brick’s characterization, page 4
The essence of both complaints is alleged in paragraphs 173 of the Complaint
and 157 of the CTA Complaint: The California Constitution prohibits the
maintenance and operation of the common public school system in a way that
denies basic educational equality to any students. T_h_e_
_i_n_s_u_f_f_i_c_i_e_n_t_,_ _i_r_r_a_t_i_o_n_a_l_,_ _a_n_d_ _u_n_s_t_a_b_l_e_
_a_s_p_e_c_t_s_ _o_f_ _t_h_e_ _S_t_a_t_e_’s_ _f_u_n_d_i_n_g_ _s_y_s_t_e_m_
_p_r_e_v_e_n_t_ _d_i_s_t_r_i_c_t_s_ _f_r_o_m_ _e_f_f_e_c_t_i_v_e_l_y_
_d_e_l_i_v_e_r_i_n_g_ _t_h_e_ _r_e_q_u_i_r_e_d_ _e_d_u_c_a_t_i_o_n_a_l_
_p_r_o_g_r_a_m_,_ _a_n_ _i_m_p_a_c_t_ _t_h_a_t_ _f_a_l_l_s_
_d_i_s_p_r_o_p_o_r_t_i_o_n_a_t_e_l_y_ _o_n_
_
economically disadvantaged students, racial or ethnic minority students,
English language learners, and students with disabilities. Districts are
prevented from implementing programs and services based on student needs,
which denies students equal access to the educational program and an
equal opportunity to learn the content prescribed in State-established
standards. Having set a prevailing statewide standard for education by
requiring proficiency in meeting the State-established content
standards, the State also bears the responsibility for ensuring that all
students have access to an education that provides them with an
opportunity to attain proficiency in meeting the required standards.
The State has failed in this duty.
---/
mandates issue, page 6:
P_l_a_i_n_t_i_f_f_s_’ _a_n_s_w_e_r_ _t_o_ _t_h_i_s_ _i_s_s_u_e_ _i_n_ _t_h_e_
_p_r_e_s_e_n_t_ _c_a_s_e_ _i_s_ _t_h_a_t_ _t_h_e_y_ _a_r_e_ _s_e_e_k_i_n_g_ _t_o_
_e_n_f_o_r_c_e_ _c_o_n_s_t_i_t_u_t_i_o_n_a_l_ _m_a_n_d_a_t_e_s_ _w_h_i_c_h_
_a_r_e_ _n_o_t_ _s_u_b_j_e_c_t_ _t_o_ _s_e_c_t_i_o_n_ _1_7_5_0_0
page 6
T_h_e_ _C_o_m_p_l_a_i_n_t_ _a_n_d_ _C_o_m_p_l_a_i_n_t_ _i_n_
_I_n_t_e_r_v_e_n_t_i_o_n_ _i_n_c_l_u_d_e_ _a_l_l_e_g_a_t_i_o_n_s_ _t_h_a_t_
_s_t_a_t_e_ _r_e_q_u_i_r_e_m_e_n_t_s_ _i_m_p_o_s_e_d_ _b_y_ _t_h_e_
_L_e_g_i_s_l_a_t_u_r_e_ _h_a_v_e_ _n_o_t_ _b_e_e_n_ _s_u_f_f_i_c_i_e_n_t_l_y_
_f_u_n_d_e_d_ _s_o_ _t_h_a_t_ _l_o_c_a_l_ _s_c_h_o_o_l_ _d_i_s_t_r_i_c_t_s_ _c_a_n_
_c_o_m_p_l_y_ _w_i_t_h_ _t_h_o_s_e_ _m_a_n_d_a_t_e_s_._ _I_n_d_e_e_d_,_ _t_h_e_
_C_o_m_p_l_a_i_n_t_ _i_n_c_l_u_d_e_s_ _a_ _c_o_n_s_i_d_e_r_a_b_l_e_
_a_m_o_u_n_t_ _o_f_ _m_a_t_e_r_i_a_l_ _u_n_d_e_r_ _t_h_e_ _h_e_a_d_i_n_g_ _o_f_
_“F_A_C_T_U_A_L_ _A_L_L_E_G_A_T_I_O_N_S_” _(_b_e_g_i_n_n_i_n_g_ _w_i_t_h_
_p_a_r_a_g_r_a_p_h_ _5_4_ _a_n_d_ _c_o_n_t_i_n_u_i_n_g_ _t_h_r_o_u_g_h_
_p_a_r_a_g_r_a_p_h_ _1_7_3_)_ _w_h_i_c_h_ _c_a_n_ _b_e_ _r_e_a_d_ _a_s_
_c_o_m_p_l_a_i_n_i_n_g_ _a_b_o_u_t_ _i_n_a_d_e_q_u_a_t_e_ _f_u_n_d_i_n_g_ _o_f_
_l_e_g_i_s_l_a_t_i_v_e_ _m_a_n_d_a_t_e_s_,_ _
__
the Court believes the parties will benefit from the filing of a more focused
and preferably consolidated amended complaint which eliminates
allegations subject to a subvention defense as well as other unnecessary
evidentiary factual allegations.
