williams v. california: nine years later

7/28/2019 Williams v. California: Nine Years Later

1/64

Williams v. California:

Lessons From Nine Yearsof Implementation.


2/64


3/64

Lessons From Nine Years o Implementation

Spb 29, 2013

Wi By:

Sally Chung

Educational Justice Research Analyst

ACLU Foundation o Southern Caliornia

The ACLU Foundation o Southern Caliornia is deeply grateul to The Weingart Foundation and the Denison amily or

supporting the generation and production o this report.

We also thank our co-counsel or theWilliams plaintis: Morrison & Foerster LLP, ACLU o Northern Caliornia,

Public Advocates, Inc., Mexican American Legal Deense and Educational Fund, ACLU o San Diego and Imperial

Counties, Lawyers Committee or Civil Rights o the San Francisco Bay Area, Asian Pacic American Legal Center,

Center or Law in the Public Interest, Proessor Karl Manheim, Proessor Allen Ides, Proessor Peter Edelman, andNewman. Aaronson. Vanaman.

We are indebted to the many district- and county-level sta that took time out o their busy schedules to respond to our

survey and participate in ollow-up interviews. We would like to acknowledge the Caliornia County Superintendents

Educational Services Association or their support and assistance in distributing the survey.

Williams v. California:


4/64


5/64

contentsCHAPTER 1: Introduction and 7

Summary o Key Findings

CHAPTER 2: Williams v. Caliornia: 11Te Case and te Settlement

CHAPTER 3:Textbooks and Instructional Materials 15

CHAPTER 4: Scool Facilities 25

CHAPTER 5: Qualied Teacers 39

CHAPTER 6: Scool Accountability Report Cards 53

CHAPTER 7: Uniorm Complaint Process 55

CHAPTER 8: Conclusion 58

EndnoTEs 60


6/64

On August 7, 2013, State

Superintendent Tom Torlakson

and State Board o Education

President Mike Kirst sent a letter

to all superintendents and carter

scool administrators regarding

implementation o Caliornias ne

scool unding system, te Local

Control Funding Formula (LCFF).

Tey empasized tat all local

educational agencies are expected

to begin retinking teir approac to

planning, budgeting, and using unds

aligned to te eigt state prioritiesestablised by te LCFF legislation.

Te rst state priority, as identied

in te letter, is Cmpliac

wih Williams rqirms

apprpria achr assigm,

sfci isrcial marials,

ad aciliis i gd rpair.


7/64

IntRoDUctIon anD sUmmaRyoF Key FInDInGs

On September 29, 2004,Williams v. Caliornia

, a lawsuit led on behal o thousands o

Caliornias public school students who were denied equal educational opportunity, reached a

successul conclusion when ve bills implementing the settlement agreement were signed into law.

The settlement requires all of Californias public schools to provide students with at least the

basic necessities o educational opportunity: sucient textbooks and instructional materials, clean

and sae school acilities, and qualied teachers. The settlement establishes clear standards or the

provision o these essentials and holds schools accountable or meeting them.

This report examines the long-term impact oWilliamsnine years ater the settlement. Though

much has changed since the early years o implementation, the standards and accountability

measures established by the WilliamsSettlement Legislation have remained a steadast constant,

maintaining a oundation o opportunity during a time o scal crisis.

Starting in 2009, unprecedented state budget decits created monumental new challenges or

Caliornias public schools. Dramatic reductions to school revenues led to a host o consequences

detrimental to educational opportunity, including teacher layos, increased administrator turnover,

and cuts to maintenance and custodial sta. The Legislature enacted categorical fexibility which

allowed districts to use unds that previously had been dedicated or specic priorities, such as

instructional materials and acilities maintenance, or other purposes. Throughout these challenges,

the standards and accountability systems established by the WilliamsSettlement Legislation have

ensured that schools remain committed to providing the basic necessities o equal educational

opportunity.

In act, according to the results o a statewide survey o county oces o education, Caliornias

lowest perorming schoolswhich receive additional assistance and oversight under the

Settlement Legislationhave made remarkable progress in all o the areas addressed byWilliams.1

Students have received hundreds o thousands o books and instructional materials that would not

have been put in their hands without Williamsreviews o their schools. The number o classes

taught by misassigned teachers has plummeted. County oces o education also report that ewer

school sites than ever beore present emergency threats to the health and saety o students or

sta. Furthermore, the fawed multi-track, year-round Concept 6 school calendar was successully

phased out as required byWilliamsin 2012. The evidence is clear: Williamsis working.

c

Hapte

R1

[T]hese thresholds for teacher quality, instructional materials, and school facilitiesare intended by the Legislature and by the Governor to be a oor, rather than a

ceiling, and a beginning, not an end, to the State of Californias commitment and

effort to ensure all California school pupils have access to the basic elements of a

quality public education.

Williams v. Caliornia Settlement Legislation,

Sec. 25 o C. 900 o te Statutes o 2004 (Senate Bill 550)

Enacted September 29, 2004


8/64

I believe that this legislation

has made some important

inroads for learning conditions.

Being thoughtful about access

and equity is now a part of how

our districts make decisions...

I often say that the Williams

legislation is foundational

for what schools and districts

should provide students.

San Diego County Oce o Education

All students in California

should have access toinstructional materials,

qualied teachers, and safe,

clean, and functional learning

conditions regardless of their

socioeconomic status. Schools

should be a haven where

students and staff can thrive.

Williams continues to promote

this ideal.

Los Angeles County Oce o Education

The State recognized and rearmed the critical importance oWilliamsin

developing Caliornias new education nance system, the Local Control

Funding Formula (LCFF). Enacted on July 1st o this year, the LCFF

replaces the States old education nance system with a more equitable,

rational ormula that increases school unding and directs resources to high

need students. It delineates eight state priorities to guide local planning an

expenditures; the rst priority is the delivery o those basic necessities or

educational opportunity protected by the WilliamsSettlement Legislation.

It is noteworthy that throughout the era o categorical fexibility and thiscomprehensive overhaul o the States education nance system, Williams

has been expressly retained. The Caliornia Department o Education

(CDE) and State Board o Education (SBE) recently issued guidance on th

implementation o the LCFF, making clear that the standards established b

the WilliamsSettlement Legislation are just as vital and authoritative now

they were when they were rst enacted nine years ago.2

Moving orward, it will be essential to maintain and rene these standards

and accountability measures. With burgeoning demand or digital

instructional materials and the implementation o Caliornias Common

Core State Standards, or example, schools are looking towards the Williamstandards regarding equal access to instructional materials to guide these

complicated transitions. The State also needs to ulll its obligation to

und the Emergency Repair Program (ERP) established by the Williams

Settlement Legislation to address acility conditions that pose urgent threa

to students health and saety. Thousands o critical repair projects at low-

perorming schools are waiting in a 5-year long queue or unding. It rema

the one gaping hole in the States commitment to the WilliamsSettlement

and must be addressed immediately.

The Williamspromisethat every Caliornia public school student will

have, at the very least, sucient textbooks and instructional materials; cleansae, and unctional buildings and acilities; and permanent, appropriately

trained and assigned teachersremains a work in progress. The remarkabl

improvements documented in this report oer lessons on how to provide

the necessary support to improve learning conditions in every classroom an

school as we collectively seek to ensure equal educational opportunity or a

o Caliornias students.

8

Teachers and principals often comment that they

are glad we come to review every year for Williams

because things get xed and we get our books on

time.

San Mateo County Oce o Education


9/64

Summary of Key Findings

txtbks stt ts In the rst year oWilliamsimplementation, county oces

o education ound that 19% o decile 1-3 schools had

insucient textbooks and/or instructional materials. In

2012-13, this gure decreased to less than 5%.

Over the rst our years oWilliamsimplementation,

county oces o education ound that students in decile

1-3 schools were missing an average o approximately

50,000 textbooks and/or instructional materials each year.

In 2012-13, ewer than 7,000 textbooks and instructional

materials were required to remedy all identied

insuciencies.

More than 215,000 additional textbooks and instructional

materials have been provided to students at decile 1-3

schools since Williamsimplementation rst began. This is

a conservative estimate that does not capture the number

o insuciencies that were resolved in preparation or or

concurrent with county superintendent visits. This estimate

also does not include the many textbooks and instructional

materials provided to students rom the 2008-09, 2009-10,

and 2010-11 school years, or which survey data were not

collected.

Some causes o insuciencies that had been pervasive in

the early years o implementation have been eliminated.For example, it used to be common or schools to use class

sets o textbooks, in which there were enough books or

each student to use in a single class period but not enough

or all students to have their own to take home. No longer

do county oces o education cite this as a problem.

County oces o education report that schools have

developed or improved systems to more eciently acquire,

distribute, and track instructional materials as a result o

Williams. Many districts operate centralized repositories so

schools can work together to help ensure that all students

receive the materials they need.

s ts In 2007-08, county oces o education ound that 86%o all schools monitored had one or more good repair

deciency (i.e., there was an issue that prevented the school

rom being deemed completely clean, sae, and unctional).

In 2012-13, that gure decreased to 75%.

Reported data suggest that decile 1-3 schools are saer

now than in any o the preceding years oWilliams

implementation. In the rst our years, county oces o

education identied emergency acilities conditions at

11-13% o all schools monitored. In 2012-13, that guredecreased to 4%.

Starting in the 2007-08 school year, county oces o

education began using the Facilities Inspection Tool

(FIT) to evaluate the condition o school acilities. The

FIT resolved concerns that acility inspectors had with its

predecessor, the Interim Evaluation Instrument, and thus

encouraged more accurate reporting.

The State has ailed its obligation under the WilliamsSettlement Legislation to und the Emergency Repair

Program. Fully $800 million should have been transerred

to the ERP Account by now; instead, the States net

transers have totaled only $338 million through the 2013

Budget Act and the States cumulative net contribution to

the ERP in the last ve years has been $0. Schools continue

to wait in a 5-year long queue or unds to repair conditions

that present urgent threats to health and saety.


10/64

When we rst started these

visits, there were many

misassignments noted,

especially for EL students.

We have been seeing a steady

decline in these numbers, so

that this monitoring period saw

no EL misassignments at all!

Madera County Oce o Education

Williams continues to put the

focus where it should be -- on

the kids, and the materials that

the students and teachers need

to have.

San Joaquin County Oce o Education

Despite notable progress, schools are acing an impending crisis.

Insucient budgets have orced many o the lowest-perorming

schools to reduce maintenance and custodial sta, making it

increasingly dicult to maintain acilities in good repair. Districts

have been accumulating a backlog o large-scale deerred maintenance

projects delayed due to lack o unding. Many schools are aging and in

desperate need o emergency repairs.

ts Data reported by the Caliornia Commission on Teacher

Credentialing (CTC) show that the percentage o teachers and

certicated sta identied as misassigned has signicantly decreased

since Williamsimplementation rst began. In 2005-06, 29% o

teachers were identied as misassigned. In 2010-11, that gure

decreased to 13%.

There has been a dramatic reduction in the number o teachers

misassigned due to lack o proper EL authorization. In 2005-06, the

CTC reported that 22% o teachers and certicated sta had an ELmisassignment. In 2010-11, only 2% did.

This trend is corroborated by data on the number o classes with

a high concentration (20% or more) o EL students in decile 1-3

schools taught by teachers lacking the proper EL authorization.

In 2004-05, nearly a third o these classes were taught by

misassigned teachers; by 2010-11, this gure decreased to 1.2%.

Moreover, EL misassignments now account or a smaller

proportion o all identied misassignments. In 2005-06, an

astonishing 76% o all misassignments identied were due to

teachers lacking the correct EL authorization; by 2010-11, that

gure decreased to 13%.

County oces o education report that districts have changed their

employment practices as a result oWilliamsto place special emphasis

on checking i teachers are authorized to teach EL students during the

hiring process.

There has also been signicant improvement in the number o teacher

vacancies. In 2007-08, the CTC reported 547 vacancies. In 2010-11,

235 vacancies were identied.

The numbers consistently show that even amongst the lowest-

perorming schools, there continues to be a negative correlation

between a schools ranking on the Base Academic Perormance Index

and the number o misassignments at that school. This suggests

students in lower-perorming schools remain more likely than

students in higher-perorming schools to be taught by a misassigned

teacher.

10


11/64

WILLIAMS v. CALIFORNIA: tHecase anD tHe settLement

Background of the Case

On May 17, 2000, the American Civil Liberties Union, Public Advocates, the Mexican AmericanLegal Deense and Educational Fund, and other civil rights organizations, along with Morrison &

Foerster LLP, led a class-action lawsuit on behal o public school students against the State o

Caliornia. The case argued that the State and its agencies were denying thousands o Caliornia

students their undamental right to an education under the Caliornia Constitution by ailing to

provide them with the basic resources necessary or that education.

The Williamssuit highlighted the act that the State operated thousands o classrooms without

enough textbooks or students; provided school acilities that were overcrowded, in disrepair,

and unhealthy or students; and employed many under-trained teachers in Caliornia public

schools. The case was premised on two basic principles: 1) The State o Caliornia is responsible

or ensuring that all students have the basic resources they need to learnqualied teachers,sucient textbooks and instructional materials, and decent acilities; and 2) All students have a

undamental right to an education that must be provided to all students on equal terms. The case

argued that Caliornias public education system ailed on both o these counts: it did not give all

students the necessary educational resources and it allowed unequal opportunities to persist across

schools. Williamscalled on the State to create standards or basic educational materials, a system o

management and oversight, and accountability to ensure schools live up to these standards.

On August 13, 2004, ater more than our years o litigation, the parties announced a Settlement

Agreement. Just over two weeks later, on August 27, 2007, the state Legislature passed ve bills

implementing the legislative proposals set orth in the Settlement Agreement. Governor Arnold

Schwarzenegger signed the bills into law on September 29, 2004, and they took eect immediately.The settlement embodied the central principles o the plaintis case and included signicant

changes to Caliornias education laws.

Scope of the Settlement

The WilliamsSettlement Legislation established new standards and accountability mechanisms

to ensure that all Caliornia public school students have textbooks and instructional materials,

qualied teachers, and sae, clean, and unctional school acilities. The Settlement Legislation

holds the State accountable or delivering these undamental elements and provides approximately

$1 billion to accomplish these goals. It also phased out the use o the Concept 6 multi-track, year-

round school calendar by 2012.3

The new standards and many o the accountabil ity systems established by the Williams

Settlement Legislation apply to all California public schools.4 Each and every student has a

right to sucient textbooks, a qualied teacher, and a school in good repair. All districts must

perorm sel-evaluations to ensure compliance with the textbook and acilities standards. Further,

the overall condition o acilities, the availability o textbooks and instructional materials, and

the number o teacher misassignments and teacher vacancies must be reported in annual School

Accountability Report Cards (SARCs) that are made available to all parents and the public.

c

Hapte

R2


12/64

Eac year, scools receie a state decile rank according to teir

Base API score. API scores are sorted rom te igest to te

loest, by scool type, and diided into 10 equal ranks (i.e.,

deciles). A rank o 10 is te igest and a rank o 1 is te loest.

Toug scools receie a ne API score annually, te list o

scools tat receie additional county oersigt or te purposes o

Williams is updated eery tree years. Te lists ae been based on

te 2003, 2006, 2009, and most recently, 2012 Base API.

Te 2012 list includes 2,169 decile 1-3 scools (te loest-

perorming 30% stateide) rom 48 counties all oer te state

o Caliornia. Tese scools educate a total o approximately

1,593,787 students.5

In 2012, Goernor Jerry Bron signed into la SB 1458, ic ill

recalibrate Caliornias API by canging te criteria by ic public

scools are eld accountable. Te API as traditionally measured

scool perormance almost exclusiely based on state test scores;

starting in 2016, test scores ill comprise no more tan 60

percent o a scools API. Te ne ormula ill include a broader

gauge o student accomplisment and preparation, including

measures o college and career readiness.

