Invidious Discrimination

California’s New Education Funding Law is Unconstitutional

The Local Control Funding Formula is unconstitutional because the State designed the law to intentionally underfund every school district that has a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care.

The California Constitution and Compulsory school attendance requires the State to provide EVERY student with sufficient funding to obtain:

High Quality Staff

Beneficial Teacher- Pupil Ratios

Program Expansion and Variety

High Quality Staff

Modern Equipment and Materials.

See: Serrano v. Priest (Cal. 1971) 487 P.2d 1241 the California Supreme Court ruled that education is a fundamental constitutional right. In 1976, in Serrano v. Priest (Serrano II ), 557 P.2d 929, the same court affirmed the lower court’s finding that the wealth-related disparities in per-pupil spending generated by the state’s education finance system violated the equal protection clause of the California constitution stating

Denying ALL students living in Districts with a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care of sufficient funding to obtain a minimum education simply because of where they happen to live and irrespective of their individual wealth race or ethnicity constitutes “INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION” and is a violation of the Equal Protection laws of both US and California Constitution.

Evidence of Intent to use the Education Funding Law to promote a political agenda of wealth redistribution is based on the following:

California's new education funding law: AB- 97 School Finance - Local Control Funding Formula distributes K- 12 per pupil funding using the following formula:

Base Grant + Supplemental Grant + Concentration Grant = Per Pupil Funding

The "Base Grant" is universal for all students.

The "Supplemental Grant" provides additional funding to districts based on the percentage of students in the district that are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care.

The "Concentration Grant" provides even more funding for districts that have large concentrations of students that are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care.

Those districts with a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care are funded solely by the Base Grant.

To be Constitutional, the States LCFF would need to set the Base Funding Grant at a level that would be sufficient to provide EVERY student in the State with funding to obtain … High Quality Staff - Beneficial Teacher- Pupil Ratios - Program Expansion and Variety - High Quality Staff and Modern Equipment and Materials.

The State Intentionally set the Base Funding Grant Below what it costs to provide instruction in core educational programs mandated by the State that align with minimum State Content Standards and Curriculum Frameworks.

The LCFF limits per pupil tuning to 2007-08 levels + inflation NOT TO BE REACHED UNTIL 2021!

The State of California Commissioned a study in December 2006 to determine the cost to educate a child in California. The study determined the following:

Source: Efficiency and Adequacy in California School Finance: A Professional Judgment Approach https://cepa.stanford.edu/site... at page Xiii

The study determined that in 2007-08 no child in the State of California could be educated for less then $8,932.

The Base Funding Grant should have been set at $8,932 per pupil for the formula to be Constitutional.

The State set the Base Funding Grant at $6,500 per pupil - $2,432 less then required to provide EVERY student with a minimum education.

The State is intentionally underfunding “wealthy” suburban school districts (Capistrano Unified School District) by:

Enrollment CUSD 53,613 see: http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataqu...

$10,726.00 - $6,500 = $4,226 X 53,613 = $226,568,538 per year since 2007-08

$12,077.00 - $6,500 = $5,577 X 53,613 = $298,999,701 per year since 2007-08

The State has withheld $226 million per year X 10 years = $2.26 Billion from the Capistrano Unified School District since 2007-08

The State has collected over $77 billion in taxes earmarked for Education but instead of using that money to provide students with a minimum education, the State has stolen that money and has used that money to fund new programs and entitlements that are not constitutionally mandated.

The continued lack of adequate funding has resulted in a notable decline in the academic performance of students across all demographics.

See: LCAP Annual Review 2016-17 How did CUSD Do

https://cusdwatch.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/265-lcap-annual-review-2016-17-how-did-cusd-do

As a Result of the intentional lack of adequate funding, the academic performance of all students across all demographics has been declining.

The manner in which the State of California raises tax revenue and spends its money invidiously discriminates against all taxpayers living in school districts with a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, and/or are in Foster Care. Such discrimination violates the Equal Protection laws of the California sand US Constitution.

The US Supreme Court San Antonio vs Rodriguez

The Federal Government has a substantial interest in student outcomes in California.

