williams progress update may 2009

8/2/2019 Williams Progress Update May 2009

1/19

Williams v. California:

A Progress Update

May 2009


2/19

2

Written by: Brooks M. Allen, Williams Implementation Attorney and Staff AttorneyACLU Foundation of Southern California

Edited by: Catherine E. Lhamon, Assistant Legal DirectorACLU Foundation of Southern California

The ACLU Foundation of Southern California is deeply grateful to The William and FloraHewlett Foundation for sponsoring the generation and production of this report.

We also thank our co-counsel for the Williams plaintiffs: Morrison & Foerster LLP, ACLU ofNorthern California, Public Advocates, Inc., Mexican American Legal Defense and EducationalFund, ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of theSan Francisco Bay Area, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Center for Law in the PublicInterest, Professor Karl Manheim, Professor Allen Ides, Professor Peter Edelman, and Newman.Aaronson. Vanaman.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Visit: www.decentschools.org

Call: Toll Free Williams Hotline (English and Espaol): 1-877-532-2533

Email:[email protected]

Write: Brooks AllenACLU Foundation of Southern California1313 West Eighth St.Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.decentschools.org/http://www.decentschools.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.decentschools.org/


3/19

3

INTRODUCTION

The Williams v. California settlement hadone simple truth at its heart: that at aminimum, all students need and may legallyexpect instructional materials to use in classand at home; clean, safe, and functionalclassrooms; and qualified teachers. Thisreport presents results from the first fouryears of implementation that demonstratethe essential value of maintaining theeducational floor protected by the Williams

standards and related accountability systemsgoverning provision of instructionalmaterials, facilities, and qualified teachers.The good news reflected in this report is thatthe progress made in the first years ofWilliams implementation continues acrossthe state. As a San Diego County Office ofEducation staff person reports: I heardmore positive feedback this past year fromour school administrators and teachers thanever before, in addition to seeing more

improvements in facilities/cleanliness and inuse of textbooks. The comments I heard and

what I saw made me really proud of ourwork.

Now, with unprecedented budget deficits inCalifornia, legislators and school leadershave been forced to consider cuts that at anyother time would be unfathomable. In thesetimes as in all others, Californias studentsdeserve vigilance in ensuring that theyreceive the educational opportunity to which

they are entitled. The truth that animatedthe Williams settlement is no less urgenttoday, while the current state budget crisisnecessarily tests the State of Californiascommitment to ensuring that all Californiaschool pupils have access to the basicelements of a quality education.

SCOPE OF THE SETTLEMENT AND THIS REPORT

As detailed in the two previous

implementation reports, the WilliamsSettlement Legislation established newstandards and accountability mechanisms toensure that all California public schoolstudents have textbooks and instructionalmaterials and that their schools are clean,safe, and functional. It also took stepstoward assuring all students have qualifiedteachers. The Settlement holds the stateaccountable for delivering thesefundamental elements and provides

approximately $1 billion to accomplishthese goals. The Settlement also phases outthe use of the Concept 6 multi-track, year-round school calendar by 2012.1

1 The Concept 6 calendar has 163 instructional days

per year versus 180 days on a traditional calendar.

This report is a supplement to the two previous reports on implementation of the

Williams v. California Settlement Legislation, The Williams v. California Settlement: The

First Year of Implementation and Williams v. California: The Statewide Impact of Two

Years of Implementation. Both reports are available atwww.decentschools.org.

[T]hese thresholds for teacher quality,

instructional materials, and school

facilities are intended by the

Legislature and by the Governor to be

a floor, rather than a ceiling, and a

beginning, not an end, to the State of

California's commitment and effort to

ensure that all California school pupilshave access to the basic elements of a

quality public education.

- Williams Settlement Legislation(Section 25, Chapter 900, Statutes of

2004 (SB 550))
http://www.decentschools.org/http://www.decentschools.org/http://www.decentschools.org/http://www.decentschools.org/


4/19

4

The new standards and many of theaccountability systems established by theWilliams Settlementincluding the annualinstructional materials sufficiency hearings,the district facility inspection systems, the

teacher assignment monitoring procedures,the Uniform Complaint Process, and theSchool Accountability Report Cardrequirementsapply to all public schools.2Every student has a right to sufficienttextbooks, a school in good repair, and aqualified teacher.

