Background

On July 9, 2008, the SBE voted to direct staff to negotiate a compliance agreement with the U.S. Department of Education whereby the Algebra I end-of-course exam for all 8th grade students would become the sole assessment for purposes of complying with the federal No Child Left Behind Act.   Analysis by ACSA and CSBA staff indicates that the agenda and information provided to the public failed to give the public legally sufficient notice that the SBE was contemplating the action ultimately taken. In fact, the agenda and public description was not only non-informative, we believe it was affirmatively misleading, as it proposed a wholly different course of action from that actually taken - action apparently requested by the Governor in a letter delivered to the SBE the day before the meeting.  This action, in our view, did not comply with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (i.e. the "Brown Act" for state agencies).

ACSA, CSBA, and others advocated that the SBE's action was outside of their statutory authority per the following:

1. Under statute, the authority to designate an assessment is the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Public Instruction not the SBE.
2. The action taken by the SBE designates an assessment that is not properly aligned with the existing academic content standards in grades 8-12, which are grade span not grade specific.
3. The SBE action requires a revision of the content standards beyond the SBE's statutory authority.

On August 22, ACSA and CSBA sent a demand letter to the SBE outlining these arguments and requesting that this issue be brought back before the board for reconsideration.  When it became apparent that the SBE had no intention of doing this, CSBA and ACSA filed a formal legal complaint on September 4 in Sacramento Superior Court requesting that this decision be ruled null and void for reasons outlined above.  We also learned that the Governor's Office had initiated negotiations with the federal government for the development of a compliance plan without further input from stakeholders, further necessitating the need for legal action.

Rationale for legal action

The ACSA-CSBA legal complaint challenges the manner in which the SBE made its decision and the statutory authority to do so.  ACSA and CSBA's complaint is not focused on the merits of algebra, nor that of strong academic standards.  Both associations view algebra as a "gateway" course critical to the overall success of students.  Rather, we believe the SBE's July decision violated the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act and did not provide the public appropriate notice that the board intended to take this particular action.  In fact, there was no indication this action would be considered until the Governor sent a letter to board members the day before.  Furthermore, our complaint challenges the SBE's authority to make such a decision.  We believe that such authority resides with the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Legislature, not the SBE.
The SBE's July action on Algebra I will have significant impacts on LEAs and education leaders throughout the state.  No plan or local funding assistance to implement this policy change has been identified by the state policy makers.  State Superintendent O'Connell released an initial analysis indicating the SBE's action could require up to $3 billion in addition funding to adequately implement by 2010.  O'Connell's analysis identified the need for substantial state and local investments in teacher preparation, professional development, curriculum, instruction, among others.  These arguments formed the basis of ACSA and CSBA's initial policy opposition to the SBE's July action.

Recommendations for LEAs and education leaders

This matter is in its infancy as well as a state of flux.  State officials and local education leaders continue to sort out what this will mean for educators and school districts.  The SBE's action would affect all 8th grade students in the 2011-12 academic year.  It will likely be sometime before state officials provide direction on what LEAs and education leaders should do to comply with this new mandate.  In the meantime, the matter will be adjudicated and subject to possible court action.  Finally, it is entirely possible that the matter could be influenced by possible changes to NCLB as a result of a new presidential administration in 2009.  Given this situation, we recommend the following at this point in time:

• Districts and county offices are advised to continue instructional programs according to current board adopted and state approved policies 
• Education leaders should continue to place students in the math courses that best serve their needs and ensures algebra readiness 
   
• We encourage education leaders to communicate and confer with internal stakeholders (teachers, principals, board members) regarding this pending policy change and what it might require of your LEA

ACSA will provide its members and the education community further updates and policy recommendations as this matter continues to evolve.  Copies of our demand letter and legal complaint are available on our website at www.acsa.org in the advocacy section under Education Legal Support Fund.  For additional information and/or assistance, please contact either of us per the following:

Brett McFadden                                Sherry Skelly Griffith
916-444-3216 ext. 3810                  916-444-3216 ext 3805
bmcfadden@acsa.org                     sgriffith@acsa.org