| News
Education |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PRESS RELEASE: July 10, 2008 New Exit Exam Data Shows Significant Drop in Percentage of Students Passing California Test SACRAMENTO, CA — The California State Board of Education
(SBE), for the first time, received data from the Department of Education that calculates an
exit exam pass rate which includes special education students. Since 2006, the California PRESS RELEASE: June 26, 2008 Public Advocates Comments on PE Credit Issue & SFUSD PRESS RELEASE: June 17, 2008 Federal Court Rules Against Families & Education Advocates: Teachers in
Training are PRESS INFORMATION : April 23, 2008 "Renee v. Spellings" Teacher Quality Lawsuit press release Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Summary Judgment Defendants' Opposition Brief and Cross-Motion PRESS RELEASE: January 10, 2008 SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Parents and Students for Great Schools, a coalition representing
the voices of more than a half million low- and moderate-income California families,
today issued the following statement responding to the release of Governor
Schwarzenegger’s 2008-09 budget: PRESS RELEASE: January 8, 2008 PRESS RELEASE : October 15, 2007 Oakland School District Finally Provides School Report Cards- Legal action propels Oakland, other districts to comply with state law SAN FRANCISCO — A superior court judge is expected to approve a lawsuit settlement today in which the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) agrees to fulfill its legal obligation to issue school report cards for each of its schools. The “stipulated judgment” hands Oakland parents an important victory in ensuring their right to information about key school conditions. “This settlement makes sure that parents in Oakland, including those who aren't fluent in English, have access to very important information about our children's education,” said Jo Ann Sibley, a parent and lawsuit plaintiff. “It pleases me that parents will now be able to make better choices for our children based on this information.” District parents who brought the lawsuit are represented by the nonprofit civil rights law firm and advocacy group Public Advocates. In the settlement, OUSD acknowledges that it has failed for the last two years to issue School Accountability Report Cards (SARCs) for each of its schools and make them available in multiple languages when required by law. This deprived parents and guardians with children enrolled in OUSD schools, and the public, of information about the quality of learning opportunities and school site conditions to which they are entitled by law. OUSD has now posted complete SARCs on its website for all district schools, including translations into Spanish and Chinese where they are required. A parent or guardian can also request a copy of the SARC from his or her child’s school. As part of the settlement, the District will send a notice to all parents and guardians to inform them that the complete SARCs are now available. The settlement also commits OUSD to prove to the court next year that they have met all SARC requirements in a timely way for the current school year. “It is unfortunate that it took a lawsuit to get OUSD to provide parents with this vital information,” said Angelica Jongco, an attorney at Public Advocates. “But since the suit was filed, we're pleased that the district has at last worked diligently to make the information available.” On the same day the OUSD lawsuit was filed in August, Public Advocates released a report examining SARC compliance statewide and sent letters to ten other lagging districts demanding that they issue complete SARCs within 30 days or face legal action. Nine have done so. One, Alisal Union Elementary School District (Salinas Monterey County), has not but has promised to publish completed SARCs by the end of this week. Otherwise, it too will face imminent legal action. “This suit and the demand letters showed that parents are serious about asserting their rights,” said Guillermo Mayer, staff attorney with Public Advocates. “Other districts that aren't publishing their SARCs should be on notice that they will be next.” In addition to pursuing legal action, Public Advocates has worked with the Chairs of Senate and Assembly Education committees, the California Department of Education and the Governor's office to improve the usefulness and availability of the SARC. On Friday, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 1061 (Mullin), a bill on which Public Advocates worked closely with the author. The bill streamlines SARC information and establishes a clear—and earlier—date by which all SARCs must be published (February 1st vs. the end of the school year). Public Advocates is also working with the California Department of Education to aid districts in providing SARC information, for example, by making templates available in multiple languages, and actively working for improvements to the SARC so it is easier for parents to understand. The judge is expected to approve the OUSD settlement in a hearing at 1:30pm at Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland. For a copy of the settlement, the August Public Advocates SARC report, and AB 1061 visit www.publicadvocates.org.
OUSD Progress Since Suit Filed on August 13, 2007
===================================== Public Advocates challenges the systemic causes of poverty and discrimination by defending and expanding civil rights through advocacy, litigation, and partnership with low-income communities, people of color, and immigrants. For more information, contact Wynn Hausser, Director of Communication, whausser@publicadvocates.org, 415-431-7430. press release Stipulation and Proposed Order 2007 SARC Investigation Report Assembly Bill 1061 PRESS RELEASE : September 25, 2007 Californians Willing to Pay More Taxes to Improve Public Education, New Statewide Survey Says: Parents, Students Demand More Accountability, Local Involvement in Spending
SACRAMENTO, CA— Californians are willing to pay more taxes to improve public education, according to a survey released today by Parents and Students for Great Schools, a coalition of leading grassroots and advocacy organizations. In the statewide survey, titled Now That We Have the Facts, 86 percent of survey respondents said they would be willing to pay more taxes to improve California schools if certain conditions are met, including increased accountability, transparency and local involvement in deciding how education dollars are spent. Elizabeth Alvarez, who has four children in public school and is active in San Jose PACT (People Acting in Community Together), an affiliate of PICO California, shares that point of view. “Nothing is more important than my children’s education. I would even be willing to pay more in taxes to improve my children’s schools — but first I’d want to know that the money was going to be well spent,” Alvarez said. Martha Sanchez, a mother of three students in the Los Angeles public schools and a member of California ACORN, agrees. “Our children shouldn’t be the victims of good and bad budget years,” she said. Parents and Students for Great Schools conducted the survey in the wake of Getting Down to Facts, a collection of 22 studies on school finance and governance conducted by Stanford University researchers, to give students and adults from California’s low- and middle-income communities a voice on education reform. The release of the survey comes as the agenda is being set for the state’s next legislative session, which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has declared the “Year of Education Reform.” “California is gearing up for a major debate on education reform in 2008, and parents and students have vital input to offer,” said Liz Guillen, director of legislative and community affairs at Public Advocates. “To make sure our education system is meeting the unique needs of each community, we need to give those most directly affected — the parents and students themselves — an active role in shaping how dollars are spent and priorities are organized.” Other key findings from the Parents and Students for Great Schools report include:
For students, adequate preparation for college is of paramount concern. Sylvester McKinley, a senior at Long Beach Polytechnic Academy of Achievers and Leaders and a youth leader with Californians for Justice, described his frustration, shared by many of his peers, with the lack of information he’s received about the requirements for college. “Here in Long Beach, when the school district asked students what their goal after high school is, over 77 percent said they wanted to go to a four-year college,” McKinley recalled. “But only 3 out of 10 students actually graduate with the classes needed to apply a UC or CSU college.” “A lot of students don’t know about the required classes,” he continued. “I didn’t find out about them until last year — the eleventh grade! Even though I’m taking them now, I won’t be able to finish them all before I graduate, and I will have to make some up in community college.” Parents and Teachers for Great Schools surveyed 5,600 individuals in 25 counties from San Diego to rural Colusa County (40 miles north of Sacramento), and convened town hall meetings in Los Angeles and Oakland that drew approximately 500 parents, students and community members. Martha Sanchez, who helped facilitate the town hall meeting in Los Angeles, emphasizes that for many years, the opinions of people from her community have been ignored when it comes to education reform. “But it’s our kids whose futures are on the line,” she says. “It’s time for the state to take action — and this time, we want a seat at the table when big decisions about education are being made.” The survey was funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and research assistance was provided by UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education and Access (IDEA). # # # About Parents and Students for Great Schools Parents and Students for Great Schools is a coalition of leading grassroots and advocacy organizations — California ACORN, Californians for Justice, PICO California and Public Advocates — working to ensure that students and parents have a voice on education reform. The coalition works from two basic premises: (1) every child in California deserves the opportunity to succeed in school, and (2) California schools must respond to the needs and expectations of those most directly affected: parents and students. For more information, please contact the individuals below:
California ACORN (www.california.acorn.org) is an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a national grassroots, community-based organization of low- and moderate-income families working together for social justice and stronger communities. California ACORN is composed of 37,000 member families in 22 cities throughout California. For more information, contact Corina Vasaure at 510-866-5117 or caaisj@aisj.org.
Californians for Justice (www.caljustice.org) is a statewide, grassroots organization dedicated to building power in communities that have been pushed to the margins of the political process. For more information, contact Solomon Rivera at 323-899-6794 or solomon@caljustice.org.
PICO California (www.picocalifornia.org) is part of the PICO National Network of faith-based community organizations and represents 450,000 families in 73 cities throughout the state. PICO works to create innovative solutions to pressing community issues and build a legacy of leadership in communities. For more information, contact Roberta Furger at 510-703-6357 or roberta@picocalifornia.org.
Public Advocates (www.publicadvocates.org) is a nonprofit civil rights law firm that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and discrimination by promoting civil rights through advocacy, litigation and partnership with low-income communities, people of color and immigrants. It served as a lead counsel for the landmark Williams v. California education equity case. For more information, contact John Affeldt at 415-595-9563 or jaffeldt@publicadvocates.org. parent student survey statement form Public Advocates PRESS INFORMATION : August 21, 2007 "Renee v. Spellings" Teacher Quality Lawsuit press release complaint description of organizations Parents Supporting statement |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IN THE NEWS : August 14-24, 2007 Teacher Quality Press Education Week Los Angeles Times Merced Sun-Star New York Lawyer Sacramento Bee San Francisco Sentinel San Jose Mercury News USA Today |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SARC Investigation Report Press |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IN THE NEWS : August 12-15, 2007 Williams Third Year Report Press |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PRESS RELEASE: August 13, 2007 Oakland Unified School District Sued for
Failing to Disclose Expenditures for Students: PRESS RELEASE: August 12, 2007 Williams “Report Card” Reveals Success of Accountability and Increased Funding
San Francisco, CA—Three years after the historic class action lawsuit Williams v. California was settled on behalf of millions of California students, a new report reveals significant progress in addressing some of the most severe problems facing the state’s schools. In the most comprehensive analysis to date, researchers found that the strong accountability systems Williams established, along with new funds, have helped create a better learning environment for students in California’s lowest-performing schools.