This report primarily focuses on the impactthe Williams Settlement Legislation has hadon Californias lowest performing schools

(those ranked in deciles one through threeon the Base Academic Performance Index(API)), which receive additional oversightand financial assistance under the SettlementLegislation.3 The majority of data andinformation presented on the followingpages are drawn from CountySuperintendent reports and surveyresponses. County Superintendents in 45 ofCalifornias 58 counties visit and reviewdecile 1-3 schools annually to determine

2 Charter schools are exempt unless they choose to

opt-in to Williams. Decile 1-3 charter schools that

opt in receive the benefits and must adhere to the new

standards and accountability systems established by

the Williams Settlement Legislation.

3 The California Department of Education has

compiled a list of these schools pursuant to Education

Code Section 1240. The list is posted at

http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/ce/wc/wmsschools.asp.

The list of decile 1-3 schools is updated every threeyears. The current list is based on the 2006 Base

API. From 2004-05 through 2006-07, the schools

receiving additional funds and oversight were the

schools ranked in deciles one to three, inclusive, on

the 2003 Base API. The list will be updated again for

the 2010-11 school year based on the 2009 Base API.

compliance with the Williams instructionalmaterials and facilities standards and todetermine whether each schools SchoolAccountability Report Card accuratelyreports these data. They also annually

monitor, review, and report on teacherassignments and teacher vacancies in decile1-3 schools.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/ce/wc/wmsschools.asphttp://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/ce/wc/wmsschools.asphttp://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/ce/wc/wmsschools.asp


5/19

TEXTBOOKS AND INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

The Williams instructional materialssufficiency standards and accountability

systems continue to ensure students accessto standards-aligned textbooks andinstructional materials. The WilliamsSettlement Legislation requires that allschools must provide each pupil, including

English learners with a standards-alignedtextbook or instructional materials, or both,to use in class and to take home.4 This isthe legal definition of sufficient textbooks

orinstructional

materials,and aninsufficiencyarises whenany studentdoes not havesufficienttextbooksand/orinstructionalmaterials to

use in classand to takehome.

In addition, the recent categorical flexibilityprovisions for state funding enacted inFebruary 2009 have not altered the Williamsstandard regarding provision of instructionalmaterials. Schools that receive funds forinstructional materials from any state sourcemust continue to provide all students with

sufficient textbooks or instructionalmaterials and hold annual sufficiency

hearings during the first eight weeks of the

4 California Education Code Section 60119(c).

school year to ensure this standard is met.5These requirements are not contingent on

increases in base revenue limits and applyeven if a district elects to use stateinstructional materials funds for anothereducational purpose in 2008-09 through2012-13.6

Thanks in significant part to the efforts ofcounty superintendents across the state aswell as to increased district and school-level

vigilance,every student

attending adecile 1-3school in thelast three yearsofWilliamsimplementat-ion hadsufficienttextbooks andinstructionalmaterials in the

four coresubjects beforethe eighthweek of school

at the very latest.7 As illustrated in the tableabove, county superintendents helped makethis possible by identifying, in the first fourweeks of each school year, a total of more

5 Senate Bill X3 4 (Chapter 12 of the Statutes of

2009), 18; Education Code Section 60119.

6 Senate Bill X3 4 (Chapter 12 of the Statutes of2009), 15; Education Code Section 42605.

7 In 2004-05, the first year of implementation, county

offices of education reported that 93% of

insufficiencies were remedied, a considerable

accomplishment considering visits were conducted at

the end of the school year.


6/19

6

than 199,124 missing textbooks andinstructional materials (such as lab scienceequipment) and ensuring they were orderedand/or distributed to students.

