CCSA v. Los Angeles Unified School District, et al.
On May 24, 2010, CCSA filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) because of LAUSD's continual failure to comply with Proposition 39 and promises it made to CCSA in an April 2008 Settlement Agreement.
California Supreme Court Finds LAUSD Violated Proposition 39
In April 2015, the California Supreme Court ruled that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has been violating the regulations implementing Prop. 39. The court stated that LAUSD's use of district-wide "norming ratios", or student-teacher ratios, in determining the number of classrooms to offer to charter schools did not comply with the implementing regulations which require districts to use the facilities inventory at comparison group schools. The court's decision affirmed CCSA's position that the district's methodology was not legal or fair, and potentially denied classrooms to charter public school students. The decision requires LAUSD to make changes to its Prop 39 process in order to ensure that its method of allocating classrooms to charter schools is lawful.
The decision stems from a motion CCSA filed in the trial court on May 17, 2012, which focused on the unlawful manner in which LAUSD determined the number of classrooms offered to charter schools under Prop. 39. CCSA asserted that, if LAUSD were compelled to make the correct calculations pursuant to the Prop. 39 regulations, the number of classrooms offered to charter schools would increase significantly. The trial court granted CCSA's motion on June 27, 2012.
LAUSD filed an appeal of the trial court's decision, and, on December 7, 2012, in an unpublished decision, the Court of Appeal reversed and found that LAUSD has the discretion to use district-wide norming ratios. After receiving significant school district support for publication, on January 4, 2013, the Court of Appeal ordered that the decision be published, and established precedent for other school districts and trial courts around the state concerning Prop. 39 and "norming ratios." Given the precedential effect, CCSA sought review of the decision by the California Supreme Court. In support of CCSA's request, many charter school supporters, including about 20 charter schools, the Pacific Legal Foundation, Parent Revolution, and prominent charter school leaders filed letters urging the CA Supreme Court to grant our request. The court unanimously granted CCSA's Petition for Review on April 17, 2013, and heard oral argument on February 4, 2015.
As compliance with Proposition 39 was just one of several causes of action in CCSA's complaint against LAUSD for breach of its 2008 settlement agreement, the case remains active at the trial court.
CCSA Continues to Monitor LAUSD's Prop. 39 Compliance
As compliance with Proposition 39 was just one of several causes of action in CCSA's complaint against LAUSD for breach of its 2008 settlement agreement, the case remains active at the trial court. Most recently, on June 25, 2015, the trial court entered an order agreed to by LAUSD that will enable CCSA to closely monitor LAUSD's Prop. 39 compliance through the 2016-17 Prop. 39 cycle. (Before the litigation, LAUSD delayed the production of these documents which hindered CCSA's ability to assist charter schools with the common issues they faced.) The order also outlines a procedure for CCSA to challenge LAUSD's compliance in court, if necessary.
CCSA expects that 2016-17 Prop. 39 applicants should see an increase in the number of classrooms offered by LAUSD. In addition, schools that seek facilities from other school districts that have also been unlawfully using loading ratios to allocate classrooms may also see an increase.
Trial Court Action filed in May 2010
On May 24, 2010, CCSA filed a lawsuit against LAUSD based on its failures to comply with Proposition 39 and a Settlement Agreement between CCSA and LAUSD dated April 2008. The lawsuit centers on LAUSD's continued failures to share public school space with all public school students in the LAUSD area, despite clear and unequivocal obligations under the law.
For the 2010-2011 school year, 81 charter schools in LAUSD applied for Prop 39 facilities and yet LAUSD issued only 45 letters purporting to be final offers of facilities. Not one of those purported offers complied with the law.
In December 2010, CCSA obtained a court order against LAUSD, requiring LAUSD to offer facilities to every charter school in accordance with law and the terms of the April 2008 Settlement Agreement. After the court's order LAUSD almost doubled the number of its facilities offers to charter schools. Those offers were improved but still failed to comply with law in many respects. For example, the offers failed to specify charter schools' share of non-classroom and specialized classroom spaces at the LAUSD campuses, as required by law. This failure prompted CCSA to obtain another court order in May 2011, obligating LAUSD to supplement its facilities offers with more specific information about the non-classroom space and specialized teaching space offered to charter schools.
On June 22, 2011, CCSA and LAUSD agreed to stay the litigation under a court order. The stay allowed CCSA the ability to continue monitoring LAUSD's Prop. 39 compliance, while requiring LAUSD to comply with the prior court orders. If LAUSD failed to abide by the terms of the court orders, CCSA had the ability to immediately seek redress before the Court, which retained jurisdiction over the case.
After monitoring LAUSD's compliance for the 2012-13 Prop. 39 school year, CCSA determined that LAUSD had continued to violate Prop. 39, and CCSA filed a motion on May 17, 2012, to enforce the court orders. Among other things, CCSA asserted that LAUSD's practice of using its "norming ratios" to calculate the number of classrooms allocated to charter schools is illegal, and that these miscalculations have resulted in LAUSD allocating fewer classrooms to charter schools than they were entitled to under the law. At a hearing in June 2012, the court agreed with CCSA, ordering LAUSD to comply with the Prop. 39 Implementing Regulations when calculating classrooms, and not use LAUSD's norming ratios. Further, the court ordered LAUSD to issue revised offers to many schools for the 2012-13 school year. It is this court order that LAUSD appealed resulting in the case before the California Supreme Court described above.
- April 9, 2015: CA Supreme Court decision
- October 10, 2013 - CCSA Reply Brief filed at CA Supreme Court
- August 21, 2013: LAUSD Respondents' Brief at the CA Supreme Court
- June 17, 2013 - CCSA Opening Brief at CA Supreme Court
- January 4, 2013 - Appellate Decision of the Second District Court of Appeal
- October 9, 2012 - LAUSD's Reply Brief at Court of Appeal
- September 24, 2012 - CCSA Respondent's Brief at Court of Appeal
- August 24, 2010 - LAUSD's Appellate Opening Brief at Court of Appeal
- June 29, 2012 - CCSA letter to LAUSD regarding June 27 Court Ruling
- May 17, 2012 - CCSA's Motion to Enforce Court Order
- May 24, 2010 - Complaint: CCSA v. LAUSD
Ask A Question
Let us know what you need:
From Our Blog
October 19, 2018
Question: Must charter public schools complete the 1 Percent Threshold and Justification Form? Answer: Yes, the 1 Percent Threshold Justification
October 15, 2018
Does your team have an innovative approach to risk management? Are you a CharterSAFE member? Apply for CharterSAFE's second-annual Bob