The findings, announced on the eve of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Year of Education Reform,” are based on data from the lowest-performing 30 percent of California schools (deciles 1-3 on the Base Academic Performance Index) gathered during school years 2004-05 and 2005-06. The report analyzes progress in all three areas targeted by the case — access to textbooks; clean, safe school facilities; and adequate teacher training — and reveals that the reforms Williams put in place are improving conditions in schools throughout California.
“The Williams case has provided millions of California students with the basic essentials they need to succeed,” said Brooks Allen, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California’s Statewide Williams Implementation Attorney and co-counsel for the plaintiffs. “But Williams is a beginning, not an end. The minimum standards it sets are the foundation on which California must build in order to ensure that every child has access to a high-quality education.”
In 2000, the American Civil Liberties Union, Public Advocates, and other civil rights organizations, along with the law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of public school students in California. The case argued that the state and its agencies were denying thousands of students their fundamental right to an education by failing to provide them with the basic tools necessary for a student to learn: clean, safe and functional school facilities; enough textbooks for all students; and teachers who are trained and qualified for the classes and students they teach.
The analysis, conducted by UCLA researchers, focuses on schools in four regions of the state — the Bay Area, Los Angeles County, the Central Valley and Sacramento County — as well as the statewide trends. The findings show that the settlement, reached on August 13, 2004, has resulted in improved conditions in schools that help prevent teacher burnout, make it easier for the neediest schools to attract and retain qualified teachers, and create a better environment for faculty, administrators and students alike. Specifically, the report’s key findings indicate that, since the Williams case was settled:
• More schools have teachers who are qualified for the classes and students they teach. Although the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing did not gather statistics on all teacher misassignments for the first year of Williams implementation (2004-05), the data gathered locally by the Los Angeles County Office of Education illustrates the positive trend reported by superintendents and principals across the state. Even in Los Angeles County, which has the highest percentage of low-performing schools with inappropriate teacher assignments, the number of low-performing schools with at least some teachers working in classes for which they were not qualified or credentialed dropped from 83 percent in 2004-05 to 70 percent in 2005-06.
• School facilities are getting the repairs they need. Since the settlement became law, nearly 3,000 emergency repairs to K-12 schools have been funded through the state’s $800 million Emergency Repair Program. As a result, fewer schools today are in need of repair. While 62 percent of the lowest-performing schools needed some type of repair in the 2004-05 school year, that number was reduced to 47 percent the following year.
• More schools meet standards for sufficient instructional materials and textbooks. In 2004-05, 20 percent of the lowest-performing schools did not have enough textbooks to go around; in the following year, only 13 percent of schools in this category lacked sufficient textbooks. Overall, more than 88,000 new textbooks have been distributed to students in the lowest-performing schools across the state, after problems with missing or inadequate teaching materials were identified through Williams site visits.
As debate continues about how to improve California’s educational system — consistently ranked among the lowest in the nation — the report is a welcome piece of news. Although problems remain in some schools, the accountability and funding Williams established are already making an impact. More importantly, the settlement created systems that can detect, correct and prevent fundamental deficiencies that might otherwise go unnoticed or unaddressed.
“We have not yet solved every problem in every school,” said John Affeldt, Managing Attorney with Public Advocates and co-counsel for the Williams plaintiffs. “But the positive trends that have emerged demonstrate that this system of accountability, combined with targeted funding, works.” “The job is not done yet,” Affeldt added. “From state policy-makers to district superintendents, teachers and administrators, we need to keep the momentum going until the basic standards promised by Williams become the reality in every classroom.”
The report was funded by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
For a full copy of the report, please contact Fenton Communications at (415) 901-0111. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PRESS RELEASE: May 7, 2007 Devastating Decline in Graduation Rates Linked to Exit Exam
Using data on the Class of 2006 provided by the CDE, UCLA Professor John Rogers estimates that as many as 50,000 students did not graduate in the Class of 2006 compared to what would have been expected had previous years’ graduation rates held steady. This means more students did not graduate after the CAHSEE was implemented than the total number of students who graduated in each of 30 states, leaving California with one of the lowest graduation rates in the nation. It would also mean, according to Rogers, that the U.S. graduation rate declined more than 1% last year after implementation of California’s exit exam. These findings fly in the face of statements by state officials that fewer students have dropped out of school and only 2-5% of the Class of 2006 did not graduate because they did not pass the CAHSEE. Rogers’ study also calls into doubt the state's claim that over 90% of the Class of 2006 passed the Exit Exam. According to Rogers, the CDE overstates the pass rate by shrinking over time the pool of students who are counted as members of the class. “These results are extremely alarming,” said John Affeldt, Managing Attorney for Public Advocates, a nonprofit civil rights law firm. “Contrary to rosy pictures of the exit exam moving us forward, these numbers represent for California a lost generation. To accurately assess the problems in our schools, the Department needs to be square with the public and fully report the exam’s impact.” The study also ties test passing rates to unequal opportunities to learn. Students attending schools with low pass rates were almost 10 times more likely to experience severe shortages of qualified teachers than students who attended schools with high pass rates. Similarly, 42% of students enrolled in Low Pass Rate schools experienced critically overcrowded schools compared with only 9% of students enrolled in High Pass Rate Schools. “Current efforts to target students failing CAHSEE focus almost exclusively on providing remediation after the fact,” said Solomon Rivera, Executive Director of Californians for Justice, a group that has fought for equal opportunities to pass the CAHSEE. “Remediation is too little, too late. What’s needed is serious attention to giving students an equal opportunity to learn in the first place.” To date, the California Department of Education has not published 2006 graduation rates, though they were scheduled to do so in mid-April. (See http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/postplans.asp). Rogers’ study makes use of previously unreleased data collected by the CDE in November and December 2006 pursuant to settlement talks in Valenzuela v. California, a court case that challenged the exit exam and briefly put the test on hold in May of last year. The data from the Valenzuela survey came from 48% of the state’s high school districts and represented 57% of enrollment. The demographics of the responding districts reflect overall state demographics which, together with the large number of responders, strongly suggests that overall state figures can be accurately projected from the survey. ”First we need policymakers to give us an accurate picture of the effect of their policies; then, we need them to enact policies that stop punishing innocent students and start providing the resources and supports that will enable everyone to achieve,” said Kimberly Aceves, Executive Director of Youth Together, an Oakland-based nonprofit that trains youth advocates. Public Advocates will be presenting the study findings at the Assembly Budget Sub-Committee meeting considering CAHSEE policy issues on Tuesday, May 8th at 10:00 a.m. in Room 444 at the Capitol in Sacramento
Chart from Constructing Success by Professor John Rogers, based on data collected by the California Department of Education in November and December 2006. PRESS RELEASE: Thursday April 5, 2007 Hayward, CA— At Glassbrook Elementary School, the drinking fountain outside the kindergarten classroom is stopped up, leaving kindergartners to drink from a stagnant pool of dirty water. At Schafer Park Elementary School, the bathrooms are so dirty and unusable that children choose instead to “hold it” all day long. Throughout the Hayward Unified School District, many English Learners are struggling academically because they are taught by a teacher who lacks training to help students like them. MEDIA STATEMENT: March 15, 2007- Responding to Day 2 of “Getting Down to Facts” Study Release A coalition of community-based and advocacy organizations -- California ACORN, Californians for Justice, PICO California, and Public Advocates -- responded today to the second day release of the cost study findings in the “Getting Down to Facts” studies on school governance and finance for California’s K-12 education system. “Students are demanding a better education. Our schools are overcrowded. I’ve been in
a class with 58 people in it where they mixed up different English classes. And schools
are still falling apart in our neighborhoods,” said Naydalli Haro, a student at Cabrillo “We need experienced, qualified teachers, but we’re not getting them. There is not enough money for counselors to prepare us to go to college. Teachers use their own money to pay for basic materials in our classrooms. This needs to change,” she added. “While exact figures are not definite, these studies make it clear that California needs to make a substantial new investment in public education -- in addition to system reform -- to ensure all students meet expectations,” said John Affeldt, who serves as Managing Attorney for Public Advocates, another organizational member of the coalition. Another student, Estephanie Romero, a sophomore at Hayward High School and involved with coalition member PICO California’s affiliate in South Alameda County, described the consequences of not having enough resources. “Because my school doesn’t offer enough college prep classes, I’ll need to go to summer school just to make sure I have the credits and courses I need to graduate on time and be eligible for a four-year college,” she said. In addition to new resources, coalition members agree with the studies that the system
needs to be more rational and efficient. Funding needs to reach those with the greatest
academic challenges. High-poverty students, English-language learners and students “I’ve seen what a difference it makes when schools have the flexibility to determine how
best to allocate their resources to improve student achievement ,” said Elizabeth
Alvarez, the parent of four school-age children and a member of coalition member PICO “When school staff and parents come together to decide how best to spend their money
based on local needs, everyone takes ownership of the problems facing our schools,”
added Alvarez. “It’s a win-win. Students get the resources and services they need and Coalition members were encouraged by Governor Schwarzenegger’s desire to make next year “The Year of Education Reform,” but they echoed the word of caution from the requestors, funders and authors of the studies. “If people start picking apart individual findings or lobby for a piecemeal approach, we
will miss this unique chance for fundamental change, and doom another generation of
students to an inferior education,” said Soledad Padilla, elected chair of California “The only way true change will happen is by taking a holistic approach. Parents and students will be demanding that the policymakers move forward with comprehensive reform and include their voices in the process.” The coalition is conducting a survey that will amplify the opinions of parents and students in the policy discussions that will flow from these studies. It will also be holding town hall meetings in early May to amplify the voices of parents and students in this important debate. Who We Are California ACORN (http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=4321) is an affiliate of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a national grassroots communitybased organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities. California ACORN is composed of 35,000 member families in 22 cities throughout California. To be connected with parents, students, or community leaders in the following regions, contact Corina Vasaure at AISJ/California ACORN at 510-866-5117
Californians for Justice (http://www.caljustice.org) is a statewide, grassroots organization dedicated to build power in communities that have been pushed to the margins of the political process. To be connected with parents, students, or community leaders in the following regions, contact CFJ staff member Solomon Rivera, 323-899-6794.
