State initiative would give parents more power to challenge school district policies

Californians next year could vote on a proposed initiative that promises something almost everyone wants: a “high-quality” public education for every student.

But the initiative, backed by longtime education reform advocates, could set up legal battles with the state's teachers unions and school districts. It would give parents more power to challenge policies they regard as problematic for the kids' schooling.

Currently, the state's constitution requires California to fund public education, but says nothing about the quality of that education.

The proposed initiative, called the Constitutional Right to a HighQuality Public Education Act, would amend the constitution to assert that all students have the right to a high-quality public education that “provides them with the skills necessary to fully participate in the economy, our democracy, and our society.”

The proposed change to the constitution needs to gather enough signatures to appear on the ballot in November 2022, after which it will be put to a statewide vote.

The proposed amendment doesn't define a highquality education. That would be left to plaintiffs to argue and courts to determine.

But proponents point to certain state education laws they say “do not put the interests of students first,” such as forcing children to attend low-quality public schools, retaining poor-performing employees and adopting policies that “protect abusive school employees or otherwise undermine school safety.”

The proposed amendment wouldn't guarantee victory for anyone wanting to challenge a school law or policy, said Michael Trujillo, a spokesman for the initiative, but it would give them some legal standing.

“We're not selling a silver bullet here,” he said. “We're selling a tool for parents, and policymakers to be armed with.”

Among the backers is David Welch, a Silicon Valley executive who founded the nonprofit organization Students Matter.

Welch in 2012 led a legal battle against California schools' employment rules, including teachertenure laws. Plaintiffs in the case of Vergara v. California argued that teacher employment laws made it difficult to retain effective teachers, which disproportionately impacted marginalized students in violation of the constitution.

The California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers intervened on the side of the state, defending the employment statutes that they argued did not prevent schools from removing bad teachers.

After a lengthy trial, the Los Angeles Superior Court in 2014 sided with Students First. The state and unions appealed, and in 2016, the California Court of Appeal reversed the superior court decision.

In an interview with The Sacramento Bee, Welch said the Vergara case is relevant to the recent proposal, but said the initiative is about a broader goal of improving education in California.

Half of all California students do not read at grade level, according to the California Reading Coalition. Among low-income students of color, more than 65% read below grade level.

“The Legislature has been in charge, and the quality of the educational system has degraded over a multi-decade time frame,” Welch said. “What's missing is the check on that system, which says ‘I need an education to function in this society.'”

“It needs to be a right,” he added.

Other advocates of the proposal include Antonio Villaraigosa, a former Los Angeles mayor who fought with teachers unions during his time in office.

Ben Austin, who previously served on the State Board of Education, is also in support of the amendment. Austin in 2008 helped lobby for the passage of the state's Parent Empowerment Act, which allows parents whose children are enrolled in failing schools to petition the district to make sweeping changes.

The California Federation of Teachers did not respond to a request for comment on the proposed amendment. Claudia Briggs, a spokesperson for the California Teachers Association, said educators “don't consider, let alone take a position on measures that have not yet been qualified.”

“We certainly believe all students deserve high quality public education — that's why educators put their hearts and souls into the vital work they do every day,” she said in an email.

William Koski a professor at Stanford Law School who also serves in the School of Education, said the fact that the amendment would allow individual students and community groups to sue is “striking.”

“It seems that if anybody believes they've been denied a high-quality education, they can go to court on it,” he said.

The remedies for such a claim are limited under the amendment. The proposal only allows a court to invalidate or enjoin a law, regulation, policy or official action. It would prohibit courts from mandating new taxes or spending to remedy complaints.

“It's essentially the right to say no, but it doesn't give the right to demand new mandates, taxes or spending to have the high quality education be realized,” Koski said.

Welch declined to say how much money he is contributing to the cause, but said, “We are prepared to spend whatever money is required, because the lives are being lost.”