts across the country. The existing seniority order lay off system will continue in affect at all other schools in the District, but the settlement may affect future negotiations about this issue. The settlement also arranges for targeted schools to develop retention incentive programs for teachers and administrators who agree to remain at the school site for a number of years and contribute to the school’s academic growth.

The plaintiffs in Robles-Wong, et al. v. State of California, an adequacy case filed in May, 2010, argue that the State’s current funding scheme is entirely divorced from educational realities and actual costs, and the State’s continued reliance upon it constitutes a violation of the state constitution. In addition to taking the more traditional tack of arguing that inadequate funding infringes upon students’ fundamental right to education and violates the equal protection clause, the plaintiffs also contend that the State’s failure to align funding with its academic requirements and expectations amounts to a failure to provide a functioning “system” of schools as required by Article IX of the state Constitution. In addition, they assert that Art. XVI, which states that “from all state revenues there shall first be set apart the monies to be applied by the state for the support of the public school system” means that the State must treat financial support for schools differently from other spending decisions and “intentionally and rationally” determine and provide for the actual costs of its comprehensive education program.

The complaint provides a very detailed and dismal overview of the state of public education, which persists in spite of California’s aspirational “comprehensive educational program.” In 1995, the legislature outlined the specific content and skills that public schools must impart to all students so that they can “succeed in the information-based, global economy of the 21st century.” The legislature also mandated a range of programs, including targeted services for at-risk groups, which schools must provide in order to ensure that all students are able to meet state standards. However, only 50% of all students—and 37% of African American and Hispanic students—demonstrated proficiency in English Language Arts in 2008-2009, and the graduation rate hovers below 70%. These disappointing outcomes, plaintiffs contend, are directly related to the failure of the State’s finance system to provide school districts the funds to ensure that students have access to, among other inputs, quality teachers, small class-sizes, and supplemental or remedial services if needed. (For example, the complaint asserts that California ranks 49th both in providing computer access and in its teacher-student ratio.)

Plaintiffs have asked the Court to declare the system unconstitutional, enjoin the state from using the current funding formula and mechanisms, and require that the legislature act to craft a new, constitutional finance scheme.

A coalition of advocacy groups, parents and students filed a second education adequacy case against the State of California and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in June 2010, 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. 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, relies on the same constitutional clauses, and many of the same basic facts and statistics in their complaints as do the plaintiffs in Robles-Wong. The new case differs in its focus on the unique needs of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and its emphasis on pre-school services and on the creation of data systems to ensure the most effective use of funds.

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.

Responding to a court order that had dismissed their adequacy claims but allowed their equal protection claims to proceed to trial, plaintiffs in both cases amended their complaints in March, 2011and now assert that thousands of children in California are being denied “an equal opportunity …to succeed in learning the content of the educational standards established by the state.” The trial judge had specifically held that such a claim would pass constitutional muster.

These equal protection claims go well beyond traditional pleadings in fiscal equity cases that have focused on disparities in resources available to students in different school districts. By relating equal protection to an opportunity to learn in accordance with the state’s academic content standards, these expanded equity claims include many allegations that normally are included in adequacy cases like the assertion that the state has a duty to provide “a meaningful education that prepares students for civic, economic and social success.” (Campaign Second Amended Compl., p. 59).

Arguably, this new approach to equal protection goes even further than traditional adequacy claims because it is not tied to any base foundation level and relating opportunity to the state’s outcome standards implies that the state has an obligation to provide the full range of supportive services (such as early childhood services, extra time on task, health and family support services) that students from poverty backgrounds generally need in order to meet the state’s academic standards. Indeed, the Campaign’s complaint specifically calls for “high quality pre-school opportunities). Id at p. 43-44, and the Robles-Wong complaint cites extended learning time, summer, after school, support services enrichment and extracurricular programs as being essential for students from poverty backgrounds and English language learners to have full and equal access to learning the state’s content standards. Robles-Wong First Amended Compl., pp. 28-44.

Plaintiffs in both cases have also preserved their adequacy claims for appeal purposes.

ACLU Class Action Lawsuit against Student Fees

In September 2010 the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit in the county of Los Angeles against the State of California, charging that school districts across the state are charging illegal fees for educational programs. The case relies on an initial investigation by the ACLU that found at least 40 schools charging fees for course workbooks, laboratory expenses, Advanced Placement exams and courses, physical education uniforms, fine arts classes, and a variety of other programs. The ACLU describes specifically two plaintiffs, Jane Doe and Jason Roe, whose families fought against school fees and had been told by school administrators in Orange County that such fees are illegal. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the Governor and other state officials, asking them to enforce the constitution and laws that prohibit charging student fees, but it does not seek monetary damages or orders against the legislature or individual school boards.

The lawsuit was settled in December 2010. The settlement does not establish any new legal ground, since it was clear under California law that school fees do violate the right to a free public education, but it provides a framework for “informing students and parents of their rights, enforcing the rules and penalizing transgressors.”

Legal Challenge to $133 Million for Mental Health Care Cut
After the long overdue passage of the California budget in October 2010, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger used line-item vetoes to cut $133 million earmarked for mental health services for special education students. He also suspended a mandate requiring schools to provide mental health services for students. Shortly thereafter, several education advocates, including the state’s largest school district, Los Angeles Unified, filed a lawsuit to overturn the Governor’s veto. On October 29 California Superintendent of Public Instruction jack O’Connell said that he would allocate $76 million in federal funding to help continue to provide mental health services; however these funds are only about one-third of what is needed for mental health services, according to local officials in Ventura County.

Last updated: March 2011