Hence, except as otherwise indicated in this order, the Court SUSTAINS the
demurrer WITH LEAVE TO AMEND so that plaintiffs and CTA may restate the
essence of the facts they believe support their remaining Equal Protection
Constitutional claim, and make clear that they are not seeking to enforce
section 6 of article XIIIB
Assuming plaintiffs can amend to eliminate any subvention issue in this
case, the question remains whether sections 1 and 5 of article IX create
a mandatory duty which can be judicially enforced. The Court thinks
not.
Section 1 reads as follows:
A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to
the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the
Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of
intellectual, scientific, moral and agricultural improvement.
Section 5 reads as follows:
The Legislature shall provide for a system of common schools by which a free
school shall be kept up and supported in each district at least six months in
every year, after the first year in which a school has been established.
However, plaintiffs fail to show that in 1849 or in 1879, or at any time since,
section one could be fairly read to require the Legislature to provide a
level of funds which would further what the courts recognize as the
fundamental right to a public education. – page 9
If the Court were writing on a clean slate, plaintiffs’ reliance on the provisions
that “a free school shall be kept up and supported in each district…” might
carry the day. However, the seminal decision of the Supreme Court in Serrano
I considered and rejected the argument that section 5 of article IX included
any particular financing requirement.
Be that as it may, the Court made clear that:
[We] have never interpreted the constitutional provision [section 5]
to require equal school spending; we have ruled only that the
educational system must be uniform in terms of the prescribed
course of study and educational progression from grade to grade….
We think it would be erroneous to hold otherwise.
page 11: Given the Court’s determination in Serrano I, this Court may not find
a constituional _r_i_g_h_t_ _t_o_ _a_ _p_a_r_t_i_c_u_l_a_r_ _l_e_v_e_l_ _o_f_
_f_u_n_d_i_n_g_ _i_n_ _s_e_c_t_i_o_n_ _5_,_ _e_v_e_n_ _w_h_e_n_ _r_e_a_d_ _i_n_
_c_o_m_b_i_n_a_t_i_o_n_ _w_i_t_h_ _s_e_c_t_i_o_n_ _1_,_ _a_n_d_ _e_v_e_n_
_t_h_o_u_g_h_ _d_e_c_i_s_i_o_n_s_ _i_n_ _o_t_h_e_r_ _s_t_a_t_e_s_ _m_a_y_
_s_u_p_p_o_r_t_ _p_l_a_i_n_t_i_f_f_s_’ _t_h_e_o_r_y_
Hence, the demurrer to the first and second causes of action in both
complaints is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. _
page 12:
Can Plaintiffs Enforce the Provisions of Section 8(a) of Article XVI?
(schools get funding first)
The parties have not cited any decision determining whether or not
section 8(a) requires the Legislature to fund public school education in
California at any particular level. Plaintiffs argue that, based upon the
language of sections one and five of article IX, together with the language of
section 8(a), such a mandatory duty was intended by the voters and is
enforceable by this Court. However, no case so holds.
