Four years have passed, and nearly $19 million in public money has gone to pay lawyers, since children sued the state in 2000 to demand clean, well-stocked schools and qualified teachers.
On Wednesday, lawyers in the class-action case of Williams vs. California appeared in San Francisco Superior Court to say they were optimistic that the settlement talks will wind up by the end of the year with a package of new laws intended to upgrade classrooms, books and instructors at schools with the neediest students.
Conspicuous by their absence were the $325-an-hour lawyers from the firm O'Melveny & Myers, which was hired by former Gov. Gray Davis to defend the state. Its contract expired Wednesday, and Ashley Snee, a spokeswoman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said the firm had done no work on the case all year.
David Verhey, the governor's deputy legal affairs secretary, told Judge Peter Busch that he was representing the state in the firm's place.
Meanwhile, the settlement talks remain secret, and any legislative changes to be proposed have not been nailed down. But Tuesday, lawmakers said they would set aside $188 million of the new state budget for books and maintenance at schools with the lowest-scoring students.
At issue in the case is what long-term changes can be made to ensure better schooling for more than 1 million low-income students, how to monitor progress without establishing a new bureaucracy and how to pay for it all.
Schwarzenegger has taken a more sympathetic tone toward the students' case than did Davis, who was governor when the American Civil Liberties Union and other law firms sued on the students' behalf. Davis responded by hiring O'Melveny and Myers and suing the 18 school districts named in the ACLU suit. That suit was set aside, and the law firm drew strong public criticism two years ago for occasionally using harsh tactics when it deposed children as young as 8.
O'Melveny's attorneys have now been paid $14,425,373. An additional $4, 024,111 has been spent through the attorney general's office, bringing the total to $18,449,484, enough to pay 460 teachers for a year.
On Tuesday, Schwarzenegger emphasized his desire to settle the suit and said it was "crazy" for the state to have hired an outside firm.
"(To) fight what?" he asked. "To say this is not true what the ACLU is saying? ... I've seen how inner city schools are falling behind."
Williams settlement announced
Work remains toward true equity for all students
August, 2004
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the parties to the Williams v. State of California lawsuit announced that a settlement agreement has been reached that will put an end to the contentious case and allow the state to move forward in reconciling troubling inequities in the education of disadvantaged students.
As intervenors in the case, CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance sought to lend a real-world perspective in shaping the agreement which will provide $138.7 million for instructional materials to schools in deciles 1 and 2 of the state Academic Performance Index, $50 million to assess facilities needs, and as much as $800 million to reimburse schools for emergency repairs to their facilities.
The agreement also requires county superintendents to visit and report on specified conditions of schools in deciles 1 to 3. The superintendents will have no new authority over local governing boards. In addition, the settlement would phase out a year-round program in crowded Los Angeles schools with fewer instructional days and require districts to release data about the condition of their schools, allow parents to appeal unresolved complaints about inadequate conditions, among other details.
“This settlement represents sensible, reasonable standards and benchmarks that will help California provide its students with the highest quality instructional materials, facilities and teachers,” said CSBA President David Pollock. “It also provides a focus on the kids in schools who need it most. We are particularly pleased with the governor’s commitment to sustaining the High Priority Schools Grant Program.”
The agreement, which requires legislative action and final court approval, was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court just before the governor’s press conference at a Los Angeles school on Aug. 13.
Williams v. State of California was filed in May 2000 by the American Civil Liberties Union and other public interest groups on behalf of 24,000 students in 18 school districts. The suit alleges that California’s system of education is unconstitutional because it does not ensure a quality education to low-income children and students of color. The suit asked the court to create a statewide system of standards, oversight and enforcement.
CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance filed to become a party in the suit in order to give all school districts a voice in the class action lawsuit. As the case progressed, many of the parties acknowledged that, because of the way the case was framed, fundamental issues of educational equity and adequacy remain unresolved.