County office of education staffsconsistently report that the progress theyoversee in ensuring delivery of instructionalmaterials to students underscores, for them,the vital importance ofWilliams. Forexample, a Stanislaus County Office ofEducation staff member has reported that, incontrast to the pre-Williams conditions inthat county, classrooms are no longer usingclass sets only and texts are available forstudents to study at home. Likewise, theMadera County Office of Education reportsthat we are now seeing a one to one ratio oftextbooks to students, whereas before it wascommon at the middle school and highschool level to just have a class set of booksin many classrooms. And according to theLake County Office of Education, becauseofWilliams, students are getting[textbooks] at the beginning of the year, allstudents have texts, and no more copying ofmaterials is required in schools in thatcounty. The Kern County Office ofEducation concretized these points stillfurther, noting that in 2005 all middleschools in this county under Williams reviewdid not allow students to take textbookshome. One school district that has a highpoverty level did not allow books to go

homenow all schools do.

Year-to-year progress in preventinginsufficiencies is more difficult to assess.At first glance, the figures in the table onpage 5 may suggest that while ultimately all

students are receiving sufficient textbooksand instructional materials, a small minorityof schools may be struggling year after yearto make certain all students have theirmaterials before county superintendents visittheir campuses. This explanation, however,would be inconsistent with the widespreadaccounts of districts improving theirtextbook ordering, inventory, anddistribution systems. Accordingly, the mostlikely explanation for the strongly consistentpercentages of schools with at least oneinsufficiency and numbers of missinginstructional materials over the past threeyears appears to be that more county officesof education have started collecting data oninsufficiencies that are remedied quickly. Inthe early years of implementation, manycounty offices of education did not maintainrecords of insufficiencies that wereaddressed immediately (for example, byproviding a new book to a student while thecounty office of education team was still onsite) and therefore were not formallyreported to the school district and StateSuperintendent of Public Instruction. As thenumber and scope of such insufficienciesdecreased, more county offices of educationbegan to track all insufficiencies, in part tobetter assess the true impact of thesufficiency reviews. For example, in 2007-08, the Los Angeles County Office ofEducation documented 31,547insufficiencies that were immediately

remedied during their reviews, whereas in2006-07 they did not collect this data, so theinsufficiency totals for the two years are notfully comparable. Likewise, the AlamedaCounty Office of Education documented967 insufficiencies in 2007-08 that would

Williams has ensured that instructional materials are available for the

students early in the school year. Alameda County Office of Education


7/19

7

not have been reported in 2006-07 becausethey were corrected before a formal five-daynotice of insufficiency had to be sent to theschool district.

In addition, the list of schools countysuperintendents needed to visit changed in2007-08 when the state department ofeducation issued a new list of decile 1-3schools based on the 2006 Base AcademicPerformance Index.8 The total number ofdecile 1-3 schools increased from 2,053 to2,099 and while many schools remained onthe list, approximately one-quarter of theschools on the statewide list changed.

County superintendents continue to reportthat districts with decile 1-3 schools areimproving their textbook ordering,inventory, and distribution systems in orderto provide all students with sufficienttextbooks and instructional materials at thebeginning of the year. In the third andfourth years ofWilliams implementation,consistent with accounts shared in previousimplementation reports, districts such as LosAngeles Unified, San Francisco Unified,Long Beach Unified, Compton Unified, aswell as districts in Monterey, San Joaquin,Santa Clara, and Solano counties havestarted using electronic tracking systems togo beyond purchasing and shipment trackingto ensure that textbooks reach students.Also, schools, regardless of API ranking, areincreasingly surveying teachers to determineif every student has sufficient instructionalmaterials because the survey results providethe necessary evidentiary basis for eachdistricts annual instructional materials

sufficiency hearing and resolution.

8 See note 3.

The San Bernardino County Office ofEducation sums up the type ofcomprehensive reforms that are taking placeacross the state: Districts created aninventory process, completed textbook spot

checks at the site on the second week of theschool year, completed a thoroughexamination of the number of textbooks,completed projections for the upcomingschool year, and identified schools that havean excess of books and connected them withschools that have a shortage of books.With such integrated approaches tosufficiency, students and teachers willbenefit by having the instructional materialsthey need early in the school year.