California education is critical to the entire Nation’s future because one in eight public school students in the U.S. attends school in California.

According to the latest data available from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES):

California had 6.3 million preK-12 students in 2011, and that is projected to increase to almost 7 million by 2023.Source: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/di...

54.1% percent were eligible for free/reduced lunch and Source: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/di...

23.2 percent were in English Language Learner programs Source: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/di...

California’s failure to educate its students will greatly impact how educated the Nation is as a whole; and how well prepared the Nation will be to compete with it's peers around the world in the future.

In the US Supreme Court Case San Antonio v Rodriguez [40] the court stated:

"The case represents far more than a challenge to the manner in which Texas provides for the education of its children. We have here nothing less than a direct attack on the way in which Texas has chosen to raise and disburse state and local tax revenues." (Emphasis Added) "The broad discretion as to classification possessed by a legislature in the field of taxation has long been recognized. . . . [T]he passage of time has only served to underscore the wisdom of that recognition of the large area of discretion which is needed by a legislature in formulating sound tax policies. . . "

Ibid. [41] "It has . . . been pointed out that in taxation, even more than in other fields, legislatures possess the greatest freedom in classification. Since the members of a legislature necessarily enjoy a familiarity with local conditions which this Court cannot have, the presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the most explicit demonstration that a classification is a hostile and oppressive discrimination against particular persons and classes. . . ." (emphasis added) Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U. S. 83, 87-88 (1940). See also Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U. S. 356 (1973); Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 445 (1940).

The California Legislature has a constitutionally mandated duty to enact legislation that upholds the California Constitution as defined by Article 4 of the California Constitution.

The State Legislature has a constitutional mandate supported by case law, to provide every child in the state with substantially equal opportunity to achieve a quality education. "... equality of educational opportunity requires that all school districts possess an equal ability in terms of revenue to provide students with substantially equal opportunities for learning." The Court defined that to be the same opportunity to obtain high quality staff, program expansion and variety, beneficial teacher-pupil ratios and class sizes, modern equipment and materials, and high-quality buildings. [Serrano v. Priest 18 Cal. 3d 748]

By setting the Base Grant artificially low, the State Legislature is intentionally underfunding those districts that have a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, or are in Foster Care. The Legislature is, as a matter of law, depriving all students in these districts of their fundamental right to achieve equality of educational opportunity simply because of where they happen to live, and irrespective of their individual wealth, race and ethnicity. Under Rodriquez, such a system is a violation of the Equal Protection clause to the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The State Government is in fact, using AB - 97 to promote a political agenda to redistribute wealth, rather than educate students. Such use of the State's education funding system constitutes invidious discrimination, and is a violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

COMPLAINT:

COUNT 1: CALIFORNIA'S LOCAL CONTROL FUNDING FORMULA VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION LAWS https://www.peopleforstudentri...

COUNT 2: THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 16 SECTION 8 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION https://www.peopleforstudentri...

COUNT 3: The manner in which California has chosen to raise and disburse state and local tax revenues creates disparities in spendable funds between school districts that are irrational and constitute hostile and oppressive discrimination against all students who happen to live in school districts with a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, or are in Foster Care. Hostile and oppressive discrimination is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and is also a violation of Article I § 7 of the California Constitution and Article 4 § 16 commonly known as the equal protection of the laws of California's Constitution. https://www.peopleforstudentri...

COUNT 4: California's Education Funding Law AB - 97 - School Finance Local Control Funding Formula makes the quality of educational opportunity available to a student dependent on the wealth of the district in which they live and is therefore a violation of Article I § 7 of the California Constitution and Article 4 § 16 commonly known as the equal protection of the laws of California's Constitution. Such a violation can not be remedied by giving local districts the ability to tax themselves a second time to equalize funding that the State is constitutionally mandated to provide. https://www.peopleforstudentrights.com/index.php/complaint/count-4

COUNT 5: As a result of the State's actions as alleged in Counts 1 - 4, the civil rights of students and taxpayers continue to be violated without any viable recourse or remedy within the State of California. https://www.peopleforstudentri...

