California School Boards Ass'n v. State Board of Education
191 Cal. App. 4th 530
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Prop. 39 amended Education Code 47614 to require fair sharing of public school facilities among all pupils, including those in charter schools.
- Charter Schools Act (1992) established various pathways to form or convert charter schools within districts.
- Regulations implementing 47614 were adopted in 2002 and amended in 2008 to update definitions and procedures.
- Multiple education and district associations challenged 15 regulations; the trial court upheld 10 and invalidated 5.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed most regulations as valid, reversed on conversion-charter-site veto issues, and remanded for vacatur of certain provisions.
- Key dispute centered on contiguity, reasonably equivalent facilities, furnishing/equipment, and attendance-area rules for conversion versus start-up charters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contiguity vs. reasonable equivalence | Districts argue contiguity dominates; Ridgecrest conflicts with reasonably equivalent. | Board reasonably interprets contiguity alongside reasonable equivalence. | Regulation 11969.2(d) reasonably interprets contiguity consistent with statute. |
| Definition of reasonable equivalence | Amendment 11969.3(a)(1) misreads grade-level need and forces single-site limits. | Regulation accommodates grade levels and allows multi-site when necessary without defeating equivalence. | Regulation 11969.3(a)(1) valid; allows comparison when direct grade-level match absent. |
| Furnished and equipped | Definition in 11969.2(e) improperly expands District unfunded obligations and conflicts Prop. 39. | Definition aligns with Prop. 39’s fair-sharing goal and does not mandate unrestricted fund use. | Regulation 11969.2(e) valid and consistent with statute and Prop. 39. |
| Conversion charter-site protections | Regulations 11969.3(d)(1)-(2)(A) improperly give conversion charters veto power over moves. | Conversion charters have a presumptive right to remain, but waivers allow moves when necessary. | Regulations 11969.3(d)(1)-(2)(A) invalid as to perpetual veto; remainder upheld; waiver mechanism affirmed. |
| Attendance-area waivers and reimbursement for over-allocated space | Restrictions on changing attendance areas without waivers are invalid and hinder district flexibility. | Waivers ensure oversight and prevent misuse while protecting former attendance-area interests. | Regulations 11969.3(d)(2)(B)-(D) upheld with interpretation that waivers govern changes and offset reimbursement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 20 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1999) (distinguishes quasi-legislative vs interpretive rules; narrow review for legislative-regulatory validity)
- State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Garamendi, 32 Cal.4th 1029 (Cal. 2004) (regulatory interpretation must be reasonably related to statutory purpose)
- Ridgecrest Charter School v. Sierra Sands Unified School Dist., 130 Cal.App.4th 986 (Cal. App. 2005) (contiguity and reasonably equivalent facilities interplay under 47614)
- Sequoia Union High School Dist. v. Aurora Charter High School, 112 Cal.App.4th 185 (Cal. App. 2003) (requires some showing/documentation for ADA projections; Sequoia’s framework cited)
- Environmental Charter High School v. Centinela Valley Union High School Dist., 122 Cal.App.4th 139 (Cal. App. 2004) (documentation and showing standards for facilities requests; supports Environmental Charter approach)