8/19

SCHOOL FACILITIES

County office of education reports from2006-07 and 2007-08 continue to

demonstrate that inspections of decile 1-3school facilities are improving classroomconditions and helping address criticalhealth and safety threats. As the OrangeCounty Office of Education reports,feedback from teachers and principals isthat facility issues are addressed promptlydue to Williams. Similarly, the MaderaCounty Office of Education reports seeinga huge difference in the condition of the sitefacilities because of its Williams

inspections.

Indeed, repairs are sometimes completedbefore county office of education inspectorseven leave campus. As described inprevious implementation reports, in somedistricts, maintenance personnel shadowfacilities inspectors and fix deficiencies asthey are identified. Where this does notoccur, or when the deficiencies are moresevere and pose health and safety threats,

staff in most county offices of educationfollow up to confirm repairs. The countyoffices of education in Alameda, Fresno,Kings, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey,Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, SanJoaquin, San Mateo, and Tulare all followup with some combination of return visitsand required documentation confirmingrepairs; this model is particularly effectivefor ensuring students access to decent

school facilities.

The table on this page illustrates thatincreasingly well-trained facility inspectorsare conducting thorough reviews because itis rare for a school site not to have at leastone good repair deficiency (i.e., acondition that makes the school less thancompletely clean, safe and functional).

In the early years of implementation, someinspectors expressed reticence about

formally reporting deficiencies that theybelieved were relatively minor because theInterim Evaluation Instrument used todetermine good repair placed schools inonly two categoriesgood repair or notin good repair. The permanent evaluation

instrument, the Facility Inspection Tool(FIT), includes a ratings system intended inpart to address this problem, and it appearsto be working. The table and chart belowsuggest inspectors are increasingly willing

to document all deficiencies knowing thatthe overall good repair ratings provide afair system with gradations that can placethe individual deficiencies in context.


9/19

9

The county offices of education (COEs) thattracked repairs of emergency facilityconditions in 2006-07, which included allbut four COEs, found that only one healthand safety hazard was not successfully

remedied. In most instances, districts tookall necessary steps to address seriousproblems. For just one example, a school inYuba County was shut down due to criticalstructural problems identified through theWilliams inspection process.

Unfortunately, in 2007-08, fewer COEstracked whether the extreme deficienciesthey identified were subsequently remedied.Where tracked, almost all extreme

deficiencies were remedied, but given thenature of the problems, it is troubling thatdistricts did not always act swiftly. Forexample, districts in Los Angeles Countyfailed to repair 36 of the 96 extremedeficiencies within 30 days. The LosAngeles CountyOffice ofEducation(LACOE) issuedfollow-up noticesto the respectiveschools anddistricts andidentified themas having failedto resolve theirextremedeficiencieswithin 30 days inLACOEsAnnual WilliamsReport. Theresults of the2008-09 LACOEfacilitiesinspectionsshoulddemonstrate if

these measures have been effective inmotivating districts to address all health andsafety threats immediately.

The Williams Settlement Legislation created

the $800 million Emergency RepairProgram (ERP) to ensure school districtscould immediately address all facilityconditions that pose emergency or urgentthreats to the health and safety of pupils orstaff in decile 1-3 schools. The ERP allowsdistricts to address emergency facilityconditions without having to draw downfunds set aside for major maintenanceprojects and thereby placing themselves injeopardy of experiencing more facilities

problems caused by a lack of regularmaintenance. In 2004-05 and 2005-06, theERP was structured as a reimbursementprogram; a district had to pay for andcomplete the emergency repairs before itapplied to the state for funds. The state


10/19

would reimbursethe district for100% of thecosts of therepairs if the

districtsapplication wasapproved.However, if thestate Office ofPublic SchoolConstructiondenied theapplication, thedistrict had tocover all the

costs alreadyincurred. Somesite and districtadministratorsexpressedreluctance tostart emergencyrepair projectsbecause they were uncertain about whetherthey would be reimbursed and did not havethe funds to pay for them otherwise. Someofficials also expressed confusion aboutwhat types of projects would qualify for theprogram. These factors contributed to therelatively low number of applicationssubmitted in the first two years of theprogram despite documentation ofapproximately $803 million worth ofnecessary repairs at eligible schools in

2005 through the School Facilities NeedsAssessment Grant Program.9

9 The results of the School Facilities Needs

Assessments are publicly available at

www.applications.opsc.dgs.ca.gov/fnaReporting/fna

Reporting.asp.