COUNT 6: Defendant, State Attorney General Kamala Harris is the state's primary legal counsel. She has taken an oath to uphold and enforce the laws of the State fairly and impartially, so that every California can enjoy economic prosperity and equal opportunity. Her failure to enforce provisions in the California Constitution (the highest law in the State) as well as relevant Education Codes and case laws, deprives certain students of their ability to achieve equality of educational opportunity in violation of Article I § 7 of the California Constitution and Article 4 § 16 commonly known as the equal protection of the laws of California's Constitution. https://www.peopleforstudentri...

COUNT 7: The State of California is depriving every student in the Capistrano Unified School District of their constitutional right to equal opportunity to achieve a quality education simply because they happen to live in what is perceived to be a "wealthy" area, with a low percentage of students who are English Language Learners, Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch, or are in Foster Care; irrespective of an individual students wealth, race or ethnicity. Such invidious discrimination is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution as well as a violation of Article I § 7 and Article 4 § 16 of the California Constitution commonly known as the equal protection laws of California's Constitution. https://www.peopleforstudentrights.com/index.php/complaint/count-7

COUNT 8: The Governor and State Legislators are knowingly and intentionally denying students in the Capistrano Unified School District of adequate funding to retain highly qualified staff, to restore programs and services, to have reasonable class sizes, to fix and maintain facilities, to purchase Common Core mandated computers and technology, to build new schools, and add additional classrooms to many impacted school sites. The Governor and State Legislators have failed and refused to act in accordance with Article XVI, §8 of the California Constitution, and as a result have denied every student in the Capistrano Unified School District their Constitutional right to an equal opportunity to achieve a quality education. The continued lack of adequate funding has resulted in a continued decline in academic performance across all demographics. https://www.peopleforstudentri...

COUNT 9: 2012-13 EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS AND 2012-13 ADOPTED BUDGET WERE ENTERED INTO ILLEGALLY. CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO ILLEGALLY ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE. https://www.peopleforstudentri...

COUNT 10: 2013-14 EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS AND 2013-14 ADOPTED BUDGET WERE ENTERED INTO ILLEGALLY. CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO ILLEGALLY ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE. https://www.peopleforstudentri...

COUNT 11: 2014-15 EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS AND 204-15 ADOPTED BUDGET WERE ENTERED INTO ILLEGALLY. CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO ILLEGALLY ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE. https://www.peopleforstudentri...

COUNT 12: Collaboration - Collusion - Conspiracy https://www.peopleforstudentri...

COUNT 13: FRAUD: The State of California has not been transparent with the Public re: State Academic Standards. https://www.peopleforstudentri...

COUNT 14: Count 14- Lottery Funds represent a small and declining share of public school funding. Created to "benefit students", Lottery Funds were earmarked for textbooks and instructional supplies. However, like all revenues streams created to "benefit students", Legislative action allowed these revenue streams to be converted to the Districts general fund. By 2003 a State study concluded that 80% of Lottery Funds for public education were in fact going to employee salaries, pensions and benefits and not to textbooks, materials and supplies. In 2015-16 Lottery funds are projected to hit a record $6 billion in revenues and provide $1.4 billion for schools. In 2003; at the time of the study, Lottery Revenues were $2.8 billion with $1 billion in funding going to education. So while lottery revenues have trippeled since 2003, contributions towards education have remained relatively flat.

COUNT 15: The "Free School Guarantee" of the California Constitution

COUNT 16: Fundraising for Visual And Performing Arts

COUNT 17: A Continued Lack of Adequate Funding from the State Is Limiting Student Achievement

COUNT 18: Holding students Hostage- Student Data Mining without Parental Consent - The National Plan to build a dossier on every child including personally identifiable information that included health records and social emotional student data.

The State of California is engaged in Racketeering and Pay to Play- instead of increasing the Base Funding Grant, the State uses one-time grant money to:

• Reward the Unions with mandated Professional Development Grants known as the “Teacher Effectiveness Grants"
• Promote a Political Agenda of Green Energy with one time Prop 39 Energy Grants
• Reward political donors of the Democratic party with PAY to PLAY