“Unfortunately,” said CSBA Executive Director Scott P. Plotkin, “the ACLU didn’t file a lawsuit that results in improving the resource base for schools. They filed a suit that results in more compliance and monitoring measures. Our role as day-to-day practitioners was to ensure that those measures don’t get in the way of real progress.
“As we move forward, we need to focus on the right issues. It will take more than counting textbooks and inspecting bathrooms to provide a better education for the students who need and deserve extra help.”
For additional information about the settlement, try Decent Schools for California.
Here what California School Board Association posted on their website regarding the settlement:
Key features of Williams settlement made public
Last week, the parties to the Williams v. State of California lawsuit announced that a settlement agreement had been reached. As an intervenor in the case, CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance played a key role in helping to shape the final agreement and ensure that school district voices were represented in the negotiations. While CSBA supports the settlement and the resolution of this expensive and lengthy litigation, unfortunately, the case did not resolve the fundamental issues of educational equity and adequacy.
“While this settlement does impose new standards and complaint procedures, we believe that participation of CSBA and the Education Legal Alliance helped to minimize the impact of these new requirements on school districts,” said Dick Hamilton, Director of CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance.
This week, language from the settlement agreement will be placed into already-existing legislation. Once bill language is introduced, the package of “Williams bills” will be sent to a conference committee for legislative consideration. As part of the agreement, the language in these bills must “substantially conform” to the agreement in order to receive the governor’s signature. The bills will be urgency legislation which, if enacted, will go into effect immediately from the date of the Governor’s approval.
Key components of the settlement include:
Budget Items
- One-time $138.7 million for instructional materials for schools in decile 1 and 2 on the Academic Performance Index — amounting to $100 per ADA for these schools.
- $50 million for the facilities needs assessment program for schools in decile 1-3 and for increased costs to county superintendents for a revolving fund to purchase textbooks as necessary.
- Starting in 2005-06 and continuing annually, 50 percent of the Proposition 98 reversion account, but not less than $100 million, for the facilities emergency repair account for low performing schools.
Instructional Materials
- Generally the statute requiring public hearings is amended to include a new definition of “sufficient” instructional materials and to include new timelines for the board hearing and for board action to remedy an instance of instructional material insufficiency.
- Districts must adopt a complaint system (or modify an existing complaint system) to receive complaints regarding instructional materials.
- Modification to School Accountability Report Card to include a field regarding sufficiency of instructional materials.
- County superintendent monitoring of decile 1-3 schools to determine sufficiency of instructional materials.
Teachers
- Modification to the School Accountability Report Card to add the number of teacher misassignments and vacancies.
- Review by the county superintendent of decile 1-3 schools, particularly as to Crosscultural Language and Academic Development (CLAD), Bilingual Crosscultural Language and Academic Development (BCLAD) or English Learner qualification positions.
- Inclusion of complaints of teacher misassignments and teacher vacancies in the district’s complaint procedures.
- Elimination of CBEST and other credentialing requirements for out-of-state teachers.
Facilities
- Development of guidelines by the Office of the State Architect for school facilities to ensure that schools are in good repair. Until these guidelines are developed, “good repair” would be determined by local health guidelines.
- Amendment to the School Accountability Report Card to include a field re: safety cleanliness and adequacy of school facilities.
- A complaint process regarding emergency or urgent school facilities conditions that pose a threat to the health or safety of students.
- Review by county superintendent of decile 1-3 schools to determine if there are emergency or urgent facilities conditions.
- Development of a School Facilities Needs Assessment Grant Program.
- Development of a School Facilities Emergency Repairs Account (FERA).
Back to Finances Background
TOP
Send mail to mikemcmahonausd@yahoo.com with
questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: August 25, 2004
Disclaimer: This website is the sole responsibility of Mike
McMahon. It does not represent any official opinions, statement of facts or
positions of the Alameda Unified School District. Its sole purpose is to
disseminate information to interested individuals in the Alameda community.