Notably, te State Superintendent o Public Instruction is required

to report to te Legislature on an alternatie metod or metods,

in place o te decile rank, or determining eligibility, preerences,

or priorities or any statutory program tat currently uses decile

rank as a determining actor. Te report is due to te Legislature by

October 1, 2013.6

Calirias Dcil 1-3 Schls

Chags h API ad Dcil

Rakig Ssm

The Settlement Legislation also created a new Uniorm

Complaint Process or parents, students, teachers, and others

to use to ensure that all schools and districts meet the new

standards and provide sucient instructional materials,

qualied teachers, and sae, healthy school acilities.

The lowest perorming schools in the state the schools

ranked in deciles one to three, inclusive, on the Base

Academic Perormance Index (API) receive additionalunds and oversight. Pursuant to the Settlement Legislation,

the State o Caliornia committed to providing $800 million

in installments o at least $100 million each year to pay or

emergency repairs in these decile 1-3 schools. In the rst

year o implementation, districts received $25 million to

conduct comprehensive assessments o the acility conditions

and needs in these schools, and $138 million or new

instructional materials or students attending schools ranked

in the lowest two API deciles.

County superintendents provide additional oversight todecile 1-3 schools, conducting annual visits and reviews to

determine compliance with the instructional materials and

acilities standards and to determine whether the schools

SARC accurately reports these data. Beginning with the

2005-06 school year, the Settlement Legislation requires

county superintendents to visit decile 1-3 schools at least

annually and to complete their reviews o textbook suciency

in these schools by the ourth week o the school year.7

The visits to examine aci lity conditions can be conducted

simultaneously with the textbook suciency reviews or at

a later point in the school year. The Settlement Legislationrequires that at least 25% o the county superintendent visits

be unannounced.

The Settlement Legislation also requires county

superintendents to annually monitor, review, and report

on teacher assignments and teacher vacancies in decile 1-3

schools.8 County superintendents submit the results o

all assignment monitoring and reviews to the Caliornia

Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) and the

Caliornia Department o Education (CDE), including

inormation regarding whether teachers in decile 1-3 schools

assigned to classes comprised o 20% or more pupils who

are English learners (ELs) have appropriate authorization or

training to teach these students.9 All teacher misassignments

(i.e., where a teacher lacks subject matter, EL, or other

required training or authorization) and teacher vacancies

(i.e., where a classroom has no single, designated ull-time

teacher, but is instead staed by a series o substitutes)

must be reported to district superintendents or correction.

Ultimately, the CTC is required to submit biennial reports

to the state Legislature concerning teacher assignments

12


13/64

and misassignments, including the data rom the county

superintendent reports.10

County superintendents report the results o their annual

visits and reviews to each school district s governing board on

a quarterly basis and submit an annual report in November

to the governing board o each school district, the county

board o education, and the county board o supervisors o

his/her county, describing the state o decile 1-3 schools inthe county. The reports must include school-specic ndings

regarding student access to sucient standards-aligned

instructional materials, compliance with acilities maintenance

requirements, teacher misassignments and vacancies, and

accuracy o SARCs with respect to the availability o

sucient textbooks and instructional materials and the saety,

cleanliness, and adequacy o school acilities including good

repair.11

Maintaining Equity

Nine years o implementation have demonstrated the

unequivocal value oWilliams. County superintendent

reports prove that the standards and accountability measures

established by the WilliamsSettlement Legislation, while

impacting all o Caliornias students, have signicantly

improved students access to the basic necessities o

educational opportunity at the states lowest perorming

schools. Conditions at decile 1-3 schools refect remarkable

progress, and the majority o these schools have come to

embrace the Williamsmonitoring process as a positive means o

leveraging needed change. County oces o education shared

that relations between schools, districts, and counties have greatly

improved as a result o the annual visits. Ater so many years

o implementation, commitment to the Williamsstandards has

become culturally ingrained.

Williamshas also precipitated notable institutional change. In

2012 Williamssuccessully eliminated the Concept 6 multi-track,year-round school calendar, which provided only 163 days o

classroom instruction instead o the traditional 180 days. Lodi

Unied School District and Los Angeles Unied School District

(LAUSD) were the only two school districts still operating

schools on the Concept 6 calendar in 2004-05 when Williams

settled. The Settlement Legislation required the two districts

to submit comprehensive action plans to the CDE by January

1, 2005, detailing strategies and steps to be taken annually to

eliminate the use o the Concept 6 program as soon as practicable

and no later than July 1, 2012. In 2004-05, over 255,000 students

were enrolled in schools that operated under the Concept 6calendar.12 As the ACLU o Southern Caliornias Executive

Director Hector Villagra noted in an Op-Ed published in the

Daily News, the evidence was undisputed that students on the

Concept 6 calendar were at a substantial disadvantage compared

to those on the traditional school calendar.13 By 2007-08, LAUSD

had reduced its number o Concept 6 schools rom 130 to 42, and

by 2012, the district had successully phased out the inequitable

system that provided some students a staggering 204 ewer


14/64

school days than others over the course o their K-12 years. A

study released by Policy Analysis or Caliornia Education in

2012 ound that the overcrowding relie in LAUSD, which

allowed the district to end its reliance on Concept 6, has led to

signicant student achievement gains.14

The standards and accountability systems established by

Williamshave also been adopted by other eorts to improve

educational opportunity. For example, in 2006, the QualityEducation Investment Act (QEIA) was established to

implement the terms o the Caliornia Teachers Association v.

Schwarzeneggersettlement. QEIA provides unds to assist

Caliornias lowest-perorming schools in increasing student

achievement; in order to be eligible, schools are required to

undergo annual Williamsmonitoring and achieve specied

benchmarks in accordance with the Williamsstandards. Also

in 2006, Valenzuela v. OConnellalleged that the State ailed

to provide students, especially those living in poverty, an

equal and reasonable opportunity to pass the Caliornia High

School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Its settlement legislationincluded a county oversight component modeled ater

the Williamsmonitoring process, and integrated concerns

about CAHSEE instruction and services into the Uniorm

Complaint Process. In addition, some county oces o

education have reported that schools engaged in Title I School

Program Improvement model their plans to make the target

outcome ull compliance with Williams. This appropriation

by other settlements and programs demonstrates that the

Williamsstandards and accountability systems are considered

eective measures or improving access to equal educational

opportunity.

As borne out by the data and anecdotal evidence presented in

the ollowing pages o this report, Williamsis continuing to

make a positive dierence or children in Caliornias schools.

Data and Methodology

The remainder o this report examines the impact the

WilliamsSettlement Legislation has made on educational

opportunity in Caliornias lowest-perorming schools over the

course o nine years o implementation.

Ideally, this report would also examine the impact o the

Williamsstandards and accountability systems on higher-

perorming schools. Ater all, the standards and accountability

systems, including the annual instructional materials

suciency hearings, the Uniorm Complaint Process, the

acility inspection systems, and the teacher assignment

monitoring procedures, apply to every public school in

the state. Each school now reports on the suciency

o instructional materials, the good repair o acilities,

and teacher

misassignments

and vacancies in

its annual School

Accountability

Report Card.

However, it was not

easible to collect

data rom the morethan 9,300 schools

and 1,000 districts across

the state. Thereore this

report ocuses on the impact the

WilliamsSettlement Legislation has had

on Caliornias lowest-perorming schools because the Settlement

Legislation provides these schools with additional nancial

assistance and oversight. The need or improvement in these deci

1-3 schools is most critical.

Annual inormation was collected through a survey distributed toevery county oce o education with jurisdiction over one or mor

schools in deciles 1-3. The list o schools that receive additional

county oversight is updated every three years. The lists have been

based on the 2003, 2006, 2009, and most recently, 2012 Base

Academic Perormance Index.15 Thereore the survey data reporte

represent not a single uniorm set o schools, but three distinct

cohorts that have cycled through over the course o nine years o

implementation. There is, however, substantial overlap between

cohorts. Out o approximately 2,100 schools listed in deciles 1-3

each cohort, 1,215 schools or 58% have consistently remained in

deciles 1-3 throughout the three cohorts thus ar.

