ELA update: Judicial review sought in crucial cases
Strategizing continues on mental health veto, mandate deferrals, school finance
Published: April 1, 2011
Despite recent rulings against the interests of public schools and their students, CSBA and its Education Legal Alliance continue to seek legal remedies regarding several cases.
Mental health funding
California school districts and county offices of education have been left on their own to provide mental health services that were previously the responsibility of counties. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did have the authority to veto $133 million in the 2010-11 budget and suspend the mandate for counties to provide services under Assembly Bill 3632, a state appellate court ruled in February. The decision leaves local educational agencies and special education local planning areas, or SELPAs, on their own to fund care for the mental health needs of their students—largely at the expense of general fund accounts that are already stretched thin.
“This is truly a sad day for California’s students and LEAs,” Alliance Director Richard Hamilton said of the ruling.
The court did acknowledge that choosing which needy groups in the state will not be funded may be “devastating” to the children involved. But, the ruling stated, “This difficult decision is left to the Legislature and the governor, not the courts.”
CSBA and the Alliance plan to seek review of the ruling by the California Supreme Court. If review is granted, the appeal court’s ruling would be set aside. A new ruling restoring the obligations under AB 3632—and funding to support them—would be expected. In the meantime, many LEAs and SELPAs are contracting with county mental health agencies to allow them to continue serving students.
Mandate deferrals
Does the state have the authority to appropriate as little as $1,000 for each of 39 programs school districts and county offices are required to perform, putting off paying the millions owed for years? A trial court and appellate court both said no—that practice does not meet the constitutional requirement to reimburse districts and county offices for new or expanded programs mandated by the state.
However, the court of appeal denied the Alliance’s request to force the Legislature to decide whether any given mandate is important enough to require it—and fully fund it—or expressly suspend it.
Appropriating partial payments burdens LEA funding as the “credit card” debt piles up, said Hamilton, and it is manipulative as it forces LEAs to go to court to be relieved from providing the mandated services and their cost.
The Alliance is asking the California Supreme Court to review the appellate court decision in order to force the state to either fully budget for the mandates or eliminate all funding and expressly suspend the program requirements.
“This would force the state to make a decision as to whether its mandated programs should continue and gives LEAs the ability to avoid having to perform the mandated programs or services,” Hamilton said.
The appeal was filed March 21.
School finance
A trial court has rejected the assertions put forth in Robles-Wong v. California—filed by CSBA, ELA and a broad coalition of other organizations, school districts, students and families—that California’s current education finance system is unconstitutional. The court did allow one of four related claims to be restated for the court’s reconsideration, but that claim, too, is likely to be rejected. If that occurs, CSBA plans to appeal all of the trial court’s rulings; if not, a trial will proceed on the unconstitutionality of the state’s school finance system.
“Education is a fundamental right under the California Constitution,” Hamilton said. “Unfortunately, the state’s current school finance system is based on outdated and irrational formulas and policies that fail to support the prescribed education program. This litigation is the last resort to force the state to fix its unsound, unstable and insufficient finance system.”
Easy link: