CONTACT

Californians Together

Championing the Success of English Learners

To Archive

Court of Appeals Oral Arguments – Update

by

Coachella Valley Unified School District et al. v. State of California et al.

Case no. A120667— Oral argument May 18, 2009—status report

On May 18, 2009 over 80 parents, teachers, administrators and board members gathered in San Francisco to witness the oral arguments of our NCLB Testing Lawsuit, Coachella Valley Unified School District v. the State of California.  Prior to entering the court house, Senator Gloria Romero, our attorney – Mary Hernandez, a teacher, board member and superintendent spoke to our supporters and the press as to the importance of this lawsuit and the significance it has to close to 1.6 million English learners. Our numbers were so large that once the oral arguments started half of the group had to participate in an overflow auditorium where the hearing were broadcast live.

 At the oral argument, the court declared the matter submitted, which means that the court will now consider the record (evidence and argument) closed. The one exception is the request from the court to the State, to provide citations to the record (the evidence presented to the trial court) of statistical or psychometric data that the CSTs and CAHSEE are valid and reliable and/or accurate measures of English Learner academic knowledge.  Per the court website, that information is due May 22.

The appellate court now prepares an opinion. The opinion can be unanimous or split 2-1. The internal operating rules for the First Appellate District are posted on its website and explain the court process for reaching agreement on an opinion. A dissenting justice can issue his/her own opinion as well.

There is no set time really for the issuance of an opinion. It ranges from a week to several months. Although technically an opinion must issue within 90 days, if the court needs more time, it procedurally can. Opinions can be published or not. Published opinions are precedential.

Either side can appeal the Court of Appeal decision to the California Supreme Court. However these appeals are discretionary and a very low percentage of appeals are actually taken.

Continue to check this website for updates. We will post the decision as soon as the court decides.

Media Advisory

"Acquiring Language and Academic Literacy for English Learners through Content Instruction" – Register NOW

by

presented by Deborah J. Short, PhD. Deborah is a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Applied Linguistics and Co-developer of the SIOP Model. This session focuses on best practices for middle and high school English learners who need to acquire academic language and literacy skills for success in school.
Date: May 28, 2009
Place: Luminarias Restaurant
3500 W. Ramona Blvd.
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Time: 8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Brochure and Registration Form

2008 Reading/Language Arts Adoption Recommendations

by

During the spring and summer of 2008 representatives of the Californians Together attended two California Department of Education trainings for the Instructional Materials Advisory Panel members and had over seventeen experts observe the textbook deliberations. Each of the observers learned much about the process and the materials and was impressed with the commitment of the panel members, the commissioners and staff. More importantly, the observers walked away with a better understanding of the adoption process, and the challenge of selecting instructional materials that best serve the instructional needs of all students, including English learners.Based upon our observations of the work of the advisory panels, Californians Together offers the attached findings on the process, criteria and content of the materials with recommendations.

Update on NCLB Testing Lawsuit

by

Coachella Valley USD et. al. v. State of California San Francisco Superior Court decision is appealed to the First Appellate District – Division 5 in San Francisco

Superior Court Judge Kramer decided on May 25, 2007 that he didn’t have the authority through the writ of mandate process to order California to change its testing system for the purposes of the No Child Left Behind Act because he decided that the duties under NCLB are discretionary, not mandatory.  He did not review any evidence nor made any determination on whether or not California’s testing meets the requirement under NCLB that they be valid and reliable for English learners

Attached are the opening brief May 2008 and final brief November 2008, declaration from California School Boards Association and an amicus brief from the California Rural Legal Assistance filed with the appellate court.  The next step is for the court to set a date for oral arguments.

Opening Brief Final Brief CSBA Declaration CRLA Amicus Brief

Supplanting versus Supplementing – Categorical Program Integrity

by

Twelve organizations are urging the State Superintendent of Instruction and the President of the State Board of Education to clarify the intent of categorical funds.  State law and court cases lay the legal foundation for guaranteeing that categorical funds are to supplement the base program and not supplant the services guaranteed to English learners.  The following letter should be shared with all stakeholders. Letter to Supt. O’Connell