Forty-six county oces o education representing 99.7% o all the

decile 1-3 schools in the state responded to a survey that asked

county superintendents to provide inormation or the 2011-12

and 2012-13 school years. No survey was distributed to collect

inormation regarding the 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 schoo

years due to unding constraints ; unortunately, this means that

there is a gap in data.16 Nevertheless, the available data enables

meaningul comparisons between the years or which surveys wer

completed. Responses to this years survey were supplemented by

ollow-up interviews conducted with county administrators anddistrict sta. Taken together, the near-perect survey sample and

rich anecdotal evidence present a comprehensive picture o how

implementation oWilliamshas altered the landscape o education

opportunity in Caliornia.

14


15/64

teXtBooKs anD InstRUctIonaLmateRIaLs

The Williamsinstructional materials suciency standards and accountability systems have

dramatically improved students access to standards-aligned textbooks and instructional

materials. The number o textbook insuciencies identied in decile 1-3 schools instances

where a student does not have a textbook or instructional materials to use in class and to take

home decreased signicantly in recent years. Counties report that meticulous attention to

suciency has become ingrained in the culture and practices o schools across the state, and it is

now considered rare or a decile 1-3 school to have insucient textbooks. Schools are proactive

about ordering materials early and many districts have developed centralized inventory systems

to more eciently distribute materials to students. The Williamsmonitoring process has even

eliminated some problems that had presented signicant obstacles to suciency in the past.

County oces o education widely attribute schools success in this area to Williams, and agree

that it is important to continue the monitoring process to ensure that textbook suciency remains

a priority. Though a ew persistent challenges remain, data and anecdotal evidence unequivocally

show that Williamsis working.

Background

The WilliamsSettlement Legislation established a legal denition or sucient textbooks or

instructional materials, which requires schools to ensure that each pupil, including English

learners, has a standards-aligned textbook or instructional materials, or both, to use in class and

to take home.17 I a student does not have a textbook and/or instructional materials to use in

class and take home, there is an insuciency that must be remedied. The Settlement Legislation

also enhanced existing accountability systems, such as district textbook hearings and School

Accountability Report Cards (SARCs), and created others, such enorcement powers or parents,

students, and teachers through the new Uniorm Complaint Process, to ensure the suciency

standard is met by all schools. The Settlement Legislation provided millions o dollars to help

schools buy new books as well.

c

Hapte

R3

W is isufiy?

An insuciency occurs en a

student does not ae a textbook

and/or instructional materials to

use in class and to take

ome.


16/64

Though all schools are held accountable to these suciency

requirements, the WilliamsSettlement Legislation provides

additional oversight to schools in deciles 1-3. These schools receive

annual site visits rom their county oces o education within

the rst our weeks o the school year. I a county superintendent

determines that any student at a school lacks sucient textbooks

or instructional materials, the Settlement Legislation provides

a series o remedial steps. The school or district must remedy

the insuciency by either correcting the distribution error orpurchasing and distributing the necessary instructional materials.

I the insuciency is not remedied by the end o the second month

o the school year, the county superintendent must request that the

Caliornia Department o Education, with approval by the State

Board o Education, purchase the necessary instructional materials

and bill the district.

Since 2004, there have been a number o amendments to the

Education Code concerning instructional materials. Notably

in 2009, the introduction o categorical fexibility enabled local

education agencies to utilize previously restricted categoricalunds or any educational purpose.18 However, these fexibility

measures did not alter the Williamsstandard or accountability

requirements regarding the provision o instructional materials. In

act, the fexibility statute supplemented the suciency standard by

requiring that all students in the same grade level or course within

a school district receive instructional materials rom the same

adoption.19 Thus Williamshas continued to ensure instructional

materials suciency despite changes to related provisions o law.

Dramatic Decreases in

Textbook InsufcienciesOver the course o the rst our years o implementation, county

oces o education identied nearly 200,000 textbook and

instructional materials insuciencies, ensuring that tens o

thousands o students received missing books each year. From

2004-05 to 2007-08, county oces o education ound an average

o approximately 16% o all decile 1-3 schools had insucient

textbooks. In recent years, both the percentage o decile 1-3 schools

with insucient textbooks and the number o materials required

to remedy these insuciencies have dramatically decreased. In

2011-12, just 5% o low-perorming schools had one or moreinsuciencies, requiring 9,169 additional instructional materials.

These gures improved even urther in 2012-13, in which just 4.5%

o low-perorming schools had insuciencies and required 6,961

additional materials. Though there is still need or improvement,

schools have made remarkable progress in ensuring that students

receive the materials they need in order to learn.

Ater nine years o implementation, many counties report that

attention to textbook suciency has become embedded in the

culture and practices o their schools. In the initial years o

SuICIenCy

edcai Cd Sci 60119(c) denes sucient

textbooks or instructional materials to mean scools

must ensure tat eac pupil, including Englis

learners, as a standards-aligned textbook or

instructional materials, or bot, to use in class and to

take ome.

Assmbl Bill 1246 (Capter 668, Statutes o 2012)

amended Education Code Section 42065(e)(2)(A) to

dene standards-alignment as being aligned to eiter

te state standards adopted in 1998-99 (pursuant

to Section 60605) or to te Caliornia Common Core

Standards (pursuant to 60605.8).

Sa Bill 509 (Capter 629, Statutes o 2011)

amended Education Code Section 1240.3(a),

autorizing LEAs to purcase instructional materials

or teir neediest scools (ranked in deciles 1-3 o

te Academic Perormance Index) itout aing

to acquire ne materials or te iger perorming

scools.

ADoPtIon SuSPenSIonS

Assmbl Bill X4 2 (Capter 2, Statutes o te

2009-10 Fourt Extraordinary Session) suspended

te process and procedures or adopting instructional

materials, including rameork reisions, until te

2013-14 scool year.

Sa Bill 70 (Capter 7, Statutes o 2011)

extended te adoption suspension until te 2015-16

scool year.

Rlva Lgislaiad edcai CdScis20

16


17/64

Williams, it was not uncommon or schools to be unprepared or site visits. Some expressed resentment towards external oversight,

and others ailed to resolve their insuciencies promptly. Now counties note that schools are proactive and prepared or reviews,

understand the rationale o the Williamsmonitoring process, and are diligent about compliance. As one administrator rom RiversideCounty shared,

In the rst ew years, we really saw districts scrambling to ensure that all students have textbooks. Now, it is extremely rare to nd

a student that doesnt. Because we have conductedWilliams visits or so long, there are ar ewer issues in the number and quality

o textbooks. Districts have improved their planning or textbook ordering and distribution. Teachers and administrations know the

expectation that each student will be assigned a textbook.

Other administrators have also observed notable improvement, stating that Williamsvisits have heightened awareness regarding

instructional materials suciency and that there has been a big improvement in the number o students with textbooks over the

years. As an example, when counties identiy insuciencies at a school site, the school has ve days to remedy those insuciencies

beore a letter is issued notiying the district. A number o county oces o education reported having to issue ewer ve-day letters.

Fresno County Oce o Education shared,

On the rst year o implementation we sent out 52 letters to schools who didnt have sucient textbooks at the beginning o the school

year. This year we only sent out letters to two schools. Clearly the knowledge that someone is going to come and count the books makes

the principals prioritize making sure all students have books.

Counties widely maintain that schools are diligent about compliance, and have become more proactive about ordering new materials

to ensure that all students get their books in a timely manner. For example, Kings County Oce o Education shared,

Overall, our schools take pride in having a sucient number o high-quality textbooks and materials. They take a proactive approach

by ordering additional back-ups during the initial ordering phase to prevent delays in providing newly-enrolled students with the

required materials.

Monterey County Oce o Education similarly shared,

School personnel are paying more attention to inventory at the end o the school year and are concerned about having insuciencies

so they spend time projecting class sizes and textbooks / instructional materials or the upcoming year. Purchase Orders are completed

early in hopes that books will come in prior to the beginning o the school year.

