A group of students, identified as economically disadvantaged minorities, are allowed to continue their lawsuit accusing the state of California and school officials of discrimination stemming from school closure and remote learning policies amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Brad Seligman issued an opinion Aug. 7 on the five-part complaint against the state, the California Department of Education, the State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. The plaintiffs, current and former Oakland and Los Angeles Unified School District students identified as “economically disadvantaged people of color,” say the state constitution guarantees based education equality.
“This case does not address any overarching claims about state’s response to the Covid epidemic, nor the closures of schools that were the result of emergency orders,” Seligman wrote. “This case is also likewise not about historic inequities suffered by students of color or lower socio-economic means. The narrow focus of this case targets the period of time when the schools were physically closed and learning was available only remotely.”
Seligman said all California public schools operated remotely from March through November 2020. In Los Angeles students went back to class in person in January 2021, and the Oakland schools “fully” reopened that March.
“During the remote learning period, defendants distributed more than 45,000 laptops and more than 73,000 computing devices to students throughout California,” he wrote. “However, between 800,000 and 1 million students remained without access, or without sufficient access, to online classes.”
In arguing for summary judgment, the defendants said they engaged in “robust and wide-ranging efforts to remediate the impact of the pandemic” while also saying the plaintiffs failed to show a state policy causing the alleged disparate impact or prove their educational experience didn’t meet the “prevailing statewide standard” after in-person classes resumed.
The defendants further argued the plaintiffs couldn’t show disparate impact as a result of Covid policies, while also singling out racial minorities and low-income families as “historically disadvantaged populations.”
But Seligman said that position presents “a triable issue of fact” unsuited for summary judgment.
He said the defendants, at a hearing, likewise conceded the same degree of uncertainly colors the question of whether an actionable state policy can be connected to the alleged disparate impact.
The judge said the plaintiffs should be allowed to press ahead with their claims that their students' "education fell ‘fundamentally below; the prevailing standard.”
He said the plaintiffs submitted a report showing “achievement gaps grew between economically advantaged and disadvantaged students from 2019 to 2022” and that the defendants’ witnesses confirmed the device and connectivity shortages during mandatory remote learning.
“Defendants were aware of this lack of access and estimated that it would cost $400-500 million to remedy this, but only raised about $18 million for this purpose, enough for 45,884 Chromebooks,” Seligman wrote. “Defendants also knew that socioeconomically disadvantaged and students of color had higher percentages of lack of access to connectivity and digital devices than other students."
Seligman also said there are factual disputes over the showing of statewide assessment results and said the number of unresolved issues “precludes summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ equal protection claims without resort to plaintiffs’ individual experiences or a few districts.”
The defendants further argued that, even if there were a showing of discriminatory disparate impact, the plaintiffs would have to prove the state took no “reasonable steps” to avoid that outcome. But again, whether the steps the defendants claim they took is reasonable “is a triable issue of fact.”
Although Seligman largely denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, he did determine the plaintiffs failed to show a violation of the state constitutional guarantee of a free education. He said there was “no evidence” of any affirmative charges or any case law establishing it is possible to show such a violation absent any such fees or charges.