SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court held unanimously Thursday that state officials have a broad constitutional duty to intervene in a local school district faced with insolvency to ensure that its students receive the same basic education as other pupils in the state.
In a separate vote of 4 to 3, however, the court held that judges lack power to order a state-funded bailout of financially pressed districts unless money has been appropriated for that purpose by the Legislature.
The court, ruling in a far-reaching test of governmental authority, upheld a 1991 decision by Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Ellen James that authorized state officials to take over the near-bankrupt Richmond Unified School District and prevent it from closing its doors to 31,500 students six weeks before the term was to end.
Authorities said it appeared that the decision would have no immediate impact on the financially troubled Los Angeles Unified School District. A Superior Court judge in November refused to hear a challenge to a plan to cut teacher salaries to stave off insolvency, saying a state labor relations board must first hear the case. Under a state law that took effect last January, the Los Angeles County Office of Education is working with the district and has threatened to take it over if the pay cuts do not go through.
Justice Marvin R. Baxter, writing the majority opinion, rejected contentions by Gov. Pete Wilson that the state could refuse to intervene in order to preserve local autonomy and local accountability for budgetary mismanagement that led to the crisis.
Baxter said the state's constitutional responsibility did not end by merely assuring equal state aid to districts, rich and poor. Where a school shutdown would cause "an extreme and unprecedented disparity," he wrote, the state has a duty "to protect district students against loss of their right to basic educational equality."
But the court went on to say that Judge James had improperly authorized the state to make Richmond a $19-million emergency loan from state education funds that were not appropriated for that purpose. Giving judges such authority would upset the constitutional balance of power between the courts and the legislative and executive branches of government, the justices said.
In dissent, Justice Joyce L. Kennard, joined by Justice Stanley Mosk, warned that the majority had declared a fundamental right to education but effectively prevented judges from enforcing it. In that instance, Kennard said, "the doors to the schoolhouse will close."