Overall, counties praise Williamsas a positive process thats making a dierence. Many describe their visits as being well-received,

and comment that principals and teachers express appreciation or the county oversight. An administrator rom San Bernardino

County shared, Schools and administrators are excited that we are coming out to visit because they eel that more o the issues they

want to be addressed are given greater priority due to the WilliamsSettlement.

nubr txbk Rquird

Rd Iufii Dil 1 - 3 shl

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2011-12 2012-13

70,000

52,500

35,000

17,500

0

prg Dil 1 - 3 shl wih

o r mr txbk Iufii

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2011-12 2012-13

20

15

10

5

0

D r h acLU Williams Ili surv D r h acLU Williams Ili surv

prgfDil1-3shl

shl yr

nub

rftxbk

shl yr

19%

15%

14%

15%

5%

4.5%

24,932

63,163

55,963 55,066

9,169

6,961


18/64

Notably, an administrator rom Los Angeles Countyshared that school sites welcome site reviews and even

applaud reviewers or checking on their books. The same

administrator urther elaborated,

When we go or instructional material reviews,

principals and teachers will say Thank goodness that

you came, because without you enorcing this, we may

not have gotten our books! Because the school knows we

are coming, they are on the priority list to get those books.

Other counties agreed, reporting that schools greet uswith open arms and Williamsvisits and reviews are always

in the minds o district and site administration in a very

positive way. And just as much as school and district

administrators express appreciation or county oversight,

county administrators were quick to praise the dedication

and hard work o district and site sta. Frequently they cited

the diligence o a particular sta member as being key to the

success o a given school or district with regard to textbook

suciency. Thanks to the commitment o county, district,

and school sta alike, Williamsis making education more

equitable or Caliornias students.

Improved TextbookManagement Systems

Counties report that many schools have developed or

improved systems to more eciently acquire, distribute, and

track instructional materials, sometimes as a direct result o

Williamsoversight. For example, the Orange County Oce

o Education noted, School site administrators have shared

that the Williamsvisits have led them to develop better

inventory processes or textbooks. According to anecdotal

evidence rom numerous county administrators, most districtsnow operate centralized repositories so that schools can work

together to help ensure all students receive the materials that

they need. One administrator rom Tulare County described,

Every district that I review has some kind o internal

process. Many districts have a central curriculum center,

and the materials are both inventoried there and sent out

to schools based on per-pupil need. Thats their central

hub or any new students who need new materials or

lost material replacement. Most districts have some sort

o system in place, either at the district level or at the sitelevel in which schools network with each other.

Counties that identied ew or no textbook insuciencies

or the past two years emphasized the importance o having

such systems to their schools success. Administrators also

noted that implementing centralized systems, in addition to

improving eciency, has helped districts cut back signicantly

on unnecessary costs. Schools in need o textbooks can

take advantage o other schools existing stores rather than

18


19/64

purchase extraneous materials. An administrator rom San Diego County described,

I a school did not have enough o the needed materials, they would usually purchase more, as opposed to utilizing a centralized system

where the materials could be transerred to the school in need. This alone has saved a signicant amount o money. I they are still short

on materials and the publisher does not have them we have a county list o adopted materials and try to connect districts to support one

another.

These systemic advancements and collaborative eorts between counties, distr icts, and schools are continuing to help improve

students access to textbooks and instructional materials.

Old Problems Resolved, A New Problem Emerges

The Williamsmonitoring process has been so successul that some causes o insuciencies that had been pervasive in the early years

are no longer being reported. For example, it used to be common or schools to have class sets o textbooks. A class set existed

when there were enough books or each student to use in one class period, but not enough or all students to have their own to take

home. No longer is this cited as a problem. It had also been common or schools to require students to pay or lost or stolen textbooks

beore issuing a replacement; now it is rare to hear o such instances taking place. One administrator rom Stanislaus County shared,

I a student lost a book, there used to be a policy that the student wouldnt get another book until its paid or, but there are some

amilies that cannot aord to pay or those books. I was always concerned or those students theyre here to learn, how are they going

to continue to learn i they dont have a book? I have to say, that sinceWilliams has been instituted, those problems no longer exist. Idont ever see that anymore.

Though these problems have thus been resolved, a new problem has emerged. As a result o the state adoption suspensions, many

districts have been holding onto textbooks rom adoption cycles as ar back as 2001. Because local education agencies are also

required to provide each student with instructional materials rom the same adoption,21 when schools need more books whether

enrollment has increased, textbooks have become unusable due to wear and tear, or more consumable materials such as workbooks

are required they have to get the same editions that they had rst purchased as many as 12 years ago. The problem is that these

editions are no longer in print.

In the last two years, publisher backlog has emerged as the most commonly reported cause o textbook insuciencies. County

administrators conrm that adoption suspensions are at the heart o the issue; because publishers either wait or orders to be placedbeore printing older editions or reuse to produce new copies at all, schools struggle to locate additional copies. Some have been

able to utilize their districts centralized inventory to locate extras or make use o discarded copies let over by a school in another

district that has since moved on to a more recent adoption. Others have resorted to online marketplaces such as Amazon or eBay.

Administrators at both San Bernardino County and San Diego County report distr icts have even paid signicant costs or the rights

to duplicate materials in-house. Fortunately, all county and district sta that noted problems due to the adoption suspensions also

armed that schools were able to resolve them through a combination o the aorementioned strategies. Many o the schools that

continue to hold onto older adoptions due to budgetary concerns are the very schools that have been subject to Williamsmonitoring

or many years, and are thereore well-equipped with the systems, experienced personnel, and capacity to overcome these new

challenges.

County Oversight Remains ImportantCounty oces o education across the state agree that it is still important to maintain the Williamsoversight process at

decile 1-3 schools. Remarkable progress notwithstanding, there remain persistent challenges to ensuring suciency

that are ameliorated by annual county monitoring. Inventory and distribution issues are still cited as common

causes o insuciencies, as are newly transerred students and unexpected changes in enrollment.

Schools and districts that are new to the Williamsprocess invariably require additional guidance,

and administrator turnover generates insuciencies even or schools that have been subject to

additional oversight through multiple cohorts. An administrator rom Los Angeles County

shared, Unless you go out there and ensure through monitoring, its very easy to backslide,

especially with large turnover in administrative sta and changes in the priorities o that sta.


20/64

In 2011 Caliornia joined te

Smarter Balanced Assessment

Consortium (SBAC), a multi-state

consortium tasked it designing ane assessment system aligned to

te Common Core State Standards.

Te ne assessments utilize online,

computer-adaptie tests, and ill

be ready or implementation in to

2014-15 scool year. Toug te

SBAC as released system

requirement specications and

deeloped a Tecnology Readiness

Tool to identiy inrastructure gaps

tat migt sere as barriers to

computer-based assessments, it

remains unclear exactly o te

SBAC ill ensure tat all students

ae equal access to te deices

and internet connectiity required

or tese ne tests.

For more inormation, see http://

www.smarterbalanced.organd

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/

smarterbalanced.asp.

An administrator rom San Mateo County echoed this worry, oering an

example o one district that experiences requent turnover:

Despite the act that they might get someone in there who gets the process

down, that person is oten gone a year or two later and someone else has t

step in and learn the process. The schools depend on this person at the dist

oce, and that person keeps turning over. So i we were not to go back an

visit, I would not eel comortable saying, Im pretty sure those books are

those classrooms.

Many county administrators agree that schools and districts may not be as

conscientious about adhering to Williamssuciency standards without coun

oversight, especially in tough scal times. With many competing demands

on insucient unds, districts acing hard choices must oten allocate their

budgets strategically and it is only realistic that some might be tempted to

give textbooks less o a priority. But Williamsmakes clear that every student

has a right to sucient instructional materials and reinorces the absolute

importance o providing equal educational opportunity at all o our schools.

An administrator rom San Joaquin County shared,

When moneys scarce, its easy to say, Oh, we could have kids share books

or Well order just the rst part o the books now and worry about the re

later. It would be easy to do that, butWilliams continues to put the ocu

where it should be on the kids, and the materials that the students and

teachers need to have. Im not saying that people would do that malicious

but i youre really strapped or money, you try to be creative with how

you can make your money go urther. People might see making do with

insuciencies as a positive solution when in act its not a solution at all.

Williamsensures that suciency o textbooks and instructional materials

remains a top priority. The suciency standard and oversight processes

established by the WilliamsSettlement Legislation continue to positively

impact student learning at Caliornias most vulnerable schools.