On July 2, 2007, however, the ERP becamea grant program, allowing eligible schools toreceive funds before they conduct

repairs. Eligible schools also may stillreceive reimbursements if they conductrepairs before applying for funds. This newgrant option led to a massive surge inapplications and the program is nowoversubscribed, as illustrated above.Consequently, the Office of Public SchoolConstruction has posted the following noticeon the Emergency Repair Programwebsite:10

Funds will be made available annuallythrough the Budget Act and the programwill operate until $800 million has beenallocated. OPSC continues to acceptapplications but will not add them to theworkload list at this time. Once $800 million

10http://www.opsc.dgs.ca.gov/Programs/SABProgra

ms/ERP.htm(last visited May 26, 2009).
http://www.applications.opsc.dgs.ca.gov/fnaReporting/fnaReporting.asphttp://www.applications.opsc.dgs.ca.gov/fnaReporting/fnaReporting.asphttp://www.applications.opsc.dgs.ca.gov/fnaReporting/fnaReporting.asphttp://www.opsc.dgs.ca.gov/Programs/SABPrograms/ERP.htmhttp://www.opsc.dgs.ca.gov/Programs/SABPrograms/ERP.htmhttp://www.opsc.dgs.ca.gov/Programs/SABPrograms/ERP.htmhttp://www.opsc.dgs.ca.gov/Programs/SABPrograms/ERP.htmhttp://www.opsc.dgs.ca.gov/Programs/SABPrograms/ERP.htmhttp://www.opsc.dgs.ca.gov/Programs/SABPrograms/ERP.htmhttp://www.applications.opsc.dgs.ca.gov/fnaReporting/fnaReporting.asphttp://www.applications.opsc.dgs.ca.gov/fnaReporting/fnaReporting.asp


11/19

11

has been allocated, anyremaining applications willbe returned to the LEAs.

The success of the

Emergency Repair Programis captured by the numbersreflecting its uses anddistrict and county staffcomments about its impacton students. For example,a district official from theCoalinga-Huron UnifiedSchool District has writtenthat the Emergency RepairProgram has provided a

breath of fresh air into theschool maintenance teams.There are monies availablethrough the ERP that areNOT available elsewhere,and in sums that are quite a bit higher thanthe allocations available to the schools.

Looking Ahead: Projects Waiting for Funding

Sixty-seven schooldistricts haveapplicationspending for the$101 millionprovided by the2008-09 BudgetAct and the next$100 millionappropriation forthe ERP. This

$201 million willpay for 2860critical repairprojects at 436schools across thestate.


12/19

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT 6MULTI-TRACK,

YEAR-ROUND SCHOOL CALENDAR

The Williams Settlement Legislation

established standards and proceduresfor phasing out school districts use of

the Concept 6 multi-track, year-roundschool calendar, which provides only163 days of classroom instructioninstead of the common 180 days.

Lodi Unified School District (LUSD)and Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict (LAUSD) were the only twoschool districts still operating schools

on the Concept 6 calendar in 2004-2005, when Williams settled, so theSettlement Legislation required them tosubmit comprehensive action plans tothe California Department of Education(CDE) by January 1, 2005, detailingstrategies and steps to be takenannually to eliminate the use of theConcept 6 program as soon aspracticable and no later than July 1,2012.

As illustrated in the graph above, LodiUnified successfully phased out theiruse of the Concept 6 calendar in 2006-07, leaving LAUSD as the only districtstill operating schools on the Concept 6calendar. The district is working tomeet the phase-out deadline of July 1,2012, and is making satisfactory progress asmeasured against the approved progressbenchmarks according to the most recent

reports from CDE. After three years, thenumber of schools operating on the Concept6 calendar in LAUSD is down from 130 to42 and the total enrollment in Concept 6schools has decreased from 255,431 to106,996.