W_h_e_t_h_e_r_ _i_t_ _w_o_u_l_d_ _h_a_v_e_ _b_e_e_n_ _a_ _w_i_s_e_
_d_e_c_i_s_i_o_n_ _f_o_r_ _t_h_e_ _v_o_t_e_r_s_ _t_o_ _d_e_d_i_c_a_t_e_
_a_d_e_q_u_a_t_e_ _f_u_n_d_s_ _t_o_ _a_s_s_u_r_e_ _t_h_e_ _m_e_a_n_i_n_g_f_u_l_
_p_u_b_l_i_c_ _e_d_u_c_a_t_i_o_n_ _d_e_s_c_r_i_b_e_d_ _i_n_ _A_r_t_i_c_l_e_ _I_X_,_
_s_e_c_t_i_o_n_s_ _o_n_e_ _a_n_d_ _f_i_v_e_,_ _a_n_d_ _g_i_v_e_n_ _a_
_f_u_n_d_i_n_g_ _p_r_i_o_r_i_t_y_ _i_n_ _A_r_t_i_c_l_e_ _X_V_I_ _s_e_c_t_i_o_n_
_8_(_a_)_,_ _i_s_ _n_o_t_ _f_o_r_ _t_h_i_s_ _C_o_u_r_t_ _t_o_ _s_a_y_._ _T_h_e_
_C_o_u_r_t_’s_ _r_o_l_e_ _i_n_ _t_h_i_s_,_ _a_s_ _i_n_ _a_n_y_ _o_t_h_e_r_ _c_a_s_e_
_o_f_ _c_o_n_s_t_i_t_u_t_i_o_n_a_l_ _i_n_t_e_r_p_r_e_t_a_t_i_o_n_,_ _i_s_
_l_i_m_i_t_e_d_ _t_o_ _d_e_t_e_r_m_i_n_i_n_g_ _w_h_a_t_ _t_h_e_ _p_e_o_p_l_e_ _
Have Plaintiffs Stated an Equal Protection Claim Which May Proceed to
Trial?
Plaintiffs have alleged that the educational financing system adopted by the
Legislature over the course of many years bears no rational relationship to
the educational content and proficiency standards also required by the
Legislature in the last ten to fifteen years. Plaintiffs also allege that the funds
allocated for public education are insufficient to provide all public school
students with an equal educational opportunity.
Serrano I: F_o_r_ _t_h_e_ _r_e_a_s_o_n_s_ _w_e_ _h_a_v_e_ _e_x_p_l_a_i_n_e_d_
_i_n_ _d_e_t_a_i_l_,_ _t_h_i_s_ _s_y_s_t_e_m_ _c_o_n_d_i_t_i_o_n_s_ _t_h_e_ _f_u_l_l_
_e_n_t_i_t_l_e_m_e_n_t_ _t_o_ _s_u_c_h_ _i_n_t_e_r_e_s_t_ _o_n_ _w_e_a_l_t_h_,_
_c_l_a_s_s_i_f_i_e_s_ _i_t_s_ _r_e_c_i_p_i_e_n_t_s_ _o_n_ _t_h_e_ _b_a_s_i_s_ _o_f_
_t_h_e_i_r_ _c_o_l_l_e_c_t_i_v_e_ _a_f_f_l_u_e_n_c_e_ _a_n_d_ _m_a_k_e_s_ _t_h_e_
_q_u_a_l_i_t_y_ _o_f_ _a_ _c_h_i_l_d_’s_ _e_d_u_c_a_t_i_o_n_ _d_e_p_e_n_d_
_u_p_o_n_ _t_h_e_ _r_e_s_o_u_r_c_e_s_ _o_f_ _h_i_s_ _s_c_h_o_o_l_ _d_i_s_t_r_i_c_t_
_a_n_d_ _u_l_t_i_m_a_t_e_l_y_ _u_p_o_n_ _t_h_e_ _p_o_c_k_e_t_b_o_o_k_ _o_f_
_h_i_s_ _p_a_r_e_n_t_s_._ _W_e_ _f_i_n_d_ _t_h_a_t_ _s_u_c_h_ _f_i_n_a_n_c_i_n_g_
_s_y_s_t_e_m_ _a_s_ _p_r_e_s_e_n_t_l_y_ _c_o_n_s_t_i_t_u_t_e_d_ _i_s_ _n_o_t_
_n_e_c_e_s_s_a_r_y_ _t_o_ _t_h_e_ _a_t_t_a_i_n_m_e_n_t_ _o_f_ _a_n_y_
_c_o_m_p_e_l_l_i_n_g_ _s_t_a_t_e_ _i_n_t_e_r_e_s_t_._ _S_i_n_c_e_ _i_t_ _d_o_e_s_