PICO California (http://www.picocalifornia.org) is part of the PICO National Network of faith-based community organizations. We represent 450,000 families in 73 cities throughout the state. PICO works to create innovative solutions to pressing community issues and to build a legacy of leadership in our communities. To be connected with parents, students, or community leaders in the following regions, contact PICO California staff member Roberta Furger, 510-703-6357.
Public Advocates is a nonprofit civil rights law firm that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and discrimination by promoting civil rights through advocacy, litigation, and partnership with low-income communities, people of color, and immigrants. It served as a lead counsel for the landmark Williams v. California education equity case. Contact Public Advocates Managing Attorney John Affeldt for background on legal and legislative education equity issues at 415-595-9563. MEDIA STATEMENT: March 14, 2007 A coalition of community-based and advocacy organizations -- California ACORN, Californians for Justice, PICO California, and Public Advocates -- responded today to comprehensive new studies on school governance and finance for California’s K-12 education system. The studies were requested by Governor Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders and conducted independently by researchers at Stanford University. “We applaud the time, effort and funding that went into these studies. In many ways, they confirm what we already know – that California’s educational system needs fixing, and that making a difference will require more money, more flexibility, and greater efficiency,” said Solomon Rivera, Executive Director for the Californians for Justice Education Fund. “We already know what needs to be done, and now have the research and data to back it up,” added Soledad Padilla, California ACORN State Chair. “But we are concerned that, given the scale of the problem, there may not be the political will to do what is necessary.” The coalition offered several suggestions for how to address the issues raised in the study. It recommended spending taxpayer investments more wisely to fund schools based on their students’ needs. Different students need different resources and tools to succeed. “Just as New York City needs more homeland security funding than Omaha, NE, some school districts need more resources to succeed to California’s high standards,” explained Roberta Furger, Research and Communications Manager for PICO California. Additional resources are required to help high-poverty students, English-language learners and students with special needs successfully achieve the goals set for them. That means some schools and school districts may need to receive more resources than others to meet our common goals. “California needs a Marshall Plan for our teachers, the largest part of our education expenditures: a plan that reforms the rules to better cultivate and train future teachers, attract and retain effective teachers in the neediest schools and offer competitive salaries to attract the best minds in each region and district,” stated John Affeldt, who serves as Managing Attorney for Public Advocates. The coalition is conducting a survey that will amplify the opinions of parents and students in the policy discussions that will flow from these studies. It will also be holding town hall meetings in early May to amplify the voices of parents and students in this important debate. BACKGROUND ON THE COALITION: What We Believe 2. We are particularly concerned about the fate of high-poverty students, English-language learners and students with special needs. While we like to think of California as the land of opportunity, in reality it is far too easy to predict which children will successfully graduate from high school based solely on where they live. In most cases, these students are given short-shrift by the current system. Our Commitment Who We Are California ACORN (http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=4321) is an affiliate of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a national grassroots communitybased organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities. California ACORN is composed of 35,000 member families in 22 cities throughout California. To be connected with parents, students, or community leaders in the following regions, contact Corina Vasaure at AISJ/California ACORN at 510-866-5117
Californians for Justice (http://www.caljustice.org) is a statewide, grassroots organization dedicated to build power in communities that have been pushed to the margins of the political process. To be connected with parents, students, or community leaders in the following regions, contact CFJ staff member Solomon Rivera, 323-899-6794.
PICO California (http://www.picocalifornia.org) is part of the PICO National Network of faith-based community organizations. We represent 450,000 families in 73 cities throughout the state. PICO works to create innovative solutions to pressing community issues and to build a legacy of leadership in our communities. To be connected with parents, students, or community leaders in the following regions, contact PICO California staff member Roberta Furger, 510-703-6357.
Public Advocates is a nonprofit civil rights law firm that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and discrimination by promoting civil rights through advocacy, litigation, and partnership with low-income communities, people of color, and immigrants. It served as a lead counsel for the landmark Williams v. California education equity case. Contact Public Advocates Managing Attorney John Affeldt for background on legal and legislative education equity issues at 415-595-9563. PRESS RELEASE: March 13, 2007 Huron, CA— Harmful contaminants and dirty particles in the drinking fountain water. Ceiling panels falling on students during math class. An English Learner struggling because she is taught by a teacher that lacks training to help students like her. PRESS ADVISORY : September 8, 2006 What: Court of Appeal to Hear Oral Argument in Californians for Justice Education Fund v. State Board of Education When: Tuesday September 12, 2006, 9:30AM San Francisco, CA— On Tuesday, the California Court of Appeal will hear oral argument in Californians for Justice Education Fund v. State Board of Education, a companion case to Valenzuela which challenges the unlawful denial of high school diplomas for failure to pass the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). If Californians for Justice (CFJ) prevails in the Court of Appeal, the Court may grant relief in the form of retroactive awarding of diplomas to members of the class of 2006 and a delay in the CAHSEE diploma penalty at least for the class of 2007 and potentially for future classes. According to the California Department of Education, there are approximately 20,000 students in the class of 2006 who fulfilled all other requirements for graduation and were denied diplomas solely for failure to pass the CAHSEE. CFJ, a grassroots advocacy group represented by attorneys from Public Advocates, alleges that the California State Board of Education and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell violated a state education law which required them to study alternatives to the CAHSEE after initial administrations of the exam back in 2001and 2002 and to forward their recommendations to the Legislature for enactment. State education officials did not complete the study of alternatives until March 2006, just a few months before graduation day and far too late for the Legislature to have time to enact any alternatives in time to benefit the class of 2006. PRESS RELEASE: August 17, 2006 San Francisco, CA— Public Advocates (“PA”) releases its second report on California school district compliance with their obligation to provide parents and the public with information on key school conditions and resources through the School Accountability Report Card (“SARC”). In a follow-up to its 2005 investigation, PA reviewed SARC compliance in 1,404 schools, nearly 15% of all public schools in the state. PA assessed whether districts had: (a) issued their SARCs on time, (b) made translated copies of the SARC available in districts with significant minority populations, and (c) disclosed important information on needed school facility repairs and classrooms without qualified teachers as required by the historic settlement of Williams v. California. Despite some improvement in school districts issuing SARCs on time (53% in 2006 compared to 50% in 2005), serious violations of SARC obligations persist. An alarming 80% of school districts surveyed this summer failed to translate the SARC into languages other than English at one or more district school when required by law. Many schools did not provide adequate information, or any information at all, on needed school facility repairs and teacher misassignments and vacancies. Finally, almost all the schools investigated failed to report required data on per pupil expenditures and average teacher salaries at the school site as well as the percentage of pupils lacking sufficient instructional materials. “Because of widespread failure to comply with SARC requirements, hundreds of thousands of parents are deprived of an extremely valuable tool to hold public schools accountable,” said Jenny Pearlman, Staff Attorney at Public Advocates. “The SARC is designed to provide parents, the public, and policymakers with information on essential educational resources so they can understand learning conditions and results,” explained Pearlman. Public Advocates’ investigation identified 14 school districts with significant SARC violations. PA is today sending these districts letters warning them of possible suit unless an agreement to comply is reached promptly. These districts are: Alum Rock Elementary School District and Eastside Union High School District in Santa Clara County, Oakland USD, Sacramento USD, San Francisco USD, Lodi USD in San Joaquin County, Napa Valley USD, Fresno USD and Selma USD in Fresno County, Los Banos USD in Merced County, Inglewood USD and Long Beach USD in Los Angeles County, and Vista USD and Mt. Empire USD in San Diego County. “Low-income parents and immigrant parents work hard to stay actively involved in their children’s education. By failing to provide them with accurate and understandable information about their children’s schools, district officials are only exacerbating the many barriers these parents already face,” said Guillermo Mayer, attorney at Public Advocates. “Greater school district compliance and state involvement is necessary to make the SARC the information tool it was intended to be,” Mayer added. This past year, several education stakeholders, including Public Advocates, the California Department of Education, the State Superintendent of Public Education, PICO California, UCLA IDEA, EdVoice, EdTrust West, and others, have actively worked to improve the SARC’s readability and usefulness for parents and the public. To enhance further the SARC’s usefulness as an accountability and information tool and improve school district compliance with SARC obligations, Public Advocates is recommending: (a) legislative action to establish a clear statutory deadline for SARC publication, To obtain a copy of today’s report or of the demand letters issued to the 14 districts, visit www.publicadvocates.org PRESS RELEASE: July 24, 2006 San Francisco, CA— Attorneys for students attending the worst schools in the state will ask the Court of Appeal in San Francisco to reinstate an injunction against the exit exam Tuesday and retroactively award diplomas to as many as 42,000 seniors. An Alameda County Superior Court judge granted the injunction in May halting the diploma penalty for the Class of 2006 because he found many students had not had an equal opportunity to learn the material being tested. That injunction was suspended by the California Supreme Court on May 24th, and the issue was transferred to the Court of Appeal. The student plaintiffs, represented pro bono by the law firm Morrison & Foerster,will be joined by tens of thousands of students, parents, teachers and community members from across California who have been allowed to appear as amici curiae or friends of the court. The amici, represented by attorneys from Public Advocates, are community organizations from a statewide education reform coalition known as the Campaign for Quality Education and the United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA). These groups submitted a brief in support of the plaintiffs arguing that widespread shortages of credentialed teachers, standards-aligned textbooks, and standards-aligned course offerings have denied CAHSEE failers the opportunity to learn the material tested on the exam, violating equal protection and due process guarantees under the state constitution. The amici’s brief also articulates a 7-point plan that, if followed, could satisfy constitutional requirements for implementation of the exit exam. “We are not against the state’s education standards,” said Mike Chavez of Californians for Justice. “But the State must first ensure there is opportunity. No one benefits when students are punished for the State’s shortcomings.” Among the critical steps amici assert the State will need to undertake to meet its constitutional burden