As of January 1, 2008, LAUSD projectedenrollment in Concept 6 schools would

actually rise a bit in 2008-09 to 110,791students, but then will steadily fall to 99,417in 2009-10, 98,604 in 2010-11, 55,356 in

2011-12, and finally 0 in 2012-2013. Theseprojections, even with the projected rise in2008-09, are consistent with the benchmarkceilings for year-to-year progress of theConcept 6 calendar phase-out plan that CDEapproved, in part because LAUSD madesuch significant progress in 2007-08 inreducing its number of students subjected tothe Concept 6 calendar.


13/19

QUALIFIED TEACHERS:

CORRECTING TEACHER MISASSIGNMENTS

Students access to appropriately certificated

and assigned teachers has improveddramatically over the course of the first fouryears of implementation, with particularlynotable improvements in English Learnerstudents access to such teachers. TheCalifornia Commission on TeacherCredentialing (CTC) recently released areport describing how across all schools, theWilliams settlement created a new focus inthe review of English learner assignmentsresulting in better identification of teachers

that lacked the authorization to provideinstructional services to English learners.11The CTC explained that the high numbers ofteacher misassignments identified in theimmediate wake of the Settlement

11 Purdue, Roxann. Assignment Monitoring of

Certificated Employees in California by County

Offices of Education 2003-2007, A Report to the

Legislature, California Commission on Teacher

Credentialing, August 2008:

http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/AMR-090108.pdf.

Legislation were a result of the more

rigorous monitoring conducted by thecounty offices, and not an increase inactual misassignments, concluding that thisis a positive outcome of the Williamssettlement.

12

County offices of education founddisturbingly high numbers ofmisassignments in decile 1-3 schools andsuccessfully worked with their local districtsto correct them. Progress was especially

dramatic between the 2005-06 and 2006-07school years, though the trend appears tohave reversed slightly in 2007-08 with anuptick in subject matter and English Learner(EL) teaching misassignments; these

12 Id.
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/AMR-090108.pdfhttp://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/AMR-090108.pdfhttp://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/AMR-090108.pdf


14/19

14

increases may beattributable to theschools receiving theirfirst annual review afterthe three-year Williams

list was updated, addingnew schools to bereviewed. Notably,although the totalnumber of EL teachermisassignmentsincreased from 7,563 in2006-07 to 8,835 in2007-08, the number ofclasses with asignificant number of

English Learners (20%or more) and an ELteacher misassignmentfell by over half for thethird year in a row.13

The CTC has reported acorresponding sharpincrease in the number ofapplications requestingan English learnerauthorization, and thenumber of veteranteachers completing aCertificate ofCompletion of EnglishLearner StaffDevelopment (CCSD)has risen from 4,314 in2005-06 to 6,726 in2006-07 to 9,455 in2007-08.14 Countyoffices of educationconfirm this data.

13 Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

14 Teacher Supply in California 2007-2008.California Commission on Teacher Credentialing:http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/TS_2007-2008_AnnualRpt.pdf.
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/TS_2007-2008_AnnualRpt.pdfhttp://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/TS_2007-2008_AnnualRpt.pdfhttp://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/TS_2007-2008_AnnualRpt.pdfhttp://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/TS_2007-2008_AnnualRpt.pdfhttp://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/TS_2007-2008_AnnualRpt.pdf


15/19

15

For example, the Sonoma County Office ofEducation reports that Williams has causedmany districts to pursue credentialingteachers who were not credentialed to teachEL students. This has made a great impact

on teacher knowledge regarding how tobetter instruct students who are learning tospeak English.

The Williams Settlement Legislationrequired, for the first time, annualmonitoring of teacher misassignments indecile 1-3 schools and schools likely to havemisassignments and vacancies and,

anticipating that further steps would benecessary, called for legislative hearingsbased on the new data collected. Asillustrated below, the data reported becauseofWilliams reveals that even in the lowest-

performing schools there continues to be anegative correlation between a schoolsranking on the Base Academic PerformanceIndex and the number of misassignments atthe school. These data underscore theurgent need for legislative action to build onthe success ofWilliams assignmentmonitoring to help all schools attract andretain fully qualified teachers.