_n_o_t_ _w_i_t_h_s_t_a_n_d_ _t_h_e_ _r_e_q_u_i_s_i_t_e_ _“s_t_r_i_c_t_
_s_c_r_u_t_i_n_y_,_” _i_t_ _d_e_n_i_e_s_ _t_o_ _t_h_e_ _p_l_a_i_n_t_i_f_f_s_ _a_n_d_
_o_t_h_e_r_s_ _s_i_m_i_l_a_r_l_y_ _s_i_t_u_a_t_e_d_ _t_h_e_ _e_q_u_a_l_
_p_r_o_t_e_c_t_i_o_n_ _o_f_ _t_h_e_ _l_a_w_s_._
but also mentioned the comparable clauses of the California Constitution in
holding the legislatively created school districts resulted in a disparity of
educational opportunity between children residing in wealthy districts and
children residing in poor districts.
_
The California Supreme Court has not had occasion to examine whether the
public school financing system as it has evolved since Serrano II comports
with the equal protection guaranty since 1976.
butt in 1992:
C_a_l_i_f_o_r_n_i_a_ _c_o_n_s_t_i_t_u_t_i_o_n_a_l_ _p_r_i_n_c_i_p_l_e_s_
_r_e_q_u_i_r_e_ _S_t_a_t_e_ _a_s_s_i_s_t_a_n_c_e_ _t_o_ _c_o_r_r_e_c_t_ _b_a_s_i_c_
_“i_n_t_e_r_d_i_s_t_r_i_c_t_” _d_i_s_p_a_r_i_t_i_e_s_ _i_n_ _t_h_e_ _s_y_s_t_e_m_
_o_f_ _c_o_m_m_o_n_ _s_c_h_o_o_l_s_,_ _
page 21:
Whatever the requirements of the free school guaranty, the equal protection
clause precludes the State from maintaining its common school system in a
manner that denies the students of one district an education basically
equivalent to that provided elsewhere throughout the State. (Id. at p. 685.)
I_n_ _s_u_m_,_ _t_h_e_ _C_a_l_i_f_o_r_n_i_a_ _C_o_n_s_t_i_t_u_t_i_o_n_
_g_u_a_r_a_n_t_e_e_s_ _“b_a_s_i_c_” _e_q_u_a_l_i_t_y_ _i_n_ _p_u_b_l_i_c_
_e_d_u_c_a_t_i_o_n_,_ _r_e_g_a_r_d_l_e_s_s_ _o_f_ _d_i_s_t_r_i_c_t_
_r_e_s_i_d_e_n_c_e_._ _B_e_c_a_u_s_e_ _e_d_u_c_a_t_i_o_n_ _i_s_ _a_
_f_u_n_d_a_m_e_n_t_a_l_ _i_n_t_e_r_e_s_t_ _i_n_ _C_a_l_i_f_o_r_n_i_a_,_
_d_e_n_i_a_l_s_ _o_f_ _b_a_s_i_c_ _e_d_u_c_a_t_i_o_n_a_l_ _e_q_u_a_l_i_t_y_ _o_n_
_t_h_e_ _b_a_s_i_s_ _o_f_ _d_i_s_t_r_i_c_t_ _r_e_s_i_d_e_n_c_e_ _a_r_e_
_s_u_b_j_e_c_t_ _t_o_ _s_t_r_i_c_t_ _s_c_r_u_t_i_n_y_._ _
Unlike the Serrano decisions, Butt did not address the public school system as
a whole or the free school guaranties of Article IX. (Id. at p. 685.) Its
application of the equal protection guaranty of the constitution was based
upon two distinct groups of students: those in the Richmond Unified School
District, and those in all other school districts in the state.
