107 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 62
Cal. Att'y Gen.2024Background
- In 2013, California enacted the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) to streamline and target K-12 education funding, with additional resources provided to "unduplicated pupils"—students classified as English learners, eligible for free/reduced-price meals, or foster youth.
- State law requires tracking student performance by subgroups, which include both ethnic groups and non-ethnic groups such as foster youth and students with disabilities.
- The Senate requested an Attorney General opinion on whether the Legislature could amend the LCFF to extend supplemental funding to the entire ethnic subgroup with the lowest recent standardized test performance (e.g., all Black students if they are the lowest performing group statewide).
- The Attorney General acknowledged persistent racial achievement gaps in California schools and that the intent of the proposed amendment was to address these disparities.
- The proposal would award funding based solely on membership in the lowest-performing ethnic subgroup, regardless of individual student performance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the Legislature expand LCFF to fund all members of the lowest-performing ethnic subgroup? | Needed to address persistent racial achievement gaps in education. | Would violate Equal Protection by using racial/ethnic classifications. | No; violates federal Equal Protection due to lack of narrow tailoring. |
| Is the proposal permissible under federal Equal Protection standards? | State’s compelling interest justifies race-based action. | Strict scrutiny applies; proposal is not narrowly tailored. | No; fails strict scrutiny, not necessary or narrowly tailored. |
| Are there sufficiently workable race-neutral alternatives? | Race-based funding is required to address unique subgroup deficits. | Directly fund low-performing students regardless of ethnicity. | Yes; race-neutral means available and preferable. |
| Does the proposal address past unconstitutional discrimination? | Gap reflects societal and government discrimination. | Remedying societal discrimination is not a compelling interest. | No; not supported by finding of prior constitutional violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (education is a fundamental function of state and local government)
- Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (strict scrutiny for race-based classifications in education)
- Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (all racial classifications by the state subject to strict scrutiny)
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (strict scrutiny is the most exacting standard in constitutional law)
- City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (use of race-conscious remedies by government is highly circumscribed)
- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (importance of education to societal equality)