16/19

THE WILLIAMSUNIFORM COMPLAINT PROCESS

District quarterly reports on WilliamsComplaints from 2004-05 through 2007-08suggest that awareness and utilization of thecomplaint process is spreading. Parents,students, and teachers are increasingly usingcomplaints to highlight problems and ensurestudents receive the basic necessitiesguaranteed under Williams. The overallnumber of complaints filed statewide hasrisen every year since the Settlement, andthough some of the largest districts in the

state are home to many of the complaints(e.g., schools in Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict received 1406 complaints through2007-08), there is complaint activity acrossthe state. Twenty-nine of forty-three countyoffices of education received reports ofcomplaints in 2007-08.

School districts self-reported resolutionrates (illustrated on the next page) areencouraging, especially considering thatsome unresolved complaints were

ultimately resolved within the required 30working days, though after the respectivedistricts quarterly report was due.Conversely, anecdotal evidence fromindividual complainants indicates that theresolution rates may be artificially high insome cases where school districts do nottake the complainants assessment intoaccount when reporting a complaint asresolved.

The Williamsplaintiffs counsel remaincommitted to ensuring that the promise ofthis unprecedented accountability tool forstudents and parents is realized.


17/19


18/19

ConclusionThe four years of implementation have

consistently demonstrated that clearstandards combined with effective oversightand vigilant monitoring and advocacy fromthe community and counsel for plaintiffstogether provide improved educationalopportunity for California public schoolstudents. Even as schools, districts, andcounties become more aware of andcompliant with Williams requirements, thisreport shows that each year county offices ofeducation have to work with districts to

distribute tens of thousands of books tostudents who would otherwise not havereceived them, districts continue to identifyfacilities repair needs that threaten studentshealth and safety and to seekWilliamsfunding to satisfy those needs, countyoffices of education identify teachermisassignments and work with districts tocorrect them, and teachers apply inincreasing numbers to gain credentials toavoid such misassignments. These

overlapping efforts demonstrate the efficacyand utility of the Williams settlement in theaggregate.

County and district practitioners oftendemonstrate that efficacy in even moreconcrete specifics. For example, a KingsCounty Office of Education staff personreports that by this most recent year ofWilliamsimplementation, it has come tothe point that districts and schools are

working with us and not against us. Theyare now prepared, making sure that everystudent has all the text materials that arerequired and that the teaching environmentis safe and clean. Some of the classes evenget upset if I haven't chosen their classroomfor visitation. Yolo County Office of

Education staff echo this view: principals

have come to see Williams monitoring as asupport to their efforts to provide a qualityeducational experience to their students.Some report jealousy from other principalswho do not get the benefits of beingmonitored (i.e. the perception that monitoredschools get the quickest response to requestsfor help from district administrators).

These validations of schools new readinessfor their oversight visits, and therefore for

their students learning, and of the efficacyof a process whose absence would bemissed, is consistent with reports fromaround the state. For another example, theOrange County Office of Education reportsthat districts are correcting issues in atimely fashion which in turn, provides abetter environment for students and staff.

The Los Angeles County Office ofEducation summed up Williams overall

impact, noting that because ofWilliams,school systems made an impressive changein the district/school culture to emphasizethat teaching and learning began on the firstday of school. This was not the beliefsystem at the beginning of the Williamsprogram. Future reforms can learn from theWilliams program in that change can occurif the focus is children and that allstakeholders are involved in the process andresults. Californias public school students

look forward to that continued focus onchildren and on results as Californiacontinues implementation ofWilliams.


19/19

19

Without a doubt the budge

crisis is real and will require

our public policy leaders to

make difficult choices. Thos

choices should not serve as

excuse to abandon poor

children. The Williams

Settlement mandates basic

equity in our schools. These

mandates must be

maintained. Our leaders m

consider the real costs to

society when we fail to

educate our students. We

cannot afford to fail those

students who already are

paying the price for the lack

qualified teachers,

instructional materials and

clean and safe schools.

- May 22, 2008, Los Angeles WavEditorial by Pamela Short-Powel

Superintendent of Inglewood Un

School District and President of t

California Association of African

American Superintendents; Edna

Herring, Superintendent of Rialto

Unified School District; and Dwig

Bonds, Acting Executive Director

williams progress update may 2009

Documents