February 2007 - Alamedans for Better Schools forms a sub- group formed to investigate the viability of litigation on behalf of Alameda Unified School District.

March, 2007 - Getting Down to Facts: A Research Project to Inform Solutions to California's Education Problems  is released.

June 2007 - A report is provided to Alameda Unified School District summarizing the findings of their research. Their recommendation was to pursue a multiple prong approach of legislative and political pressure while building a strong coalition of support for funding reform including an outstanding legal team to support that coalition. At core of the coalition was the California School Boards Association and its Education Legal Alliance team.

January, 2008 - All discussions about 2008 being the "Year of Education" are placed on hold, as the Governor's proposed budget for 2008/09 calls for suspension of Prop 98.

September, 2008 - The budget is passed 78 days after the constitutional deadline.

December, 2008 - The Governor calls for special sessions to deal with the State budget crisis. On December 31, the Governor takes the unusual step in releasing his budget for 2009/10.

February, 2009 - The Governor signs a 18 month budget with a number of initiatives to be placed on May Special Election.

May, 2009 - The California soundly reject the initiatives proposed by the Legislature and Governor.

July, 2009 - A new budget is signed and education funding is reduced by over $6 billion in real terms.

January, 2010 - The 2010/2011 budget seems no improvement and Governor proposes additional reductions to education funding.

May, 2010 - The May revise shows improvement and the California Schools Board Association releases this statement on May 14:

"Today the governor announced a state budget that still includes the billions of dollars in education cuts proposed in January, along with billions more to health and human services, and once again ignores the value of our youth," said CSBA Executive Director Scott P. Plotkin. "It is impossible to justify why our state government chooses to disregard the importance of a child's education and well-being. What is clear is that we can no longer wait for the state to act in the interest of our students.  In these dire circumstances, we are given no choice but to take drastic measures to fix our broken education finance system."

The California School Board Association issues information about the lawsuit filed against the State along with a Fact Sheet.

Alameda Unified School District issued this press release on May 20th regarding the Robles-Wong lawsuit.

January, 2011 - 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.

TOP

Introduction

Plaintiffs therefore seek a judicial determination that all  California children have the fundamental right to a "system of common schools" that is provided by the State and which guarantees that all children have equal access to the State's prescribed educational program and are given an equal opportunity to develop the skills and capacities that the State has deemed necessary to achieve economic and social success in society, to participate meaningfully in political and community life, and to become informed citizens and productive members of society. Plaintiffs further seek a further judicial declaration that the State's constitutional duty to provide and support a system of common schools, and to first set apart funding for that system, requires the State to provide an education finance system that is aligned with the actual costs of educational program and services it requires and which takes into account the needs of all of California's students. Finally, the plaintiffs request that this Court enjoin the State from continuing to operate and rely on upon the current finance system and that it direct the State to develop a new education finance system that meets the constitutional requirements as declared by the Court.

Factual Allegations

California has designed and imposed an educational program that includes not only content standards that dictate what all schools will teach and all students will learn, but also requires numerous services and programs deemed to be necessary for students to succeed such as meals, transportation, and health-related services. It promises students safe facilities, highly-qualified teachers and instructional materials aligned with the challenging standards. The State's assessment and accountability systems are designed to identify students that are not reaching proficiency in meeting the State's standards, and are supposed to trigger assistance and interventions to ensure that all students are given the opportunity to master these standards.

In 1946, the State constitution was again amended to provide state funding based on a "foundation program" whereby each school district was entitled to receive a constitutionally mandated minimum amount of funding - "the foundation program minimum."

In 1971, the California Supreme Court held that the State's heavy reliance on local property tax wealth to fund public schools resulted in substantial disparities among districts in the quality and extent of educational opportunities afforded which, if proven, would violate students' constitutional right to equal opportunity with the public education system. Serrano v Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 534 (1971).

The State responded to the inter-district funding disparities and Serrano by enacting a system of "revenue limit" controls that limits the maximum amount of general purpose state aid and local property tax revenue that district could receive. Each district's revenue limit was based on the State's foundation program minimum funding and each district's local property taxes revenues as of 1972-73 (adjusted periodically for inflation). Revenue limits were completely unrelated to the actual cost of the educational program in that district. (Additional background on the development of California school funding.)

Proposition 13, a constitutional amendment adopted by voters in June 1978, severely restricted the taxing authority of all local governments, including school districts. As a result, even those tax revenues nominally defined as "local" became subject to complete control and allocation by the State, which has the option of allocating none, some or all of those revenues to school districts. The ability of school districts to levy ad valorem property taxes for education was eliminated.

The immediate effect of Proposition 13 was a near 60% reduction in local property tax revenues. The State allocated most those revenues directly to counties, cities and special districts. At the same time the overall property tax revenues were being reduced, schools received a smaller share of a shrinking pie. The share of property tax revenues allocated to schools decreased from 53% to 35%. (2010 Study on Prop 13 Commercial Property Taxes Paid)

Prior to Proposition 13, California per pupil funding was about ten percent higher than the national average. In the decade following Proposition 13, education was forced to compete with other programs for General Fund purposes. During this time, California's per pupil fell behind the national average for the first time. In November, 1988, voters passed Proposition 98 to amend the State Constitution to set a minimum funding level for level of K-14 education.

Rather than linking education funding to the actual cost of providing and delivering the education program to all students, Proposition 98 ties funding to growth in personal income and growth in the State General Fund revenues in a given year. General Fund revenues are often unpredictable and volatile because of their reliance on the State's income taxes revenues.

General purpose funding, arbitrarily limited by the State's reliance on outmoded formulas, has been further reduced by the significance increase in categorical programs - programs that now constitute approximately one third of education funding.

Categorical funding reduces general purpose funding available to districts in two ways. First, the State had increase appropriations for categorical programs in recent years with a commensurate increase in over-all spending spending, resulting in a decrease in unrestricted general purpose funds. Second, funding for some key categorical programs does not reflect the actual cost of providing the categorical program. Categorical programs requiring substantial expenditures from district general purpose fund include class size reduction, special education, instructional materials, food services and deferred facilities maintenance.

In addition, to categorical requirements, the State has imposed dozens of requirements for new programs and services that further reduce the amount of general purpose funding available to districts for the educational program.

Though the State is legally required to pay school districts for the costs of any state-mandated program or service, it has nonetheless refused to do so. The balance now owed to districts is now almost $3.6 billion, with an annual estimate of $400 million of ongoing mandated costs.

TOP