are the following: (1) monitor and support districts to ensure that all students have access to the curriculum and instruction needed to pass the exam and have been taught the necessary pre-requisite skills for success; PRESS RELEASE: April 18, 2006 San Francisco, CA— Californians for Justice, a grassroots advocacy group, represented by attorneys from Public Advocates, filed suit late yesterday in Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland, seeking to delay June’s diploma denial for those not passing the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) until the state Legislature has time to consider the most promising alternatives to the controversial test, as required by law. The class of 2006 is the first class required to pass the California High School Exit Exam, pursuant to the legislation passed in 1999. According to data released in late March by the California Department of Education, 48,000 seniors in the class of 2006 have been unable to pass the CAHSEE and will likely be denied high school diplomas in June. The vast majority of these affected students are low-income students, African-American and Latino students, and English language learners. Most other states with exit exams use multiple measures of performance as the basis for graduation. Of the 25 states with high school exit exams, at least 22 offer alternative assessments as part of their examination systems. On January 6, 2006, the Superintendent concluded that “there is no practicalalternative available” to the exit exam, and the State Board adopted his recommendation on March 8th. In fact, the hearings did identify a promising alternative – a State Performance Assessment (SPA) similar to those used in New Jersey and Washington State. Superintendent O’Connell himself stated that an SPA “would facilitate consistency across the state, addressing an important concern of mine,” but he dismissed the alternative primarily because it would not be ready in time for the class of 2006 – a delay for which he and the State Board are solely responsible. Education reform groups have pressed since 1999 for state education officials to investigate alternative measures of academic achievement for high school graduation. By waiting until March 2006 to complete the study of alternatives, Superintendent O’Connell and the State Board violated the time frame established in Ed Code § 60856 which the suit alleges contemplated providing the Legislature time to consider, enact and implement an alternative. “The consequences of being denied a high school diploma are not academic,” said Tara Kini, an attorney and Public Advocates Fellow. “Students without diplomas are 75% more likely to be unemployed and are estimated to have 30% lower lifetime earnings than students with diplomas. The imposition of the CAHSEE requirement on the class of 2006 and beyond is a civil rights issue that will have a palpable impact on California for years to come.” The debate over the suitability of CAHSEE as a single measurement for high school graduation has intensified as the class of 2006 nears graduation. National testing standards from the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing declare that a decision having a major impact on a student should not be made on the basis of a single test score and that other sources of information, such as performance assessments, should be taken into account. The suit does not seek to end the exit exam, but to hold the Superintendent and State Board of Education accountable for their duty to study alternatives in a timely manner. Experience in other states shows that SPA’s are reasonable alternatives for students like English Learners and others who have trouble with standardized tests, and could work in California. Such assessments can be made as rigorous as the exit exam, and measure student achievement against the same standards. The suit announced today asks the court to delay implementation of the CAHSEE until the Legislature can consider, and, if it chooses, enact, and implement alternatives such as the promising option surfaced by Superintendent O’Connell at his own hearings, a New Jersey-style State Performance Assessment (SPA). A copy of the suit and the brief in support can be found at www.publicadvocates.org. A suit filed by the private law firm Morrison & Foerster on behalf of students in the class of 2006 has alleged that the State Board and the Superintendent also violated the same statute by not doing a proper study at all and will ask the same court on May 9th to delay the diploma penalty for the class of 2006 until a proper study is done. PRESS RELEASE: December 15, 2005 Los Angeles, CA— The ACLU and Public Advocates released a report today detailing new ways parents, students and educators are improving public schools one year after important changes in education law went into effect. The report, which chronicles the first year after a settlement was reached in the historic class action education lawsuit Williams v. California, identifies successes and challenges so far in school district, county, state and community implementation of those new laws. "This settlement has helped empower school districts and communities with resources to identify and fix problems in schools quickly," said Brooks Allen, an ACLU/SC staff attorney. "Williams provides a foundation for improving California’s public education system." Williams, originally filed in May 2000, charged the state with reneging on its constitutional obligation to provide sufficient instructional materials, adequate learning facilities and qualified teachers. The settlement, which was reached in August 2004, and subsequent legislation hold schools accountable for delivering these basic necessities and provides about $1 billion to accomplish these goals. The report specifically details how new accountability systems help ensure that all students receive sufficient instructional materials, properly assigned teachers and safe, clean, and functional classrooms. In addition, the report identifies three ways in which school officials, parents, students and teachers can identify problems and create positive change in public schools.
PRESS RELEASE: November 2, 2005 San Francisco, CA— In a victory for California public school children and their parents, the San Francisco Superior Court today voided 4,000 Individualized Internship Certificate (IIC) teaching permits which had mislabeled emergency credentialed teachers as “highly qualified” to sidestep requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. The Court’s decision ends a lawsuit filed three months ago by the grassroots organization Californians for Justice, which sought to overturn the reclassification of thousands of teachers who were improperly designated “highly qualified” by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC). The court ordered the CTC to stop issuing the IIC credential, to correct reports of the numbers of highly qualified teachers, and to replace the credentials with temporary certificates that keep teachers in the classroom. “This decision ensures that we will have a more accurate picture of the numbers of ‘highly qualified’ teachers in California which is incredibly important to parents who want to know about teacher quality at their child’s school,” explained John Affeldt, managing attorney at Public Advocates, a non-profit San Francisco law firm which represented Californians for Justice in the suit. “It also allows teachers and students to remain in the classrooms undisturbed while putting pressure on the state and districts to get everyone qualified.” Studies show that schools in poor and minority California communities are the most likely to have inexperienced or underprepared teachers. The public interest lawsuit was based on CTC’s creation of the new teaching credential, which allowed the state to sidestep requirements of No Child Left Behind that restricts teachers who are not “highly qualified” from being hired for low-income schools or teaching core subjects at public schools. The Individualized Internship Credential allowed former emergency credentialed teachers to be deemed “highly qualified” teacher interns without having completed their required teacher training. “Conferring the label of ‘highly qualified’ teacher on an underprepared teacher didn’t serve the teacher or student or public – it merely took the pressure off the state to provide the teacher-in-training with adequate preparation and supervision,” stated CFJ’s attorney, Michelle Rodriguez, Staff Attorney at Public Advocates. NCLB’s requirement that all students be taught by a “highly qualified” teacher in core classes recognizes that teacher qualifications are one of the strongest predictors of student achievement. For the last two years, California has ranked 48th out of 50 states in terms of the number of “highly qualified” teachers in its classrooms.1 Underprepared teachers are placed in disproportionate numbers in low-performing schools and in schools serving large numbers of students of color, poor students, and English language learners.2 These same schools – where underprepared teachers face challenging teaching conditions yet often lack ongoing mentorship and support – report serious teacher turnover problems.3 “Teacher internships help bring new teachers into the profession who have to earn a living while they get their teacher training, but both students and teachers are set up to fail where teachers aren’t mentored and supervised enough,” said Solomon Rivera, Executive Director of Californians for Justice. “With this victory we will move forward and participate in the CTC’s new rule-making on internships at the beginning of December 2005,” added Solomon Rivera of Californians for Justice. “We want to make sure that this time the CTC’s internship credential provides for enough mentorship, support, and supervision to teachers. The Individualized Internship Certificate will be on the table again and if enough changes aren’t made to it, we may have to go back to the court.” BACKGROUNDMany concerns have been raised about the No Child Left Behind Act’s rigid testing requirements. Yet, advocates have also sought to leverage provisions addressing the overrepresentation of underprepared teachers in low-income, minority schools. For example, NCLB mandates that only “highly qualified” teachers be hired in schools receiving federal dollars for low-income children (“Title I” schools). NCLB also requires that, by 2005-06, (some states will be granted a one year reprieve from this deadline) all children receive instruction from “highly qualified” teachers in core academic courses. NCLB also mandates that districts notify parents when their child has been taught by a teacher who is not “highly qualified” for more than four consecutive weeks, and requires annual reports from states about the statewide percentage of not “highly qualified” teachers and the steps being taken to ensure that all teachers are “highly qualified.” NCLB defines “highly qualified” teachers as those who have received full state certification and specifically excludes those teaching under emergency and other temporary credentials. Under federal and state regulations, teachers in certain high quality internship programs may be considered “highly qualified;” however, the IIC did not provide such an internship program. This lawsuit charged the CTC with violating the requirements of the California Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in adopting the IIC. The APA is a state law that requires agency rules and regulations be called for by the Legislature and scrutinized by the public before enactment. The CTC cited no legislative or other authority for the IIC, nor did it follow the APA’s requirements for adopting the IIC as part of a public process. Agency rules subject to, but implemented without following, the public participation requirements of the APA are deemed invalid by the courts. As a result, teachers, parents, students, and other community advocates were denied their right to have their voices heard on the critical issue of teacher qualifications. Because of this victory in the court, advocates will now have an opportunity to be heard at the CTC’s December 2005 rulemaking on internships and may well challenge any new attempt by the CTC to create a new IIC “self study” internship. CFJ is a non-profit, grassroots organization with over 1,000 members statewide, primarily youth from low-income communities and communities of color. CFJ has been leading a campaign to demand that all students receive full opportunities to learn, including equal access to qualified teachers. Public Advocates, Inc. is a non-profit civil rights law firm in San Francisco whose mission is to redress the underlying causes and effects of poverty and discrimination in California. Among other recent work, Public Advocates was the lead counsel responsible for teacher quality issues in Williams v. California, a class action suit on behalf of over a million low-income, students of color in California suffering from a lack of adequate textbooks, facilities and qualified teachers. Plaintiffs reached a landmark settlement in Williams last summer with the State. 1, See U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary’s Third Annual Report on Teacher Quality (2004) at 34-35, available at http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/ teachprep/ 2004Title2-Report.pdf.