Looking Forward: Common Core andDigital Instructional Materials

Maintaining the Williamssuciency requirements will continue to be

critical as schools address changes in the content and delivery o instruction

materials. As districts implement the Caliornia Common Core State

Standards, they will have greater autonomy to determine the content o their

adoptions and will be purchasing new materials or all students that need to

distributed equitably. Moreover, burgeoning demand or digital instructiona

materials means the concept o what constitutes instructional materials is

quickly evolving, and the denition o suciency must adapt to keep up

with it. Schools are looking towards Williamsor guidance on how to ensure

commitment to equal educational opportunity is preserved throughout these

complicated transitions.

Nearly every county reported receiving questions about the implementation

digital instructional materials, and more specically about what suciency

looks like or devices, licenses, sotware, media, and internet connectivity as

Smarter BalancedaSSeSSment


21/64

Caliornia Education Code Section 60119(c)(1) includes a proision tat directly addresses digital materials:

The materials may be in a digital ormat as long as each pupil, at a minimum, has and can access the same materials in the

class and to take home, as all other pupils in the same class or course in the school district and has the ability to use and

access them at home.

Te Caliornia Learning Resource Netork (CLRN) proides te olloing guidance:

i a district provides students with standards-aligned electronic textbooks, each student must have the electronic equipment

necessary to access the materials in class and at home in order to meet the sufciency standard. I a district provides students

with standards-aligned web-based instructional materials, each student must have the electronic equipment necessary to

access the materials and an active Internet connection in class and at home.

I any students cannot access the electronic instructional materials at home because they do not have the necessary electronic

equipment and/or an active Internet connection, the district may still meet the sufciency standard i those students receive

printed instructional materials that are identical in content to the electronic or web-based instructional materials. Alternatively,

school districts may meet the sufciency standard by providing those students with the electronic equipment and/or active

Internet connections they need at home to access the materials, but they cannot require students or their parents/guardians to

pay or the electronic equipment and/or Internet connections.22

edcai Cd ad ofcial Gidac Digial Isrcial Marials

opposed to textbooks. The suciency standard established

by the WilliamsSettlement Legislation and modied by

subsequent legislation oers a useul starting point or

developing policies to ensure equity and access or all

students.

Keeping the Williamssuciency standard in mind, many

schools have already begun experimenting with pilot

programs. For example, one high school in San BernardinoCounty has purchased Kindle readers in lieu o textbooks

or every student in a single period o Calculus to take home

and use in class. Napa County oers a pilot program to all o

its middle school social studies and science classes that tests

the use o Discovery Techbooks as supplementary materials.

Fresno County reports some o their schools have 1:1 laptop

or iPad environments. Notably, in February 2013, the Los

Angeles Unied School Board approved $50 million in

school construction bonds to buy tablet computers, install

wireless systems, and train teachers at 47 schools.23

Schools in rural or remote locations, however, are more

apprehensive. They worry that in the rush to go digital, their

students who have marginal accessibility to broadband

services will get let behind. For example, an administrator

rom Mendocino County shared,

The cost per student or connectivity is so high, it

becomes an equity issue. How do you provide them the

opportunity? The problem is, or those kids at that remoteschool, it could cost you hypothetically $3,000 per kid,

because or the vendors the inrastructure might cost them

$500,000 just to run the line in there. And they cant

charge a school district that, it would break the school

district.

As schools across the state experiment with digital

instructional materials and grapple with questions o how to

provide their students access, the Williamsstandards should

ensure that equal access to instructional content is prioritized.


22/64

ENSURING EQUITY IN A DIGITAL wORLD:RIvERSIDE UNIFIED SChOOL DISTRICT

Rierside Unied Scool District (RUSD) as te rst district in Caliornia to ormally adopt digital text-

books and as made signicant progress in bringing its instructional tecnology program to scale. Te

district as deployed deices iPads, tablets, netbooks, and laptops to approximately one ourt o its

44,000 K-12 students. Tree scools ae ully implemented 1-to-1 computing enironments ere te

district as proided a deice to all students, and deices ae replaced traditional textbooks as te core

instructional material. At oter scools, implementation is consistent across eiter grade leel or subject

matter, but oterise incomplete. For example, a scool may ae implemented digital materials or all o

its t graders but no oter grade, or or all o its Algebra classes but no oter subject.

In implementing its instructional tecnology

program, RUSD as been conscientious about

ensuring equity and access or all its students.

Deputy Superintendent Micael Fine reportedo Rierside as approaced tese issues in

practice. Te points belo oer tangible examples

or oter districts also engaging it te process o

implementation.

No changes to adopted material. were

deices ae replaced textbooks as te core

instructional material, te content proided

in te deice is identical to tat o te board-adopted textbook. In te ast majority o cases,

te material is simply a .pd ersion o te

textbook ic is aailable rom publisers ree

o carge. Identical content is important or

maintaining suciency ere not all scools

ae made te sitc; een i te metod o

deliery is dierent itin a district, te required

content remains te same. RUSD as also

looked into multi-dimensional instructionalmaterials made or digital deliery, toug

suc materials come it additional costs and

license ees. Te district as made use o suc

materials to supplement teir core instructional

materials.

Using an app and online Learning Management

System. RUSD uses an app tat it elped

deelop called Intelligent Papers. Tis app

interaces it te student inormation system

and donloads te textbooks necessary or

all o te classes te student is enrolled in. Ia students scedule canges, te app takes

aay and replaces appropriate content as

needed. Instructional materials are ten on

te deices temseles, and students do not

require internet to access teir materials ater

te initial donload is complete. Teacers post

assignments and instructions onto an online

learning management system. To account

or te act tat students may not ae 24our access to te internet, te Intelligent

Papers application caces all o te learning

management system updates so students can

still access all necessary materials as les on

teir deices.

All campuses have wireless access. All RUSD

campuses ae ireless access. Some are more

robust tan oters, but te district is in teprocess o getting all connectiity to te same

standard. Te district as recently upgraded

its bandit to 1 Gbps and transitioned rom

a sitced, ber netork to a priate point-to-

point netork. It is also considering proiding

i- on scoolbuses or student use.


23/64

O-campus internet access. Not all students

ae reliable access to te internet outside

o scool. Toug Rierside as a community

as a public i- serice, it is not sucientenoug or regular use. To account or tis,

teacers upload important materials onto te

learning management system instead o just

proiding a link. I tere is someting or an

assignment tat must be donloaded, it is te

students responsibility to make sure to do so

beore leaing campus. RUSD as also orked

to collaborate it local businesses tat oer

i- otspots, suc as coeesops, to broadenstudent internet access. In addition, te district

is in constant communication it a serice

proider about oering lo-price broadband

access or students omes. At present te

district as been able to negotiate a price o

about $9 per mont per ouseold, and opes

to bring tat price een loer.

BYO Device. Many o te scools in RUSDoperate a bring your on deice program.

Scools issue a surey to gauge student need,

and tose o are unable to bring teir on

deice are proided one by te district at no

cost. Students ceck out a deice to use in

class and take ome, and te deice is teirs

or te entire scool year. Scools use te same

inentory system as tey do or textbooks to

keep track o at deice as gone to atstudent. Toug it is not required, parents may

purcase insurance against loss or tet.

Equity within school. Toug dierent scools

may ae dierent leels o implementation,

principals are careul to ensure all students

itin te same scool are gien equitable

access to digital materials. For example, one

elementary scool as able to proide some

orm o digital instruction to nearly all grades

but ould only ae been able to aord partial

implementation or te ourt grade. Ratertan gie some ourt graders access to digital

materials but not oters, te scool as opted to

make a clean cut and not implement any digital

materials or all ourt graders. Note tat ile

certainly important to consider, tis particular

attention to intra-scool equity o digital deliery

is not necessarily a concern in terms oWilliams

denition o suciency so long as all students

ae te required materials in some ormat touse in scool and take ome.

Deputy Superintendent Micael Fine notes tat

or all its success, te district is still learning.

RUSD as not issued a ritten policy or statement

regarding equity o implementation and continues

to grapple it te many complex issues associated

it proiding digital instructional materials.

Neerteless, teir experience oers an example oo one district is naigating te transition ile

remaining true to te principle o equal educational

opportunity or all.


24/64

The State could assist in this transition

by supporting improved inventory

and distribution tracking systems or

instructional materials.