Hence, Butt does not clearly authorize a case in which the essence of
plaintiffs’ complaint is that the irrational and inadequate method of funding
public schools has deprived California students, in general, of an equal
educational opportunity. On the other hand, Butt in no way purports to
overrule or narrow the Court’s Serrano holdings.
T_h_e_ _q_u_e_s_t_i_o_n_ _i_s_ _w_h_e_t_h_e_r_ _p_l_a_i_n_t_i_f_f_s_ _h_a_v_e_
_a_d_e_q_u_a_t_e_l_y_ _s_t_a_t_e_d_ _a_n_ _e_q_u_a_l_ _p_r_o_t_e_c_t_i_o_n_
_c_l_a_i_m_ _b_a_s_e_d_ _u_p_o_n_ _t_h_e_i_r_ _a_l_l_e_g_a_t_i_o_n_s_ _o_f_
_c_h_r_o_n_i_c_ _s_t_a_t_e_w_i_d_e_ _u_n_d_e_r_f_u_n_d_i_n_g_ _c_o_u_p_l_e_d_
_w_i_t_h_ _t_h_e_i_r_ _a_l_l_e_g_a_t_i_o_n_s_ _t_h_a_t_ _t_h_e_ _f_u_n_d_i_n_g_
_“s_y_s_t_e_m_” _b_e_a_r_s_ _n_o_ _r_a_t_i_o_n_a_l_ _r_e_l_a_t_i_o_n_s_h_i_p_ _t_o_
_t_h_e_ _e_d_u_c_a_t_i_o_n_ _s_t_a_n_d_a_r_d_s_ _t_h_e_ _L_e_g_i_s_l_a_t_u_r_e_
_i_t_s_e_l_f_ _h_a_s_ _r_e_q_u_i_r_e_d_ _o_v_e_r_ _t_h_e_ _p_a_s_t_ _f_i_f_t_e_e_n_
_y_e_a_r_s_._ _
T_h_e_ _C_o_u_r_t_ _f_i_n_d_s_ _n_o_ _a_u_t_h_o_r_i_t_y_ _t_o_ _s_u_p_p_o_r_t_
_p_l_a_i_n_t_i_f_f_s_’ _a_r_g_u_m_e_n_t_ _t_h_a_t_ _a_ _C_a_l_i_f_o_r_n_i_a_
_C_o_n_s_t_i_t_u_t_i_o_n_a_l_ _e_q_u_a_l_ _p_r_o_t_e_c_t_i_o_n_ _c_l_a_i_m_ _c_a_n_
_b_e_ _s_t_a_t_e_d_ _b_a_s_e_d_ _u_p_o_n_ _i_n_a_d_e_q_u_a_t_e_ _f_u_n_d_i_n_g_,_
_h_o_w_e_v_e_r_ _d_e_v_a_s_t_a_t_i_n_g_ _t_h_e_ _e_f_f_e_c_t_s_ _o_f_ _s_u_c_h_
_u_n_d_e_r_f_u_n_d_i_n_g_ _h_a_v_e_ _b_e_e_n_ _o_n_ _t_h_e_ _q_u_a_l_i_t_y_ _o_f_
_p_u_b_l_i_c_ _s_c_h_o_o_l_ _e_d_u_c_a_t_i_o_n_._ _
However, plaintiffs’ claim is not just that funding is inadequate, but that the
funding system is not rationally related to legislatively required content and
assessment standards. Having legislatively established educational content
and assessment standards, a system that does not provide an equal
opportunity for all students to succeed in learning the required content may,
under Serrano I and II, be viewed as violating the equal protection guaranty.
The Court believes that it and the reviewing courts will be better able to focus
on this critical question if it is more clearly framed in a revised complaint. For
these reasons, the demurrer to the third cause of action in both complaints is
SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
amend the complaint on equal protection or other options.
clearlynnot want to go beyond current intepretation of article 9 to affirm
right ot education.
bill: we are disappointed in sidmmiala of chidlren’s clam that const provide
qualitative right ot education. dismissed the cons claims of curreiten tirratioal
failed ot delvier thqt right to an ed. but court recognized that basid equloatyo
f ed oopp and will hcanglle finance system on
not ask for money:> said thiere is aright ot an ed and means something.
we look forward to seeing new admin’s position on these issues of con ed
significatce in California.
do they argue that?
doug press on the media. kathlee gee in court.
