Editor’s Note: This week, a coalition of grassroots groups and individuals representing thousands of low-income students and parents sued the State of California over what they deem an “unconstitutional school funding system.” What makes this lawsuit, CQE et at. v. California, different from a similar case filed in May is a groundbreaking video campaign that supporters hope will expand their impact far beyond the California court system—and change the debate on the funding of public education.
The viral campaign, believed to be the first of its kind in the state and perhaps in the U.S., invites students and parents to upload short videos about their experiences in the public education system—video “postcards” that supporters hope will pressure the governor and legislature to rethink their budget priorities and put schools first. [To upload your own video, go to http://www.fairschoolsnow.org/events/viral-video-campaign] NAM’s Rupa Dev spoke to Tara Kini (TK), staff attorney at the Public Advocates, the law firm spearheading the legal battle, and the group’s communications director, Wynn Hausser (WH).
What is the significance of this lawsuit?
TK: CQE, et al. v. California [http://www.fairschoolsnow.org] asks the court to declare our current school financial system as unconstitutional and to recognize that some students, such as low-income and English-language-learner students, cost more to educate.
How did you formulate the idea for the video campaign?
TK: We wanted broad public support for this suit to show Sacramento that this isn’t just the individual plaintiffs and grassroots organizations speaking up. It’s a broader movement. When we were brainstorming how to bring more voices to the table, the grassroots organizations came up with the idea to compile raw video from students and parents across the state and create a YouTube video channel to showcase them for legislators and the governor to watch. How often do the legislators in Sacramento get to hear from people on the ground?
Tell us about the videos that have been uploaded so far.
WH: We asked students to talk about the conditions of their schools, what they want to be, and why they support the lawsuit. One male student, who wants to be a doctor, shares that his favorite class is music and now music will be cut in the upcoming school year. He says he supports the lawsuit because he has younger family members who will go through the public education system. In another video, a female student says, “I’m worth the investment,” in explanation for why she supports the lawsuit.
These videos struck me in particular—[instead of] esoteric discussions about numbers and budgets and legal issues, what the lawsuit ultimately is about is looking at that girl and saying, “Is she worth it”? How can anyone say no? This lawsuit is about the kids and future of California.
TK: You’ll see that the individual videos are raw—[in some cases, shot by] someone with a Flip cam.
Why should members of ethnic communities get involved with the viral campaign and upload videos of their own?
WH: Our lawsuit is on behalf of, and in the interest of, every student in California. They all have the same constitutional right, and they all have the need to have a good education. However, we know from research that many low-income kids from ethnic communities aren’t doing well in school, and their teachers are typically the least qualified.
Nobody will deny that the teacher is the single biggest factor in the success of a student.
So it is in the ethnic communities’ best interests to say, “We’re tired of being ignored and getting the short end of the stick.” This video campaign is a mechanism for people to express that sentiment. It’s a chance to speak directly to policymakers in California about their personal experiences. We’re not asking anyone to upload videos that cite statistics and be an expert in anything other than their own experience.
What do you hope comes of the video campaign? Are there any set goals?
WH: It’s an experiment. We don’t know what to expect, but what we do know is we have plenty of compelling material. We have more than 20 videos, and that’s just the start.
TK: Our next push is to get more students and parents to upload their postcards and share their stories.
Besides the video campaign, how is this lawsuit different from Robles-Wang et at. v. California, the suit that was filed in May?
WH: Fundamentally, they are the same. Both lawsuits are more common than different. But one key difference is that our clients are grassroots organizations that represent low-income people of color and individual plaintiffs from across the economic scale.
TK: [Our suit] recognizes that with additional funding, you need that funding to be efficiently spent. Our complaint outlines three foundational policies that need to be in place to provide all students for equitable education:
1. High-quality pre-school for all students.
2. An adequate data system to ensure dollars are spent on programs and policies that provide the greatest access to a meaningful education.
3. An adequate system for ensuring the most important element in student learning—well-prepared, effective teachers—are available to all students, particularly those in the neediest schools.
When did Public Advocates get involved with this lawsuit?
WH: Public Advocates is the first public-interest law firm in California. We’ve been working on education issues for almost 40 years. This lawsuit is a continuation of the fight to make sure the state is equitable in how it provides funding to education. [It’s] been in gestation for the last two years.
It’s true that Public Advocates has a long history of filing impact litigation to bring about change in California. But what can this litigation really accomplish amidst this terrible economic and political climate in this state?
WH: Several things can happen. Governor Schwarzenegger’s office has been quoted publicly, saying they are willing to work with us. One option is that talks can continue and in the last month of governor’s term, he might be so motivated to leave a positive legacy that he might want to move [on the lawsuit] and get this lawsuit done.
Or the lawsuit could take three to five years, and in that case, it's not like litigation is the only game we're playing. The lawsuit isn’t our only strategy. We've had a legislative and political strategy to advocate for equitable funding for a while. While there is pressure in the courts, we believe there will be incremental change along the way.
In some ways, bad economic times are the perfect time to redesign the school finance system. This is because when the money does become available, we’ll have a new, efficient system in place to distribute that money equitable. If we wait till the money is available, we’d have to go back fix the system, and that doesn’t make any sense at all. There’s no reason not to redesign the system now.
The issue here is that the state isn’t fulfilling its constitutional mandate to provide these services to students. It’s not our job to figure out how to change the system. The constitutional has put that decision in the hands of the governor and the legislature, but they’ve been paralyzed, and that’s why we turned to the courts.
Comments