State will pay $2B to help students who fell behind in pandemic

California will propose legislation to better identify and provide resources for students requiring additional educational support as part of a $2 billion settlement expected to be announced Thursday, resolving claims that the state neglected the educational needs of low-income students and students of color during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel said the funding and tools that districts across California will receive represent the largest one-time agreement in an educational equity lawsuit anywhere in the nation.

“The urgent vision of this historic settlement is not just to recoup the academic losses suffered by California’s most disadvantaged students but to erase the opportunity gaps altogether exacerbated by the pandemic,” said Rosenbaum, the lead plaintiff’s counsel with Morrison & Foerster LLP partner Michael A. Jacobs. “This is a victory of partnership of students, caregivers, and community organizations with California’s leadership that recognizes that educational opportunity is the state’s greatest natural resource.”

Jacobs added that the litigation could have taken several more years and that he expected the resources to be in place by the upcoming school year. Under the settlement, the state’s school districts “will take a hard look at the pandemic recovery needs of their students, and then apply evidence-based tools to address those needs,” he said.

The agreement requires districts to put in place needs assessments and the state Department of Education to publicly report academic performance and absenteeism data by school and local educational agencies, including a baseline comparison to pre-pandemic levels.

“We appreciate the collaborative approach and the insights that the plaintiffs offered that informed this proposal. We look forward to engaging with the legislature and stakeholders over the coming weeks and months to advance this proposal and focus learning recovery dollars on serving the students with the greatest need,” Alex Traverso, the communications director for the State Board of Education, said in an email Wednesday.

Cayla J., an 8-year-old student in Oakland at the time the lawsuit was filed in 2020, and over a dozen other plaintiff students named in the case were denied educational equality guaranteed by the California Constitution during remote learning because of the state’s negligence and inaction, according to the complaint submitted in Alameda County Superior Court.

Black and Latino students of low-income backgrounds lost months of schooling as many families did not have access to reliable internet connection or know how to use the required electronic devices effectively, the complaint claimed. Rosenbaum and Jacobs added that despite teachers’ best efforts, some schools failed to meet the minimum instructional time, which would not have happened in “wealthier, whiter communities.”

The Department of Education denied any wrongdoing and maintained in court filings that it could not be held liable for constitutional violations arising from COVID-19 mitigation policies necessary to protect student health. “The undisputed evidence of the state’s robust and wide-ranging efforts to remediate the impact of the pandemic on students wholly belies plaintiffs’ central contention in this case that the state has engaged in a so-called ‘policy of inaction,’” Deputy Attorney General Elizabeth N. Lake wrote in her motion for summary judgment.

Superior Court Judge Brad Seligman did not grant a preliminary injunction in 2021 but moved some claims forward last year, writing in his order that there was “no dispute” that students of color and lower economic classes had more difficulty with remote learning than other students.

“The court finds that there are disputed facts regarding whether the defendants’ efforts were sufficient to avoid constitutional violations,” the judge wrote.

Rosenbaum said Seligman was prepared to go to trial, scheduled for last month, but strongly encouraged the parties to settle. “He was a model of a judge handling a complicated case of the most pressing social issues in the state. He was fully informed and pressed the parties to work together,” said the attorney.

One of the reasons the plaintiffs entered into a deal is because California is facing a serious budget deficit, said Rosenbaum. “We didn’t want to come to the end of a trial and find that the cupboards were bare,” he said, adding that COVID-19 brought about the “biggest educational crisis of our generation.”

The state was committed to its collaboration with the plaintiffs in addressing the needs of the most at-risk students, said Rosenbaum. He noted that while the complaint identified students of color and poorer backgrounds as being the most affected, the schools’ needs assessment will not have racial or economic specifications and the allocated tools will be available to students of all backgrounds.

Rosenbaum pointed out a settlement provision that will amend the relevant statutes to include practices by groups that have a “track record of success” when addressing the educational needs of their communities. “That’s incredibly powerful and empowers community groups [to include] their successful work with communities as a part of evidence-based practices available for students,” said the attorney. “I’m not aware of any court decision in the country that comes close to having such a fixture as part of state law and recognizing the role that community groups play in advancing educational justice.”