Practice Areas

 

Practice Area Details

pdf PRINT TO PDF

Education

With a focus on school finance, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP specializes in education law, including Proposition 98, revenue limits, school bonds, early education, and charter school law.

Our attorneys have practical experience advising on all aspects of the budget process as it pertains to education funding, and provide our state and local education clients with expert litigation services, as well as drafting legislation and supporting and defending ballot measures.

In addition, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP advises education clients on all aspects of participation in the political process, including campaign reporting requirements and lobbying.

Representative clients include:

  • Alameda Unified School District
  • Association of American Publishers
  • California State Superintendent of Public Instruction
  • California Teachers Association
  • National Education Association
  • Oakland Unified School District
  • Parents Action
  • Preschool California
  • San Francisco Unified School District
  • San Mateo County Special Education Local Plan Area

Representative highlights of this work include:

  • California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos, 53 Cal. 4th 231 (2011).
    Filed amicus curiae brief on behalf of the California Teachers Association in support of the State’s efforts to restructure California’s redevelopment agencies and provide as much as $1.7 billion in additional funding for California’s public schools. 
  • Robles-Wong v. California, Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG10515768 (2010).
    The firm represented interveners, the California Teachers Association, in this challenge to the constitutionality of California's education finance system.
  • California School Board Association v. California State Board of Education, No. C060957, 2010 WL 1692760 (Cal. App. 2010).
    Represented the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction in a successful challenge to the State Board of Education's effort to force schools to comply with an unfunded mandate that all eighth graders take Algebra I.
  • California Teachers Association v. Schwarzenegger, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 05CS01165 (2006).
    Represented the California Teachers Association and the Superintendent of Public Instruction in a successful challenge to efforts to reduce education funding far below the amount agreed upon in the 2004-05 budget compromise.  Recovered $3 billion in Proposition 98 funding for schools.
  • Proposition 82–the Preschool for All Initiative (2006). Drafted initiative that would have guaranteed California children free, universal access to a quality preschool education, and represented the ballot measure committee supporting the passage of the measure.
  • San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified School District (Ho), No. 3:94-cv-02418-WHA (N.D. Cal. 2005).
    Represented the California Superintendent of Public Instruction in this lengthy school desegregation case. The District was under a consent decree between 1983 and 2005, and the State Superintendent helped craft a transition plan to unitary status.
  • Voucher Initiatives. Represented the California Teachers Association in opposing two statewide initiatives (Proposition 38 in 2000 and Proposition 174 in 1993) that would have instituted a private school voucher system in the state of California. Both measures were defeated at the polls.
  • Wilson v. State Board of Education, 75 Cal. App. 4th 1125 (1999).
    The California Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of California's Charter Schools Act of 1992, as urged by the firm's client, the California Charter Schools Association.
  • California Teachers Association v. Gould, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 373415 (1996).
    The firm was lead counsel for a coalition of education groups and the Superintendent of Public Instruction in a challenge to education funding components of the 1992-93 budget compromise. The coalition won at the trial court and ultimately negotiated a settlement that restored the money the budget compromise had unconstitutionally sought to withhold from schools.
  • Drafted Proposition 26, which after adjusting the vote threshold, was adopted as Proposition 39.
  • Pajaro Valley Unified School District School Reorganization. Represented the City of Watsonville in this administrative proceeding before the State Board of Education, successfully opposing an attempt by an affluent portion of the Pajaro Valley Unified School District to split off from the generally less affluent remainder of the District.
  • ABC Unified School District v. State, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 686300 (1992).
    In this sequel to Serrano v. Priest, the seminal case requiring equal per pupil funding in California, the firm successfully defended the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction's compliance with the court's mandate in Serrano.
  • California Teachers Association v. Hayes, 5 Cal. App. 4th 1513 (1992).
    Represented the California Teachers Association in the first appellate court decision addressing the implementation of legislation implementing the Constitution's minimum funding guarantee for K-14 education.
  • Bakersfield City School District v. California Board of Education, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 364453 (1990).
    Successfully represented Panama-Buena Vista Union School District and Kern County Superintendent of Schools in lawsuit challenging revenue limit differentials between two districts.
  • Serrano v. Priest, 200 Cal. App. 3d 897 (1986).
    Represented the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction in trial and appellate court litigation upholding the State's compliance with the Supreme Court's order to equalize school funding throughout the State.
* The results described above were dependent on the facts of that particular case.  Prior results do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes.