California Charter Schools Ass'n v. Los Angeles Unified School District
60 Cal. 4th 1221
Cal.2015Background
- Proposition 39 (2000) amended Ed. Code §47614 to require school districts to make facilities available to charter schools in conditions "reasonably equivalent" to those for district public school students and authorized the State Board of Education to adopt implementing regulations.
- Board regulation Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, §11969.3 prescribes using a localized "comparison group" of district-operated schools to derive an ADA/classroom ratio for allocating classrooms to charter schools; classrooms are to be counted using the §1859.31 inventory (adjusted to exclude interim housing).
- LAUSD used districtwide "norming ratios" (student/teacher ratios by grade) to allocate classrooms to charter schools and excluded classrooms dedicated to preschool/adult education or otherwise not staffed.
- California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) sued, arguing LAUSD violated §11969.3 by using norming ratios instead of counting classrooms in comparison group schools and improperly excluding some classrooms from the count.
- Trial court prohibited use of norming ratios; Court of Appeal reversed, adopting LAUSD’s narrower reading of "provided to" and allowing counting only classrooms actually provided to K–12 students (as LAUSD interpreted).
- California Supreme Court granted review and held LAUSD must use the comparison-group method and count classrooms "provided to" K–12 students (but not limit the count to classrooms merely staffed by teachers), reversing the Court of Appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CCSA) | Defendant's Argument (LAUSD) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Must LAUSD use comparison-group methodology of §11969.3(a) to calculate ADA/classroom ratio? | Regulation requires counting classrooms in comparison-group schools to derive ADA/classroom ratio; LAUSD must follow that method. | Norming ratios produce equivalent results districtwide; regulation permits using comparison group only as a retrospective "standard" so districts may use other valid methods. | LAUSD must use the comparison-group method when developing offers; the regulation requires that method, not a unilateral districtwide norming approach. |
| 2. Does §11969.3(b)(1) require counting all classrooms in the §1859.31 inventory (including unbuilt, closed, or charter-used rooms)? | §11969.3(b)(1) references the §1859.31 inventory, so count per that inventory; any necessary adjustments can be made pragmatically. | The count should be limited to classrooms actually "provided to" district K–12 students; that excludes unbuilt, closed, or otherwise unavailable rooms. | Count begins with the §1859.31 inventory but is limited to classrooms "provided to" noncharter K–12 students; unbuilt/otherwise unavailable rooms are not counted. |
| 3. Is counting classrooms equivalent to counting classrooms staffed by teachers (LAUSD norming)? | A classroom can be "provided to" students even if not staffed; counting only staffed rooms undercounts available teaching stations. | Norming equates classrooms with staffed teaching stations (student/teacher ratios) and thus yields the proper denominator. | "Provided to" is broader than "staffed by a teacher." LAUSD’s norming (student/teacher) ratios can undercount classrooms and thus do not comply with §11969.3(b)(1). |
| 4. May LAUSD unilaterally adopt a districtwide, administratively efficient allocation method over the regulation? | N/A (CCSA asserts compliance with the regulation is required). | Districtwide norms are administratively efficient and ensure uniformity; district may show equivalence by other means. | A district may seek mutual agreement with a charter school on alternatives, but it cannot unilaterally substitute norming ratios for the comparison-group regulatory procedure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bullis Charter School v. Los Altos Sch. Dist., 200 Cal.App.4th 1022 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discusses Prop. 39 implementation and comparison-group methodology)
- United Teachers of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 54 Cal.4th 504 (Cal.) (characterizes charter schools’ statutory status)
- California School Bds. Assn. v. State Bd. of Educ., 191 Cal.App.4th 530 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discusses SBE rulemaking authority)
- People v. Harrison, 57 Cal.4th 1211 (Cal.) (addressing recurring but evanescent controversies and reviewability)
- Ridgecrest Charter Sch. v. Sierra Sands Unified Sch. Dist., 130 Cal.App.4th 986 (Cal. Ct. App.) (Prop. 39/implementing regs litigation precedent)