2. The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, California’s Teaching Force 2004: Key Issues and Trends (2004) at 9, available at http://www.cftl.org/documents/2004/1204report/1204repoverview.pdf). 3. Lou Harris, Report on the Status of Public School Education in California 2004 With Special Emphasis on the Status of Equality in Public School Education: A Survey of a Cross-Section of Classroom Teachers in California Public Schools (May 2004) at 26, available at http://justschools.gseis.ucla.edu/ research/publications/Harris.pdf. PRESS RELEASE: September 8, 2005 San Francisco, CA— As many students return to school this week, a new report shows how well California schools are grading themselves. In the first large-scale analysis of its kind, Public Advocates released a report today on school district compliance with the Prop. 98 mandate that districts annually prepare and publish a School Accountability Report Card (“SARC”) for each school. Public Advocates reviewed SARC availability at approximately 900 schools, nearly 1 of every 10 schools in the state. SARCs are the primary documentation for parents and the public on key educational conditions and resources at individual school sites and how they compare to other schools in the district and state. As reported in the San Jose Mercury on November 11, 2004, historically SARC enforcement by state officials has been lax, and many districts have not complied with SARC requirements. The civil rights group found that most districts are complying and that compliance appears to have improved as a result of the settlement last year of the landmark Williams v. California lawsuit brought by Public Advocates, the ACLU and the private law firm, Morrison & Foerster. Among other provisions, the Williams suit added new reporting factors to the SARC on textbook availability, facility problems, and teacher quality issues, and requires that county superintendents review SARC availability and accuracy. The investigation also revealed, however, that nearly 9% of schools reviewed, covering some 80,000 students, have not published current SARCs. Five districts in particular were identified as failing to publish SARCs for some or all of their schools. These five districts are being sent letters today by Public Advocates threatening suit if the districts do not agree to swift compliance with the SARC requirements. Those districts are: the Riverside Unified School District, the Santa Ana Unified School District, the Alameda Unified School District, the Delhi Unified School District in Merced County, and the Escalon Unified School District in San Joaquin County. “These districts are denying parents the most important information tool they have to hold public schools accountable for poor learning conditions and results,” said Jenny Pearlman, Staff Attorney at Public Advocates. “Without a SARC, a parent will not know if her child’s school has qualified teachers, sufficient textbooks, or decent facilities,” explained Pearlman, who served as co-counsel in Williams. Public Advocates’ investigation also showed that, although 90% of schools were publishing SARCs, half of the districts reviewed published their SARCs late, that is, after the May deadline set by the California Department of Education (“CDE”). On a positive note, the study also found that of 27 districts that were identified as having SARCs 1-3 years out-of-date a year ago, only 3 remained with old SARCs today. “It is encouraging that, after the new attention paid to SARCs by Williams, so many formerly lagging districts have now brought their SARCs up to date,” said Guillermo Mayer an attorney at Public Advocates who worked on the investigation. To improve compliance in the future, Public Advocates is recommending: (1) that the Legislature identify a fixed date on which parents can rely for having their local SARC published and (2) increased enforcement by the CDE. Despite state law requiring the CDE to monitor district compliance with preparing and distributing SARCs, the CDE does not affirmatively monitor or investigate compliance but merely reacts to complaints. To obtain a copy of today’s report or of the demand letters issued to the five districts, visit www.publicadvocates.org. PRESS RELEASE: August 2, 2005 San Francisco, CA— Californians for Justice, represented by Public Advocates, sued the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing today for mislabeling thousands of emergency credentialed teachers in California as “highly qualified” under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and paving the way for those individuals to continue teaching in low-income schools without adequate training. Two years ago, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) quietly created a new internship credential so that thousands of emergency credentialed teachers could be reclassified as “highly qualified” under NCLB. NCLB restricts teachers on emergency credentials and others who are not “highly qualified” from being hired for low-income schools and, after this year, prohibits their teaching core subjects at any public school. The new Individualized Internship Certificate (IIC) allows many teachers who formerly received emergency credentials to be considered “highly qualified” interns. These teachers have demonstrated competency in their subject matter but have not completed pedagogical training. “Because these teachers have not been sufficiently trained to teach, the Commission should not be telling the public they are highly qualified,“ said Plaintiff’s attorney, Michelle Rodriguez, Staff Attorney with Public Advocates. Between the years 2002 and 2004, the CTC issued 2,836 IIC’s.1 It is estimated that several hundred to up to two-thousand more were issued over the last year. These teachers are most likely to teach students who are most in need of fully prepared teachers. Underprepared teachers, including interns, are found in disproportionate numbers in low-performing schools and in schools serving large numbers of students of color, poor students, and/or English language learners.2 Students in these schools are up to five times as likely to be taught by underprepared teachers as those in the highest performing schools. Id. “Because of the CTC’s mislabeling, thousands of underprepared teachers are being disproportionately placed in schools with predominantly low-income students and students of color,” said Rodriguez. For the last two years, California has ranked 48th out of 50 states in terms of the number of “highly qualified” teachers in its classrooms.3 To respond to this crisis, the CTC chose to reclassify these emergency credential holders rather than beef up training standards or require enrollment in the well-established internship programs run by universities and a few districts. “Because these teachers are being improperly labeled “highly qualified,” parents aren’t being told that their child has an underprepared teacher and steps aren’t being taken by districts and the State to improve teacher quality in the lowest performing schools,” said John Affeldt, Managing Attorney at Public Advocates. “The CTC is hiding the fact that thousands of our ‘highly qualified’ teachers are actually still underprepared.” “Teachers are one of the most important parts of a quality education,” said Solomon Rivera, Executive Director of plaintiff Californians for Justice. “To water down the definition of a highly qualified teacher is unacceptable.” NCLB defines “highly qualified” teachers as those who have received full state certification and specifically excludes those teaching under emergency credentials. Under federal and state regulations, teachers in certain high quality internship programs may be considered “highly qualified.” The CTC did not choose to require emergency credential holders to enroll in California’s existing university and district intern programs, but, instead created a new “individualized intern” program which does not satisfy the letter or the spirit of a highly qualified intern under NCLB advocates claim. “There is no formal program with the IIC as with the internship programs run by universities and districts. Individualized interns pursue the same old self study as emergency credential holders and receive the same old unenforced promises of mentoring that districts make with emergency credential teachers,” said Affeldt. “There’s no assurance IIC holders can teach their subjects any better than emergency credential holders.” State agencies in California have a history of trying to evade the teacher quality mandates of NCLB. In May 2002, the State Board adopted a definition of a “highly qualified” teacher that included emergency credentialed teachers. When Public Advocates, CFJ and other community groups discovered what the State Board had done, they lambasted the move and U.S. Representative George Miller (D-Martinez), one of the law’s chief architects, issued a scathing letter to the Board. The criticism led to widespread press coverage, a State Senate hearing, and ultimately a lawsuit by CFJ, ACORN and Public Advocates against the State Board. The Board ultimately backed away from its initial definition and adopted a much stronger definition of a “highly qualified” teacher in December 2003. Today’s lawsuit charges the CTC with violating the requirements of the California Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in adopting the IIC. The APA is a state law that requires agency rules and regulations be authorized by the Legislature and scrutinized by the public before enactment. The CTC has cited no legislative or other authority for the IIC, nor did it follow the APA’s requirements for adopting the IIC as part of a public process. Agency rules subject to, but implemented without following, the public participation requirements of the APA are deemed invalid by the courts. As a result, Plaintiff CFJ is asking the San Francisco Superior Court (a) to strike down the IIC, (b) to require the CTC to notify individuals and districts that the IIC is invalid, and (c) to require the CTC to correct any public reports overstating the number of “highly qualified” teachers. “To create this new credential affecting thousands of teachers without any participation by youth, parents, and the public we believe is illegal,” said Rivera, CFJ’s Executive Director. CFJ is a non-profit, grassroots organization with over 1,000 members statewide, primarily youth from low-income communities and communities of color. CFJ has been leading a campaign to demand that all students receive full opportunities to learn, including equal access to qualified teachers. Public Advocates, Inc. is a non-profit civil rights law firm in San Francisco whose mission is to redress the underlying causes and effects of poverty and discrimination in California. Among other recent work, Public Advocates was the lead counsel responsible for teacher quality issues in Williams v. California, a class action suit on behalf of over a million low-income, students of color in California suffering from a lack of adequate textbooks, facilities and qualified teachers. Plaintiffs reached a landmark settlement in Williams last summer with the State. The case, Californians for Justice v. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, is filed in San Francisco Superior Court. A hearing is scheduled on plaintiffs’ request for a court order on August 24, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. 1. Cal. Comm’n on Teacher Credentialing, Report 05-01, Executive Summary at 9, Teacher Supply in California 2003-2004: A Report to the Legislature (Apr. 2005).
