California Teachers Assn. v. Hayes

• Citation: 5 Cal.App.4th 1513,7 Cal.Rptr.2d 699
• Decision Date: 30 April 1992
• Docket Number: No. C009444,C009444
• Parties: , 74 Ed. Law Rep. 165 CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Thomas W. HAYES, as Director of the Department of Finance, Defendant and Respondent; Bill Honig, as Superintendent, etc., Defendant and Appellant; CALIFORNIA CHILDREN'S LOBBY, et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
• Court: California Court of Appeals

Page 699

7 Cal.Rptr.2d 699

5 Cal.App.4th 1513, 74 Ed. Law Rep. 165

CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Thomas W. HAYES, as Director of the Department of Finance, Defendant and Respondent;

Bill Honig, as Superintendent, etc., Defendant and Appellant;

CALIFORNIA CHILDREN'S LOBBY, et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.

No. C009444.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

April 30, 1992.

Rehearing Denied May 27, 1992.

Review Denied July 20, 1992.

Joseph R. Symkowick, Roger D. Wolfertz and Allan H. Keown, Sacramento, for defendant and appellant.

James R. Wheaton, Oakland, Gray, Cary, Ames & Frye and Paul J. Dostart, San Diego, as amici curiae on behalf of defendant and appellant.

Robert C. Fellmeth, Coronado, Carl K. Oshiro, San Francisco, and Terry A. Coble, Benicia, for real parties in interest and appellants.

Barbara C. Carlson, Abby J. Cohen and Carol S. Stevensen, San Francisco, as amici curiae on behalf of real parties in interest and appellants.

Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, Joseph Remcho, Barbara A. Brenner and Julie M. Randolph, San Francisco, for plaintiffs and respondents.

Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard and Rochelle B. Schermer, Sacramento, as amici curiae, for plaintiffs and respondents.

Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., N. Eugene Hill, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Cathy Christian, Associate Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen. and Marsha A. Bedwell, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendant and respondent.

SPARKS, Acting Presiding Justice.

At the November 1988 General Election, the electorate adopted Proposition 98, an initiative measure entitled "The Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act". ¹ In general, Proposition 98 seeks to improve public education in California by establishing a minimum funding guarantee for public schools and by changing the way our state government treats its excess revenues. As the Legislative Analyst noted in her analysis of the initiative, Proposition 98 "establishes a minimum level of funding for public schools and community colleges[;] requires the state to spend any excess revenues, up to a specified maximum, for public schools and community colleges ...[;] requires the Legislature to establish a state reserve fund[; and] requires the school districts to prepare and distribute 'School Accountability Report Cards' each year." (Ballot Pamp. analysis of Prop. 98 by Legislative Analyst as presented to the voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 1988), p. 78, some capitalization and all paragraphing omitted.)

To these ends, Proposition 98 sets a minimum funding level for "the moneys to be applied by the State for the support of school districts and community college districts...." (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 8, subd. (b).) It is around this phrase that the present controversy swirls. At issue in this case is the validity of the Legislature's decision to include funding for the Child Care and Development Services Act (Ed.Code, § 8200 et seq.) within the educational funding guarantees of Proposition 98. This decision was implemented by the enactment of Education Code section 41202, subdivision (f), which declares that " 'monies The California Teachers Association and three of its officers filed a petition for writ of mandate against the Director of Finance, the state Treasurer and the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to prohibit the inclusion of funding for the Child Care and Development Services Act within the Proposition 98 education funding guarantee. By stipulation, the California Children's Lobby, the Professional Association of Childhood Educators, the California Association for the Education of Young Children, and the Child Development Administrators Association, intervened in the action as real parties in interest. The trial court issued a writ of mandate prohibiting defendants from including any funds allocated to or administered by any entity or agency other than a school district as defined in section 41302.5, within the Proposition 98 educational funding guarantees, and declaring that sections 8203.5, subdivision (c), and 41202, subdivision (f), which include funding for the Child Care and Development Services Act within the Proposition 98 guarantees, are unconstitutional. Bill Honig, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the real parties in interest appeal. We shall reverse.

to be applied by the state for the support of school districts and community college districts,' as used in Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, shall include funds appropriated for the Child Care and Development Services Act...."

I PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Proposition 98 provides for the improvement of public education in two basic ways. The first, which is not implicated in this appeal, involves the allocation of state revenues in excess of the state appropriations limitation to elementary, high school and community college districts on a per-enrollment basis for use solely for the purposes of instructional improvement and accountability. (Cal. Const., art. XIII B, § 2; art. XVI, § 8.5.) The second way, and the one involved here, establishes a minimum guaranteed state education funding level for "the moneys to be applied by the State for the support of school districts and community college districts...." (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 8, subd. (b).) ²

After its passage, the Legislature acted to implement Proposition 98. (Ed.Code, § 41200 et seq. [unless otherwise specified, all further statutory references will be to the Education Code].) One aspect of the Legislature's implementation is at issue in this appeal. As we have noted, in section 41202, subdivision (f), the Legislature provided, among other things: " 'State General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and community college districts, respectively' and 'monies to be applied by the state for the support of school districts and community college districts,' as used in Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, shall include funds appropriated for the Child Care and Development Services Act pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 8200) of Part 6...."

In order to ensure that the Child Care and Development Services Act serves the purposes of public education, the Legislature enacted section 8203.5, which provides: "(a) The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall ensure that each contract entered into under this chapter to provide child care and development services, or to facilitate the provision of those services, provides support to the public school system of this state through the delivery of appropriate educational services to the children served pursuant to the contract. [p] (b) The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall ensure that all contracts for child care and development programs include a requirement that each public or private provider maintain a developmental profile to appropriately The Child Care and Development Services Act is contained in sections 8200 through 8498. It is a comprehensive statewide Plaintiffs filed this action to prohibit the inclusion of funding for the Child Care and Development Services Act within the Proposition 98 education funding guarantee. ⁴ They maintain that funds which are not allocated directly to and administered by school districts cannot be included within the provisions of Proposition 98. ⁵ The trial court agreed with plaintiffs. It concluded that Proposition 98 is not intrinsically ambiguous and that its plain meaning requires that only appropriations allocated to, and administered by, school districts satisfy its minimum funding requirement. As the trial court saw it, "[t]he phrase 'monies to be applied by the state for the support of school districts,' taken as a whole, clearly refers to financial allocations for the financial support of school districts, and not the financial support of private child care and development programs which incidentallly benefit school districts." Judgment was entered accordingly and this appeal followed.

                identify the emotional, social, physical, and cognitive growth of each child served in order to promote the child's success in the public schools.  To the extent possible, the State Department of Education shall provide a developmental profile to all public and private providers using existing profile instruments that are most cost efficient.  The provider of any program operated pursuant to a contract under Section 8262 shall be responsible for maintaining developmental profiles upon entry through exit from a child developmental program.  [p] Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 'moneys to be applied by the [s]tate,' as used in subdivision (b) of [5 Cal.App.4th 1520] Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, includes funds appropriated for the Child Care and Development Services Act pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 8200) of Part 6, whether or not those funds are allocated to school districts, as defined in Section 41302.5, or community college districts.  [p] (d) This section is not subject to Part 34 (commencing with Section 62000)." 3
                master plan for child care and development services for children to age 14 and their parents.  (§ 8201, subd.  (a).)  Among other things it includes such items as resource and referral programs (§§ 8210-8215), campus child care and development programs (§ 8225), migrant child care and development programs (§§ 8230-8233), preschool programs (§ 8235), general child care and development programs (§§ 8240-8242), and programs for children with special needs (§§ 8250-8252).  Services under this statutory scheme may be provided directly by school districts or local education agencies or by contracts through such agencies, or services may be provided by private parties contracting with the state Department of Education.  (See the report Child Development, Program Facts, prepared by the Department of Education, Child Development Division, Field Services

...