Though gains in suciency ranked

among the greatest successes reported by

county oces o education, the amount o

time required to conduct textbook reviewswas consistently identied as a chal lenge.

Many districts still do not have a digital

process or inventory and distribution and

make determinations at their instructional

materials suciency hearings based on

inadequate inormation. The lack o

real-time inormation concerning what

textbooks are available seriously impedes

districts ability to ensure students have

the appropriate materials in their hands

and also makes it more dicult orWilliamsteam members to complete their

reviews.

A comprehensive, digital tracking system

will become increasingly important

with the implementation o Common

Core. With districts having discretion

to determine which standards-aligned

curriculum to adopt, the universe o

materials used will likely vary and

counties will become reliant upondistrict systems to inorm the Williams

monitoring process. Furthermore, at

a time when the State is encouraging

schools to modernize school curricula,

library and textbook sta are still relying

on paper trails and counting books by

hand. I Caliornia is serious about

delivering education into the 21st century,

the Legislature should provide adequate

support or schools to update their

inrastructures accordingly.


25/64

scHooL FacILItIes

The school acility standards and reporting procedures established by the WilliamsSettlement

Legislation continue to help Caliornias schools identiy deciencies and maintain acilities in

good repair. Conditions in low-perorming schools have reportedly improved even in the ace o

mounting scal challenges and reductions in maintenance and custodial sta, but the urgent need

or more nancial support is increasingly apparent. Many school sites are aging and experiencinggeneral degradation. A signicant number o emergency acility needs remain unaddressed due to

a dearth o resources or major repairs, including the stalled Emergency Repair Program (ERP)

unding. Counties, schools, and districts are working diligently to maintain acilities in good repair,

but are struggling to accomplish more tasks with ewer people and ewer unds. Despite their best

eorts, our schools cannot hope to ully realize Williams promise o sae, clean, and unctional

acilities or all students without increased support rom the State.

BackgroundThe WilliamsSettlement Legislation created substantive standards or good repair and

emergency acilities needs, and established overlapping accountability systems to ensure these

standards are met. The Settlement Legislation developed an Interim Evaluation Instrument (IEI),

replaced in 2007 by the permanent Facilities Inspection Tool (FIT), in order to standardize the

assessment o school conditions. I a school exhibits any condition that prevents it rom being

deemed completely clean, sae, and unctional as determined by the FIT, then that school has a

good repair deciency. Deciencies can range rom relatively minor, such as a burned-out light

bulb, to urgent and extreme, such as structural damage. Conditions that pose a threat to the

health or saety o students or sta are identied by the FIT as emergency acilities needs. All

schools are held accountable to the good repair standards, and must evaluate and report on acility

conditions using the FIT. Also, by using the Uniorm Complaint Process, parents, students,

teachers, and other community members can identiy threats to health or saety at their schools and

make sure they are addressed. County superintendents provide an additional layer o oversight indecile 1-3 schools. Low-perorming schools were also eligible or millions o dollars in emergency

repair unds through the Emergency Repair Program established by the Settlement Legislation.

c

Hapte

R4

W is g pi fiy?

A good repair deciency is any condition tat preents a scool rom

being deemed completely clean, sae, and unctional as determined by

te Facilities Inspection Tool.

W is gy iiis ?

An emergency acilities need is any condition tat poses a treat to te

ealt or saety o students or sta.


26/64

Reports Indicate Improved ConditionsAgainst All Odds

Data collected rom county oces o education show that acility conditions at decile 1-3 schools have improved. In 2007-08 when

the FIT was introduced, county superintendents ound that 86% o all schools monitored had one or more good repair deciencies.

By 2012-13, that gure had decreased to 75% (Table 1). The percentage o schools with one or more emergency acilities need has

also decreased signicantly in recent years, suggesting that schools may be saer now than they ever had been in preceding years o

Williamsimplementation. From 2004-05 to 2007-08, the percent o schools with emergency acilities needs held constant at 13%,with the exception o a minor dip in 2006-07. In the last two years however, less than 5% o all decile 1-3 schools were reported as

having any conditions that posed a threat to the health or saety o students or sta (Table 2).

Individuals amiliar with the acility inspections attribute the increase in the percentage o decile 1-3 schools with one or more good

repair deciencies ater the rst two years o implementation to acilities inspectors having an improved understanding o what

constitutes a good repair deciency, and increased willingness to document all deciencies ater the introduction o the FIT with its

more nuanced rating system. In addition to the learning period that accompanies any new process, some inspectors in the early years

o implementation expressed reticence about ormally reporting deciencies that they believed were relatively minor because the IEI

used to determine good repair beore 2007 placed schools in only two categories good repair or not in good repair. The FIT

responded to this concern by including a ratings system that enables inspectors to rank schools rom Poor to Exemplary and place

individual deciencies in context.

taBle 1

taBle 2

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2011-12 2012-13

prg dil

1-3 hl wih r r gd rir

dfi

64% 60% 83% 86% 77% 75%

Pg di 1-3 Ss wi G rpi dfiis

D r h acLU Williams Ili surv

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2011-12 2012-13

prg dil

1-3 hl wih

rg ilii

d

13% 13% 11% 13% 5% 4%

Pg di 1-3 Ss wi egy Fiiis ns

D r h acLU Williams Ili surv

26


27/64

Ater nine years o implementation, school site sta and county inspectors al ike are more knowledgeable about what constitutes a

deciency and how such deciencies must be reported. The decreases in the number o decile 1-3 schools with identied good repair

deciencies in recent years can thereore be understood as representing actual improvements in the condition o school grounds.

Accounts from County Ofces of Education ConrmPositive Changes

Anecdotal evidence rom county oces o education conrm that the emphasis Williamsplaced on good repair and school acilities

generally has translated into positive changes. Ater an initial period o apprehension regarding acilities inspections, decile 1-3 schoo

have largely come to embrace Williams. For example, one member o San Joaquin Countys inspection team reported,

Initially they were somewhat apprehensive the rst year, but once they realized we were there to be objective and oer support and help

they were much more receptive. The schools that seem to have done the best are the ones that really embraced this, were eager to accept ou

suggestions and assistance, and really strived to improve conditions at their schools.

Over time, acilities inspections have oten grown into a collaborative endeavor that has ostered greater transparency between school

and counties with regard to deciencies. County oces o education report that the monitoring process has improved relationships

between counties, districts, and schools, and that all work together to help maintain sites in good repair. One county administrator

noted that school sta are more eager to share the things that need a little mending because they see Williamsas something

positive. Another shared, Teachers and principals oten comment that they are glad we come to review every year because things g

xed.

The substantive standards, evaluation system, and provisions or additional county oversight established by the WilliamsSettlement

Legislation not only dened the expectations or maintaining good repair, but also equipped school site sta with a positive means o

leveraging district support to ensure their acilities are brought into compliance. An administrator rom Kern County shared,

They take it very seriously, they really do. And the site sta actually like it because it gives them ammunition to go back to the district

and say Look,Williams ound this deciency, its got to be corrected, and weve got to show that its been corrected on our SARC.

Districts now give greater priority to decile 1-3 schools as a result oWilliamsmonitoring and accountability measures. For example,

one administrator reported seeing a reallocation o unds to the decile 1-3 schools in order to meet the minimum requirements or

Williamsinspections. An administrator rom Los Angeles County shared that one district prioritizes the work orders o schools that

have had multiple years o Poor ratings. Still other counties conrmed that it has become district practice to attend to repairs at

schools that are subject to Williamsoversight beore attending to the needs o schools that are not in deciles 1-3. County administrato

noted that sta at these low-perorming schools, previously unaccustomed to receiving prompt attention rom their districts, express

D r h acLU Williams Ili surv D r h acLU Williams Ili surv

Exemplary

Fair

Good

Poor

Gd Rir Rig

Dil 1-3 shl i 2007-08

Gd Rir Rig

Dil 1-3 shl i 2012-13

59%

24%

14%

3%

60%

27%

11%

2%

Exemplary

Fair

Good

Poor


28/64

great appreciation or the additional oversight. A member o San Diego

Countys acilities inspection team shared,

Sta will tell me, Remember you cited this? Well I talked to the boss

and we got it taken care o. We had been complaining about this or 12

years! And your writing it up, you helped us nd a solution. Theyre very

appreciative, and they are so proud when they get to resolve a problem.