2. The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, California’s Teaching Force 2004: Key Issues and Trends (2004) at 9, available at http://www.cftl.org/documents/2004/1204report/1204repoverview.pdf). 3. See U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary’s Third Annual Report on Teacher Quality (2004) at 34-35, available at http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/ teachprep/ 2004Title2-Report.pdf. PRESS RELEASE: February 15, 2005 San Francisco, CA— EdTrust West released a new report of the shocking disparities in the amount of money school districts spend on instruction at low-income, minority schools in California compared to whiter, more affluent schools within districts. Public Advocates Managing Attorney, John Affeldt, has been one of the lead counsel for plaintiffs and the attorney responsible for addressing issues of teacher quality disparities in Williams v. California, the statewide, educational equity class action settled with Governor Schwarzenegger last August. In responding to the EdTrust West report, Mr. Affeldt stated: "We've known for years that poor and minority students receive the lowest quality teachers and have the lowest test scores. For the first time we see how shocking an under-investment in instructional dollars the teacher gap means for the neediest students. Teachers are the most important factor in improving student learning. We can hardly expect low-performing students to tackle California's world-class standards without ensuring all students have effective, experienced teachers. As part of the Williams settlement, the State committed to providing all students "highly qualified" teachers by the end of the 2006 school year. This report confirms that a systemic response is needed to create the environments at low-performing schools to attract and retain high quality teachers." PRESS RELEASE: August 27, 2004 San Francisco, CA— On the eve of an emergency hearing this afternoon seeking a temporary injunction against the Modesto City Schools, Public Advocates, Inc. and the district reached a settlement in a lawsuit filed Wednesday to halt the district’s plans to demote 408 college track students to lower-level classes. After students enrolled in college track classes in February, the district adopted a plan in March to require certain scores on the State’s STAR test for placement in college preparatory, Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses. Students received their STAR scores and notices of course changes the week of August 16th. Public Advocates, Inc. filed a class action lawsuit on August 25, 2004 on behalf of the students asking the US District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno) for an immediate halt to the transfers because the students were not given enough notice that the scores would be used in this way or a reasonable chance to prepare for the tests. The students asked to be allowed to enroll in the more demanding courses they were placed in last February on the basis of their grades and recommendations. The settlement requires that (1) the district will not use STAR scores to bar access to college track courses for the 2004-05 school year; (2) the district will attempt to reenroll all 408 students in their original classes by the start of school on Monday, August 30, 2004 and (3) the Plaintiffs and the district will engage in negotiations over the next 90 days to see if they can reach agreement over how to implement a plan to incentivize students in the future in a way that is acceptable to the Plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in the case are six Modesto High School students and their parents. One of the plaintiffs, parent Cheryl James, said she was delighted by the settlement. “The real issue is not about testing, it’s about opportunity. By Public Advocates stepping in, now these students will have the opportunity to compete in challenging courses, go to college, and show what they can do.” Sixty-eight percent of the 408 affected students were in college preparatory classes. These courses make up the state’s college preparatory (“A-G”) curriculum, which are required in applying to UC/CSU schools and also called for by most colleges. For many students, missing out on even one college prep class for one year would make them ineligible for entry into UC or CSU. “It was unfair for the district to change the rules mid-stream and not to allow time to prepare for the new requirement. We’re pleased the students will start the year in the tougher courses they’d already qualified for and that they will continue to prepare for college.” said Michelle Natividad Rodriguez, Law Fellow at Public Advocates. Public Advocates sent the district a letter on May 14, 2004 urging them, among other things, not to adopt the STAR plan this year as doing so would not provide constitutional due process to students who did not have enough time to prepare. “The district could have avoided this suit if they’d heeded our earlier advice,” said John Affeldt, Public Advocates managing attorney. “They are to be commended now though for responding quickly and responsibly to the suit. This case has been resolved in the best interests of the students and all involved.” Since its founding in 1971, Public Advocates, a trailblazing public interest law firm devoted to challenging the causes of poverty and discrimination, has championed education rights in significant school finance, testing, and teacher certification cases. Public Advocates is co-lead counsel in the case Williams v. California to assure basic educational resources to all California students, including qualified teachers, instructional materials and decent facilities. Governor Schwarzenegger recently announced an agreement in Williams that recognizes the State’s responsibility for providing educational opportunity and commits state funds to improve conditions in schools that serve the poorest children. PRESS RELEASE: August 25, 2004 The plaintiffs in the case are five Modesto High School students and their parents. They are asking the court to let them represent the interests of all the students who would have to drop down to less rigorous classes if the changes are allowed to go into effect. The courses that the students enrolled in last winter are advanced placement (AP) classes, international baccalaureate (IB) classes, and courses that make up the state’s college preparatory (“A-G”) curriculum, which are required or significant in applying to UC/CSU schools and other competitive colleges. For many students, missing out on even one college prep class for one year will make them ineligible for entry into UC or CSU. “The immediate goal is simply to give students the chance to start the year in the tougher courses they’d already qualified for that will prepare them for college. These students have already done well in classes at this level,” said Michelle Natividad Rodriguez, Law Fellow at Public Advocates. “Public Advocates will do all it can to help these students access rigorous courses and make it to college. The district ought to do the same instead of cutting their student’s college dreams off at the knees,” said John Affeldt, managing attorney. Since its founding in 1971, Public Advocates, a trailblazing public interest law firm devoted to challenging the causes of poverty and discrimination, has championed education rights in significant school finance, testing, and teacher certification cases. Public Advocates is co-lead counsel in the case Williams v. California to assure basic educational resources to all California students, including qualified teachers, instructional materials and decent facilities. Governor Schwarzenegger recently announced an agreement in Williams that recognizes the State’s responsibility for providing educational opportunity and commits state funds to improve conditions in schools that serve the poorest children. PRESS RELEASE: August 13, 2004 San Francisco, CA — The State of California and Public Advocates, Inc. today entered into a landmark settlement in Williams v. California. Thisclass action, filed in May 2000 on behalf of thousands of public school children, challenged the State’s failure to provide all California students with basic educational necessities. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is set to announce the historic agreement today at the Edison Middle School in Los Angeles, surrounded by the children, families and organizations that brought the case. “Through the Governor’s leadership, we’ve moved from historic neglect to a historic acceptance of responsibility. Delivering on the promise of educational opportunity for all California children will now require action from the Legislature and state agencies to complement the State’s commitment to new standards and resources,” said John T. Affeldt, managing attorney at Public Advocates, Inc., co-lead counsel in the case. “Advocates for good schools will have to be alert watchdogs to assure implementation.” “Quality teachers, enough books, decent schools – it sounds so simple, but too many children have never had them. It’s a huge step that the state has acknowledged its responsibility to assure educational opportunity. Now they have a chance,” added Jenny Pearlman, staff attorney at Public Advocates. Since its founding in 1971, Public Advocates, a trailblazing public interest law firm devoted to challenging the causes of poverty and discrimination, has championed education rights in significant school finance, testing, and teacher certification cases. The Williams plaintiffs are also represented by the ACLUs of Southern and Northern California, Morrison & Foerster, and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. Jack Londen, partner at the law firm Morrison & Foerster, which represented the plaintiffs pro bono, said, “These accomplishments demonstrate that there is still an important role for impact litigation in creating social change. We’re proud to have provided public officials with the chance to improve the lives of kids, and grateful to the governor for his leadership in making the settlement happen.” Highlights of the settlement include: New Standards:
Additional Resources:
Greater Accountability:
State Intervention:
IN THE NEWS : August 5, 2002 California Statewide— A coalition of grassroots and policy organizations across California concerned about equity in California schools called on the U.S. Department of Education today to reject California’s application for funding under a new federal education law until the State defines a high quality teacher as one with proper training and certification. Also today, in a letter sent to the State Board of Education, Congressman George Miller (D-Martinez), one of the key drafters of the legislation, blasted the definition and urged the Board to withdraw it. Miller said he expects the federal Department of Education to disapprove the definition and to require the Board to submit a new definition that conforms to the federal statute. The State recently submitted its application to the Department for funding under the new landmark federal education statute, the No Child Left Behind Act, signed by President Bush in January. That law requires states to ensure all children have a "highly qualified" teacher in core classrooms by the 2005-06 school year and that all new teachers hired in Title-one schools be "highly qualified" beginning this fall. As part of its application, the State Board of Education asks the federal government to approve a "highly qualified" teacher definition that is weaker than the State’s current requirements for teachers with emergency permits. The request clashes with both the federal act—which specifically excludes provisional certifications like emergency permits from inclusion in the definition of "highly qualified"—and the State’s long-accepted standard of a qualified teacher as those earning preliminary and clear credentials. Completion of the State’s credentialing process certifies that credential holders meet the State’s minimum standards for training in subject matter and pedagogy. A recent study across more than 7,000 California schools by the Public Policy Institute of California found that teacher qualifications were the strongest predictors of student achievement. Those findings are similar to other studies and the conclusions of the State’s own Commission on Teacher Credentialing which hold that "the most powerful factor in student achievement is the quality of the teacher". The Commission has remained silent on the State Board’s definition as has the California Department of Education, whose Professional Development Task Force report last fall called for phasing out emergency permits by 2006. "The State’s hollow definition of ‘highly qualified’ is a cynical attempt to sweep away the serious teacher shortage problem with the stroke of a pen," said coalition member John Affeldt of Public Advocates. "Rather than ramping up policies to attract and retain quality teachers, the State is ramping down its definition of who’s qualified." The coalition is calling on the State: (1) to retain and enforce its pre-existing definition of qualified teachers (those with full preliminary and professional clear credentials), and (2) to propose to the federal government realistic steps to ensure the State will (a) provide all its children with properly trained teachers by 2005-06 and (b) work to ensure teacher hires in Title I schools are highly qualified this year. The coalition also calls on the U.S. Department of Education to reject the State’s application until its "highly qualified" definition is modified to reflect what Californians have accepted as the proper teaching standard. A teacher on an emergency permit must only have a bachelor’s degree, pass the CBEST, pass a subject matter test or have completed 18 semester units of coursework in the subject to be taught and commit to enrolling in a teacher preparation program. Emergency-permitted teachers need not have completed their subject matter training, have had any training in teaching methodologies, nor have had any prior hands-on experience in the classroom. The State’s new definition of a "highly qualified" teacher mirrors this emergency definition with one less requirement—verifying that the teacher has committed to attend a teacher training program. In the early 1990’s, when California first allowed teachers to enter classrooms with only emergency certification, it recognized that certifying emergency permit teachers was intended to be a short-term measure. The law was to sunset in 1994. The State’s practice of allowing emergency permit teachers, however, has continued. In 2000, there were more than 42,000 teachers working in California’s schools without full preparation or credentials, more than in 25 other states combined. Over the last several years, the number of under-qualified teachers in California has continued to increase as has their unequal allocation. The share of schools in which more than 20% of teachers are under-qualified has grown from 20% in 1997-98 to 24% in 2000-01. At the same time, the schools with the largest proportions of under prepared teachers—about 1,900 schools enrolling more than 1.7 million children—increasingly serve children of color and low-income children. "As the State is raising standards for students with STAR-testing and the high school exit exam, it’s lowering standards for itself and providing low-income students of color poorer learning opportunities," said Francisco Estrada of MALDEF. Sources: Betts, J.R., Rueben, K.S., Danenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes? The distribution of school resources and student achievement in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Calif. Commission on Teacher Credentialing (September 2001), Teacher Education Standards Become a Reality, Bulletin. Sacramento, CA Shields, P.M., Humphrey, D.C., Wechsler, M.E., Riel, L.M., Tiffany-Morales, J., Woodworth, K., Young, V.M. & Price, T. (2001). The Status of the Teaching Profession 2001. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. PRESS RELEASE: April 30, 2002 Click here for Harris Survey Questionnaire Click here for Williams et al. v. State of California et al. Complaint San Francisco, CA— Results of a recent survey conducted by pollster Lou Harris reveal that the shocking, systematic problems in California's public schools are worse than had been publicly acknowledged. In press conferences conducted in San Francisco and Los Angeles today, Harris reported the findings of the first-ever systematic survey of California classroom teachers and the education they are able to offer to the state's public school students. Harris surveyed a random sample of classroom teachers across California about the conditions in the state's public schools which currently serve over 6 million students. The report documents both shocking levels of education deprivation and pervasive inequality throughout California's public schools. The independent poll, A Survey of the Status of Equality in Public Education in California, was conducted by Harris with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation and included questions of interest to civil rights and volunteer attorneys who represent children in substandard schools in a class action lawsuit against the state of California. "The results of this survey are as clear-cut and unequivocal as any I have ever seen. Without doubt, the California education system is failing to provide a significant minority of students the basic environment in which they can learn," said Harris. Some of the more shocking findings include:
The Harris operation surveyed a random sample of 1,071 California classroom teachers. The table below summarizes the percentages of teachers reporting particular problems, along with the estimated number of children across the state affected by each condition.