520-4996
lou: not enbcouraging. disappointing that dismissed out claims to
qualitifiver right to ed.
recognized to basic equity of oppor.
was no euqal protection claim about the funding under Serrano
that can proceed with equal protection gurantee but sort of talking
gbout interdistrict disparities – robbing peter to pay paul.
we think we have some recourse.
415-595-9563. john
That no doubt was on Brick’s mind when he pressed plaintiffs lawyers on precisely what they were seeking
– simply a declaration that the current inefficient funding system is the issue or that insufficient money is
the problem.
“We are not asking court to order to spend X billion or 2 times X billion dollars but to recognize right to
qualitative education has been denied because of the funding system,” Affeldt said.
Noting that Affeldt said that the system is inadequate and inequitable, Brick pressed further: Suppose the
court rules that the case is confined to one or the other.
Affeldt responded that this case would be no different from other constitutional litigation, such as over
medical care in state prisons. The state cannot separate out the issue of money in ordering the state to fix
prisons, he said.
four causes of action, rejected 3:
not based on equal protection clause.
only allowed ‘
two based on article 9:
and one based on first set apart language.
idneitfied as arguennt state had in arsenal. we believe we addressed it:
what was in article 9 at time of Serrano. (off record: never about right to
ed, about equitable finances).
An Alameda County Superior Court judge has rejected the main claims in two
lawsuits charging that the state’s “insufficient, irrational and unstable” school
funding system violated children’s fundamental right to an education.
The ruling strongly restricts whether and how the case can go to trial. It is a setback
to a coalition of powerful education groups – the California School Boards
Association, the California Teachers Association, the state PTA and the Association
of California School Administrators -- and attorneys for disadvantaged children.
They had hoped the court would order the Legislature to adequately fund and
reform how the state finances K-12 schools.
Instead, Judge Steven Brick ruled that the two articles in the state Constitution
requiring state-supported education don’t require setting funding at any particular
level. He also wrote that there is no equal protection right in the state Constitution
for students harmed by inadequate funding , “however devastating the effects of
such underfunding have been on the quality of public school education.” It is the
Legislature’s and the people’s prerogative to determine what’s adequate.
Brick did leave open the possibility that attorneys in the two cases – Robles-Wong v.
California and Campaign for Quality Education v California – could move forward
with a narrower focus, and set a Feb. 14 deadline for filing an amended lawsuit. Its
focus should be, he indicated, whether the state’s current funding provides an equal
opportunity to meet success as defined by the state’s learning standards. This
would not be an adequacy case, whether there is enough funding, but instead an
equity case – whether current funding is fairly and sensibly distributed to all
students, especially disadvantaged children in under-resourced schools, in ways
that meet the state’s education goals.
Bill Koski, a Stanford Law School professor who represented low-income students in
Robles-Wong, said Friday that attorneys were disappointed “that the Court
dismissed the children's claim that the current irrational and insufficient school
finance system has failed to deliver to our children that qualitative right to an
education.”
Attorneys were reviewing their options – whether to amend or appeal. “We will
continue to vigorously challenge the State's finance system on the grounds that it
fails to deliver an equitable and sufficient education to our children,” he said in a
statement.
We are disappointed in the Court's dismissal of the children's claims that Article IX
of the California Constitution provides a qualitative right to an education. We are
also disappointed that the Court dismissed the children's claim that the current
irrational and insufficient school finance system has failed to deliver to our children
that qualitative right to an education. As the Court recognizes, however, California
children are entitled to basic equality of educational opportunity. We will continue
to vigorously challenge the State's finance system on the grounds that it fails to
deliver an equitable and sufficient education to our children. We will be assessing
our options and decide how best to move forward on behalf of California's
schoolchildren, teachers, and administrators.
===/
nrrow view of constitution than we did.
under article 9. statement there is no protection right to challenge
inaeuqate no matter how devastign that is on the qulaty of ed.
superior court in serranot got it wroing first time. dismissed case
entirely. superior court reversed, then it went to trial.