Struggling To Do More With LessAccompanying this narrative o improvement, however, is an escalating

narrative o nancial need. School budgets were signicantly reduced

starting in 2009, and legislative measures intended to ease the diculty o

absorbing these large revenue cuts enabled local administrators to allocate

unds previously restricted or acilities maintenance towards other needs.

This meant that not only was less unding given to schools or maintenance,

but also that those dollars were oten unneled away to cover other

educational expenses. Many schools have been orced to substantially cut

their maintenance and custodial sta as a result, decreasing schools capacity

to address mounting acilities needs. Lack o nancial support or acilitieshas made it increasingly dicult or schools to keep up with good repair.

In the past, the Deerred Maintenance Program and required contributions

to Routine Restricted Maintenance Accounts ensured that districts kept

up at least a minimum level o support or acilities maintenance. But as

highlighted by Legislative Analysts Oce (LAO) survey results, categorical

fexibility has resulted in a massive disinvestment in maintaining school

acilities. According to the latest LAO survey, over 70% o districts shited

unds away rom Deerred Maintenance in 2011-12 and 31% reported

shiting all unding away rom Deerred Maintenance since the state

granted categorical fexibility in 2009.24 Notably, in the same survey, districts

identied Deerred Maintenance as the top categorical program that they

would like to see maintained. Only 27% o districts surveyed believed it

should be eliminated completely.25

In another report, the LAO cited these ndings and warned against the

dangers o eliminating the Deerred Maintenance Program:

We are concerned that repealing spending requirements or maintenance

would jeopardize the large local and state investments in school acilities

made over the past decade. Data on how districts have responded to recent

categorical fexibility provisions suggest that competing spending priorities

at the local level can lead districts to underinvest in maintaining theiracilities. Such practice could result in unsae conditions, a push to pass

new state bonds, and/or additional lawsuits against the state.26

Now, under the new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), there are

no protected Deerred Maintenance unds. Enacted in 2013, the LCFF

eliminated the majority o the existing categorical programs and subsumed

them into the new nance system. Though the unding districts previously

received or Deerred Maintenance is still included in the new ormula,

districts are not specically required to use these unds or that purpose.


29/64

In 2009 the state Legislature also reduced the amount o general unds that schools must set aside or their Routine Restricted

Maintenance Accounts, which are dedicated to providing unds or ongoing and major maintenance o school buildings, rom 3%

to 1%. The Legislature made this decision despite having recognized through previous legislation that contributions below 3% are

inadequate to properly maintain school acilities.27 Moreover, districts that maintain their acilities in good repair are exempt rom

making even this 1% contribution.28 These provisions will remain in eect until at least 2014-15.

Nearly every county reported reductions in maintenance and custodial sta in the wake o state budget cuts. Los Angeles Unied

School District alone has lost over 1,000 custodians, plant managers, carpenters, electricians, and plumbers in the last ve years.29

Though schools are reportedly stil l careul to promptly resolve emergency acility needs, many do not have the sta available toprevent degradation or remedy good repair deciencies in a timely manner. Custodial issues, such as declining overall cleanliness,

were commonly reported. The San Bernardino County Oce o Education shared a representative statement:

Our sta has observed an increase in acility deciencies related to cleanliness. Districts have communicated that there has been a

decrease in janitorial sta due to state budget cuts. As a result, requency o routine cleaning has decreased in classrooms and ancillary

areas. In addition, some districts have reported closing more restrooms due to lack o janitorial and supervisory sta. A ew districts

have also expressed to ourWilliams teams that recent budget cuts have impacted the nancial resources necessary to maintain their

school sites in good repair.

Many counties expressed concern that their schools are barely getting by, struggling to maintain good repair with inadequate

unding and reduced sta. One county administrator shared, Theyre at the point now that i things get cut yet again, theyre not

sure what they are going to do. We just go year by year with that. A district sta member also shared, Theyve just tightened their

belts up and said theyre going to just have to do as much as they can with ewer people. Some sites have already begun to see more

extreme consequences. For example, the Mendocino County Oce o Education shared,

We have observed roos covered in plastic because the budget did not support re-roong. We have seen broken windows, deteriorating

asphalt walkways, and unsae all zone areas under play structures. We have seen ancient electrical services that would righten most

electricians that are waiting to be replaced because more urgent items must be addressed rst to keep the school open.


30/64

Critical Need For Emergency Repair Funds

These problems are exacerbated by the act that there is no statewide source o dollars available to allocate towards urgent, large-scale

school acilities repairs. Bond authority or the School Facilities Program, which provided grants or constructing and modernizing

school acilities, is at the point o being exhausted.30 The WilliamsSettlement Legislation established the ERP precisely to address

the need or emergency repair unds, but the state Legislature has not ullled its unding obligation. With the ERP account empty,

many districts have nowhere else to turn.

The emergency repair program

The WilliamsSettlement Legislation established the ERP to provide school districts with $800 million to immediately address

acility conditions in low perorming schools that pose urgent threats to students health and saety.31 The statutory ERP unding

ormula called or annual transers o $100 million dollars or more rom the Proposition 98 Reversion Account to the ERP Account.

Had the State allocated the minimum required amount each year, ully $800 million should have been transerred to the ERP

Account by 2012. Instead, the States net transers to the ERP Account have totaled only $338 million through the 2013 Budget Act

and the States cumulative net contribution to the ERP in the last ve years has been $0.

Now the ERP Account is empty, the Legislature has been annually amending the settlement statute to postpone appropriation o the

required unds, and students in low-perorming schools whose districts applied or help with health and saety repair projects up to

ve years ago continue to be exposed to critical dangers.

eRp Fudig (2004 - 2013)

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Minimum funding schedule

set forth in Williams Settleme

Legislation (cumulative)

Funds transferred to ERP

Account from Prop. 98

Reversion Account (cumulat

ERP funds distributed to LEA

(cumulative)

$338 Million

30

Dllr(iilli)

Fil yr


31/64

The State is $462 million behind the minimum unding schedule set orth in the WilliamsSettlement Agreement. The Legislature

must use both the Reversion Account and its authority under Education Code Section 17592.71(c) to transer sucient unds into

the ERP Account and ulll the States obligations under the WilliamsSettlement to address long-standing threats to students

health and saety.

Upwards o one hundred districts across the state are waiting to address identied emergency acility conditions that would havebeen resolved long ago i only ERP unds had been made available on schedule. For example, the $100 million minimum allocation

due each year would provide more than 60 districts with unding to pay or emergency repairs at over 550 schools. Projects that could

be completed with $100 million include over $11 million or re-lie saety system repairs (e.g., aulty or non-unctioning smoke/

re alarms and sprinkler systems), nearly $34 million or critical plumbing and electrical repairs, and $55 million to rectiy extensive

structural damage.

Funding or urgent health and saety repairs is in such high demand that the State Allocation Boards Oce o Public School

Construction stopped adding to its workload list in 2008, and ceased accepting urther applications in 2010. The balance o the

$800 million has already been claimed, promised to thousands o emergency projects that have been languishing in the unding

queue or over ve years.


32/64

prj tnubr

prj

au

arvdDrii c Rir

Roong 459 $119,445,569Damaged or leaking roofs, or other structural roof

damage; mold, dry-rot damage

Paving 406 $93,602,286Cracked, broken, or damaged concrete; unevenwalking and playing surfaces create trip and fall

conditions

Structural Damage 75 $54,866,404Dry-rot; extensive termite damage; existing building

deemed unsafe; severe water intrusion

HVAC 471 $47,356,497

Failed or leaking air conditioning and heating units;

malfunctioning equipment and components; extreme,

unbearable temperatures

Other 1,183 $33,580,054

Damaged, moldy, and falling ceiling tiles; deteriorated

and vandalized gas lines and equipment; gang related

grafti; pest infestation; tree removal

Campus Grounds 69 $20,817,672

Playelds have tripping hazards and are infested wi

williams v. california: nine years later

Documents