"Conditions are much worse and more unequal than we had expected," said John Affeldt, with Public Advocates, Inc. one of the sponsors of the survey. "Californians should be embarrassed by the state of their public schools." "It is unacceptable that there are as many students in California without a textbook as there are people in the cities of Long Beach, Fresno, Sacramento, Oakland and Riverside combined," said Joshua Pechthalt, teacher at Manuel Arts High School in Los Angeles. "School is hard enough; we shouldn't have to worry about a shortage of books, untrained teachers, overcrowded classrooms and bathrooms that don't work," said Christopher Gomez, a senior at Los Angeles High School. "We should have the basic things needed to learn, to get a quality education. We are the next generation and some of us won't even be qualified to take entry level, low-wage jobs that we don't even want because we don't have the basic skills. If we don't even have books in our classrooms, how are we expected to learn?" The survey also details the stark disparities between schools serving middle and upper-class students and schools with high populations of disadvantaged students. Harris compared conditions reported by teachers in the 20% of schools with the highest concentrations of low-income children and students still learning English with conditions reported in the 51% of schools serving the fewest such children. Comparing the two groups, Harris found that the most disadvantaged students are: Twelve times more likely to be in a school with a high concentration of untrained teachers. "As a teacher I would like to work in an environment that feels healthy and comfortable to me," said Amy Salyer, a teacher at International Community School in Oakland. "But more importantly, these children who come from supportive families and who are eager to learn and achieve the most they can, deserve the same safe and healthy conditions that children in other communities are able to take for granted." The problems documented in the Harris survey are at the heart of a class action lawsuit against the state filed by a coalition of civil rights and volunteer lawyers on behalf of the children consigned to substandard schools in California. The suit demands that the state ensure that students have access to the bare essentials needed to learn: trained teachers, sufficient instructional materials, and adequate learning facilities for all. "I am dismayed to learn from the Harris survey data how many teachers are trying to teach and students are trying to learn in the conditions I've experienced in East Oakland," said Shannon Carey, teacher at Melrose Leadership Academy in Oakland. "Year after year, our students are told that their education is not important and that they do not matter." PRESS RELEASE: January 23, 2002 Click here for Petition for Higher Quality Teacher San Francisco, CA— In the first lawsuit in the nation seeking to take advantage of requirements for higher quality teachers in the federal No Child Left Behind Act, two community groups sued the California State Board of Education today. Californians for Justice (CFJ) and the California Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) argue that the State Board has been silently watering down the standard for who is qualified to teach without including the public in the decision-making process as required by state law. In a push for higher teacher standards, the new federal law has mandated since Fall 2002 that only “highly qualified” teachers be hired in programs receiving federal dollars for low-income children and requires that, by 2005-06, all children receive instruction from “highly qualified” teachers in core academic courses. The law also mandates that, as of Fall 2002, districts notify parents when their child has been taught by a teacher who is not “highly qualified” for more than four consecutive weeks. The federal law requires each state to establish a definition of a “highly qualified” teacher to implement these provisions and, among other parameters, specifically prohibits states from including emergency and provisionally certified teachers in that definition. Yet, the California State Board of Education quietly adopted a definition last May that defined emergency credentialed teachers as “highly qualified”. When community groups discovered what the State Board had done, they lambasted the move and U.S. Representative George Miller (D-Martinez), one of the law’s chief architects, issued a scathing letter to each Board member. Every major newspaper in the State reported the uproar, with columnists and editorial boards unanimously urging a reversal of course. At a hearing on the issue in late August before the Senate Education Committee in Sacramento, State Board President Reed Hastings promised to revise the definition, but, to date, the definition has not been officially withdrawn or revised. Today’s lawsuit seeks to require the Board to follow the public participation requirements of the California Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in adopting its “highly qualified” teacher definition. The APA is a state law that requires state agency rules and regulations be vetted with the public before enactment. Among its requirements are: (1) formal written notice to the public of the agency’s proposed rule; (2) the opportunity for the public to submit written comments, including, often a public hearing; (3) the requirement that the agency respond to the public’s comments; and (4) a final review by the Office of Administrative Law for consistency with state and federal law. “When we brought the underground definition of a “highly qualified” teacher out into the light of day last year, the policymakers couldn’t run away from it fast enough. We hope that by shining the public spotlight on the Board’s actions, the weight of public pressure will serve to ratchet up the qualifications for teachers in our neediest schools,” said plaintiffs’ attorney, John Affeldt, a Managing Attorney at Public Advocates. Because, the State Board has failed to follow the APA, plaintiffs are asking a state court in San Francisco to strike down the definition that was adopted by the State Board last year and to direct the Board to immediately adopt a new definition, this time with the full public participation required by state law. The Suit also seeks to increase public input by requiring that the State Board utilize the “Committee of Practitioners” mandated by the federal Act. The Committee of Practitioners is a body made up primarily of parents and local district employees which must be consulted on all state rules and regulations affecting programs for low-income children before they are implemented. “Teachers are one of the most important parts of a quality education,” said Abdi Soltani, Executive Director of plaintiff Californians for Justice. “To water down the definition of a highly qualified teacher is unacceptable. To do so without any participation by youth, parents, and the public we believe is also illegal.” CFJ is a non-profit, grassroots organization with 500 members statewide, primarily youth from low-income communities and communities of color. CFJ has been leading a fight to demand that all students receive full opportunities to learn before the High School Exit Exam is allowed to be enacted. As part of CFJ’s campaign, their demand for equal access to qualified teachers has been a major focus. "Parents are expected to be involved in our children's education, but when it comes to decisions around policy we're told that we have to leave it to the experts. We believe that parents and teachers--the people on the frontlines--are the real experts and we have a right to have our voices be heard," said Rosalie Leon, California ACORN Executive Board Member who has a ten-year old son in a program receiving federal education funds under the Act in San Diego Unified. California ACORN, the state affiliate of the nation’s largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, has more than 15,000 member households in California, with eight offices across the state. Building on national ACORN’s ongoing education work, California ACORN is currently engaged in local education campaigns in the Oakland Unified, Alum Rock Unified (in San Jose), and San Diego Unified School Districts, focusing on teacher quality and equity issues. In 2000, there were more than 42,000 teachers working in California’s schools without full preparation or credentials,[1] more than in 25 other states combined. Over the last several years, the number of under-qualified teachers in California has continued to increase as has their unequal allocation. The share of schools in which more than 20% of teachers are under-qualified has grown from 20% in 1997-98 to 24% in 2000-01. At the same time, the schools with the largest proportions of under prepared teachers – about 1,900 schools enrolling more than 1.7 million children – serve increasingly children of color and low-income children.[2] A recent study of student achievement across more than 7,000 California schools by the Public Policy Institute of California found that among school resources, teacher qualifications were the strongest predictors of student achievement.[3] The findings of this study are similar to others that conclude that, teacher qualifications are among the greatest points of influence on how well students learn. The State’s own Commission on Teacher Credentialing has concluded that “the most powerful factor in student achievement is the quality of the teacher.”[4] “Ironically, the State Board is insisting on high standards for California students while at the same time defining the lowest possible standards for the teachers students are depending upon to succeed,” said another of plaintiffs’ attorneys, Jenny Huang of Public Advocates. The case, Californians for Justice v. State Board of Education, is filed in San Francisco Superior Court. A hearing is scheduled on plaintiffs’ request for a court order on February 14, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. PRESS RELEASE: April 11, 2000 San Francisco, CA— A California State Superior Court today handed a substantial victory to the coalition of civil rights groups that are fighting to reform California's failed and inequitable school system in the landmark, statewide education lawsuit, Williams v. State of California, filed last May. The State earlier filed a smokescreen cross-complaint, in which the State attempted to blame individual school districts rather than acknowledge any responsibility for its own system, and today the Court severed that suit from Williams v State of California and put off any proceedings on it until Williams is decided. "This is a tremendous victory for plaintiffs," said John Affeldt of Public Advocates, Inc., who argued the motion. "Today the Judge removed the State's case against the districts from our case and prevented that case from proceeding. Now we will be focusing exclusively on the State's failure to manage the schools any more effectively than it manages energy." "The Judge's order," said Michael Jacobs, a partner at Morrison & Foerster, pro bono co-counsel in the case, "will allow school children to get the real relief they need as quickly as possible without a needless finger-pointing exercise against school districts that cannot themselves do what the state should have done in the first instance." "The State tried to pass the buck to school districts," said Catherine Lhamon, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, "but the Judge put the buck right back where it belongs – in the lap of the state." The Court also denied the State's motion for summary judgment on a group of plaintiffs from Cloverdale, whose classrooms routinely reach unbearably high temperatures. PRESS RELEASE: February 1, 1996 In a case that could change the face of California's public school teaching force, the country's largest employment discrimination lawsuit goes to trial on Monday, February 5th in a San Francisco federal courtroom. Filed in September 1992, the class action suit charges that a test for California's public shool teachers, counselors, and administrators arbitrarily closes the school house door to thousands of qualified Latino, African American, and Asian educators. Over 50,000 minority educators have failed the test, the CBEST, since its inception in 1982. They are represented in the case by three organizations, the Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE), the California Association for Asian Pacific Bilingual Education (CAFABE), and the Oakland Alliance of Black Educators (OABE) along with eight individual educators. Whites: 80% Theresa Montaño, a past-President of AMAE, said:
Although the CBEST is supposed to test college-level reading, writing, and math skills, no study has shown that the test accurately measures these skills or that the test bears any relationship to teaching. In fact, after the lawsuit was filed, the State was forced to revise the CBEST when its own expert found that the math portion was not job-relevant. Despite better performance on the new math test, the State raised the minimum passing score so the impact on minorities was unchanged. No study has ever shown that the CBEST has improved the public schools or that it is even needed. In fact, a study by Plaintiffs' expert demonstrated that there is no relationship between CBEST scores and job ratings. "There's a stronger relationship between your social security number and your CBEST score than between your job performance and the CBEST," said John Affeldt of the San Francisco non-profit law firm Public Advocates which is representing the educators. The CBEST is not the only test would-be educators must pass. All public school teachers must pass a rigorous subject matter examination or complete extensive coursework requirements in order to obtain a credential. Thus, the Plaintiffs claim that the test is unnecessary to ensure competence. "No matter how effective minority educators might be, no matter if they have maintained a 4.0 in post-graduate studies, the CBEST has arbitrarily slammed the door on thousands of teaching careers," explained attorney Brad Seligman of The Impact Fund, a Berkeley-based non-profit foundation also representing the Plaintiffs. AMAE filed an EEOC complaint challenging the CBEST in 1983. Seven years later, in May 1990, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a finding that the CBEST was discriminatory and not-job-related. In August 1993, federal Judge William H. Orrick gave Plaintiffs a key legal victory, ruling that the CBEST is an employment examination subject to federal requirements that the test be related to job performance. A year later, in July 1994, Judge Orrick agreed that the case should proceed as a class action, making it the largest such case in the country. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to require alternatives to the CBEST such as coursework or minimum grade point average requirements. If the CBEST is used at all, they request it be modified to be job-related and that passing standards be adjusted so that they more accurately reflect required skills. Plaintiffs also seek damages to be decided in later proceedings. Given the current 59% non-white student population in California and a public school teaching force that is over 80% white, Linda James, President of OABE, said she is looking forward to the upcoming trial:
Trial starts at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable William H. Orrick; Courtroom 7, 19th Floor; Federal Courthouse; 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA. PRESS RELEASE: July 21, 1994 In a case with national implications, a federal judge ruled Tuesday that the civil rights challenge to California's teacher certification exam should proceed as a class action. As a result, an estimated 20,000 African American, Latino, and Asian educators locked out of the State's public schools since the test's implementation in 1982 will now be pinning their career hopes on a successful outcome by the plaintiffs. Unusual for uniting all minorities into a single class, the Court adopted the broad class sought by Plaintiffs of: "All Latinos, African Americans and Asians seeking California public school credentials and certificated positions who are or will be adversely affected in their ability to obtain credentials and certificated positions by California Basic Educational Skills Test [CBEST] results." Defendant California Commission on Teacher Credentialing's own comparative pass-rate data from 1982 to 1991, evidences the test's arbitrary racial discrimination: Whites: 80% As Judge William H. Orrick noted, "each year an average of 1,517 Latinos, 1,312 African Americans, and 504 Asians fail the CBEST for the first time and are blocked in their access to certificated employment." Quoting testimony from AMAE representative Theresa Montaño, the Judge described the harm inflicted by the CBEST on the educational opportunities and achievement of Latino, Asian, and African American students:
The Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE), the Oakland Alliance of Black Educators (OABE), and the California Association for Asian Pacific Bilingual Education (CAFABE), together with eight individual plaintiffs filed their suit on September 23, 1992, challenging the CBEST, passage of which is mandatory for every California public school teacher, counselor, and administrator. The suit alleges that defendants -- the State of California and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) -- violate the civil rights of thousands of California minority educators by requiring a test that is not only racially and culturally biased, but which artificially masquerades as a measure of competencies already demonstrated by minority test-takers. John Affeldt of Public Advocates, counsel for plaintiffs, said, "California already utilizes several other means to ensure its teachers are literate, including degree requirements, credential requirements, and other teacher competency tests. The CBEST is pure political propaganda, arbitrarily skimming off qualified minorities under the mantle of massaging public confidence." Plaintiffs contend that the State arbitrarily and unlawfully catered to public fears when it rejected ETS's recommendations and decided to fail 25% of all CBEST test-takers -- without regard to the test-takers' true proficiency in reading, writing, and math skills, much less their proficiency as teachers. As a result, the CBEST only measures familiarity with standardized test-taking and particularly discriminates against bilingual test-takers. The timed nature of the test, plaintiffs say, means one may have perfectly adequate English skills but fails because of an inability to read or write as fast as a native speaker. In a precedent-setting ruling last August, Judge Orrick held that the CBEST is subject to federal standards of job-relatedness. As such, the State will have to demonstrate that successful test performance translates into successful teaching. Pointing to hundreds of cases of successful, award-winning teachers who have failed the CBEST as well as to its redundancy, the plaintiffs contend the CBEST cannot meet those standards. Sara Boyd, one of the plaintiffs who has failed the CBEST (and just one of many CBEST victims with a Master's Degree), has won accolades for her work as instructional vice-principal at Menlo-Atherton High School. In 1992, she was nominated Administrator of the Year for the State of California by members of the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) and ultimately received ACSA recognition as the top administrator in her region. Betty Holmes, an African American educator from Fresno who passed the test last week after years of trying, applauded the Judge's ruling:
PRESS RELEASE: June 15, 1994 In a case with national implications, three minority educator organizations and eight African American, Latino, and Asian American individuals challenging California's teacher certification exam (CBEST) as racially discriminatory will ask a federal judge on Thursday to allow their case to proceed as a class action. The Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE), the Oakland Alliance of Black Educators (OABE), and the California Association for Asian Pacific Bilingual Education (CAFABE), and eight other plaintiffs are seeking to include as part of their lawsuit against the State, an estimated 20,000 educators of color who have been unlawfully locked out of the public schools by the CBEST since its implementation in 1982. Based on CTC figures, comparative pass rates of those taking the test since 1982 have been: Whites: 80% Rather than measuring skills necessary for successful teaching, the plaintiffs contend that the CBEST measures one's standardized test-taking ability and particularly discriminates against language minority test-takers. The timed nature of the test, they say, means one may have perfectly adequate English skills but fails because of an inability to read or write as fast as a native speaker. In a precedent-setting ruling last August, the U.S. District Court held that the test is subject to federal standards of job-relatedness. As such, the State will have to demonstrate that successful test performance correlates to successful teaching. Pointing to hundreds of cases of successful and award-winning teachers who have failed the CBEST, the plaintiffs contend the test does not meet those standards and that the State already measures the competencies tested by the exam. Sara Boyd, one of the plaintiffs who has failed the CBEST, has won accolades for her efforts as instructional vice-principal at Menlo-Atherton High School. In 1992 she was nominated Administrator of the Year for the State of California by members of the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) and ultimately received an ACSA Certificate of Recognition as the top administrator in her region. John Affeldt of Public Advocates, Inc., counsel for plaintiffs, said, "California already utilizes several other means to ensure that its teachers are literate, including degree requirements, credential requirements, and other teacher competency tests. The CBEST is pure political propaganda, arbitrarily skimming off qualified minorities under the mantle of massaging public confidence." Theresa Montaño, Past-President of AMAE, has testified during previous court proceedings as to the impact of the CBEST on the State's teaching force:
Betty Holmes, an African American from Fresno agreed: "Schools need more teachers of color. I am an educator of color and I want to teach children of color. I have a degree from a State university and have nearly finished my credential program. Yet, I can only be a teacher's aide because of the CBEST." After the class is certified by the court, plaintiffs expect to proceed to trial by the end of the year to prove that the CBEST arbitrarily excludes qualified minorities. The plaintiffs will seek to stop the defendants from using the CBEST entirely, or, alternatively, will seek to eliminate its discriminatory aspects and to allow for appropriate equivalent measures of competency. The class action hearing is scheduled before Judge William Orrick; Thursday, June 16, 1994, 2:00 p.m.; Courtroom No. 7; 19th Floor, Federal Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. Mona Ponce, an AMAE member harmed by the CBEST, said, "California children have a tremendous need for bilingual teachers. I am a Latina who wants to serve the needs of thousands of limited English proficient students. The CBEST is frustrating my passion and desire to educate children." PRESS RELEASE: September 23, 1992 Organizations of minority and bilingual educators, together with a host of Latino, Black, and Asian plaintiffs filed a statewide civil rights lawsuit today, challenging a state employment exam required of every California public school teacher, counselor, and administrator (the California Basic Educational Skills Test or CBEST). The class action suit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, charges that the test violates federal civil rights laws by closing the school house doors to thousands of qualified minority teachers. Whites: 80% John Affeldt, an attorney with Public Advocates, the San Francisco-based public interest law firm representing the plaintiffs, said:
Oakland Unified's Superintendent, Pete Mesa, a supporter of the lawsuit expressed his district's frustration with the CBEST:
The statistical picture of discrimination looks like this:
[*31% of California students have a home language other than English.] Lois Salisbury, another Public Advocates attorney, observed,
The test, which has been in use since 1982, is supposed to ensure that credential applicants possess college-level reading, writing and math skills. Critics contend that the CBEST, which is a timed test, primarily measures one's standardized test-taking ability and particularly discriminates against language minority test-takers. The timed nature of the test, they say, means one may have perfectly adequate English skills but fails because of an inability to read or write as fast as a native speaker. Moreover, critics maintain, the State already assesses teachers for college-level reading, writing, and math skills by requiring the National Teacher's Exam and by imposing some of the strictest educational requirements for a credential in America.
said Fred Ellis, a teacher in the urban teacher program at Holy Names College and a co-founder of ACT for All Children: the Alliance for Competent Teaching, a state-wide coalition of minority, education, and other interested organizations dedicated to improving the competency of California's public school teaching force. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||
| Home | About Us | Our Work | News | Donate | Jobs | Resources | Contact Us | ||||||||
