Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Doe v. Deasy - StullAct LAUSD suit110211[1]

Doe v. Deasy - StullAct LAUSD suit110211[1]

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,339 |Likes:
Published by smf 4LAKids
Petition and writ of mandate....
Petition and writ of mandate....

More info:

Published by: smf 4LAKids on Nov 03, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/24/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND PROHIBITION;VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
R. D. KIRWAN (SBN 46259)SCOTT J. WITLIN (SBN 137413)LEVI W. HEATH (SBN 220854)DEVIN STONE (SBN 260326)2049 Century Park East, Suite 3550Los Angeles, California 90067-3012Telephone: 310-284-3880Facsimile: 310-284-3894Attorneys for Petitioners and PlaintiffsSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESJANE DOE 1, individually, and as theguardian ad litem of ABELITO DOE, aminor; JANE DOE 2, individually, and as theguardian ad litem of BRENDITA DOE, aminor; JANE DOE 3, individually, and as theguardian ad litem of ANGELITA DOE andBOBBY DOE, minors; and JANE DOE 4,individually, and as the guardian ad litem of CARMELITA DOE, a minor; JANE DOE 5,individually, and as the guardian ad litem of GRACIE DOE, a minor; JOHN DOE 1,individually, and as the guardian ad litem of ERIKA DOE and FRANNY DOE, minors;and ALICE CALLAGHAN, and individual,Petitioners and Plaintiffs,v.JOHN DEASY, Superintendent, Los AngelesUnified School District; MONICA GARCIA,President, Board of Education, Los AngelesUnified School District; TAMARGALATZAN, BENNETT KAYSER,MARGUERITE LAMOTTE, NURYMARTINEZ, RICHARD VLADOVIC,STEVE ZIMMER, Members, Board of Education, Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict; LOS ANGELES UNIFIEDSCHOOL DISTRICT; ASSOCIATEDAMINISTRATORS OF LOS ANGELES;UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES;CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYMENTRELATIONS BOARD; and DOES 1 through10, inclusive,Respondents and Defendants.Case No.
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OFMANDATE AND PROHIBITION; VERIFIEDCOMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE ANDDECLARATORY RELIEF
 
 
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND PROHIBITION;VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 
 
1
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND PROHIBITION;VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
INTRODUCTION
1.
 
The
nation‘s second largest
public school system known as the Los Angeles UnifiedSchool District
(―District‖
or
―LAUSD‖)
annually fails hundreds of thousands of children, their parentsand guardians, taxpayers and the community it is responsible to serve. The children and their parentsbring this action to re-focus the District on its Constitutional duties to provide basic education equalityso that every child has the opportunity to learn and develop all of his or her potential, and to helpensure the attainment of knowledge and an educated populace, which is essential for the preservationof rights and liberties. The children and their parents ask the Court to enforce a reasonable and four-decade old statutory state law that requires the District to evaluate certificated employee
s‘
on-the-jobperformance with data that reasonably measures, among other criteria, whether or not the students
under an employee‘s
charge are actually learning.2.
 
This action is brought by parents who have paid taxes for a school system that does notcomply with State law, and students who have been denied their fundamental right to basic educationalequality and opportunity to learn guaranteed by the California Constitution.
Serrano v. Priest 
, 18 Cal.3d 728, 765-66 (1976);
 Butt v. State of California
, 4 Cal. 4th 668 (1992). Specifically, the parties seek mandamus to compel the District to meet its obligations under a forty year old law, CaliforniaEducation Code section
(―Section‖)
44660
et seq.
, commonly referred to as
t
he Stull Act,‖
whichmandates that the District implement and enforce periodic evaluations of certificated personnel, mainlyadministrators and teachers. (As used herein, the terms
―certificated personnel‖ or ―certificatedemployee‖ mean and shall refer to all personnel assigned to positions within the Distr 
ict that require acertificate or credential required by statute to be eligible for employment in an instructional or non-instructional role, as specified.)3.
 
The Stull Act, which the State originally enacted in 1971, requires that the governingboard of each school district establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level ineach area of study. The Act requires further that the governing board of each school district
also
 evaluate and assess the performance of certificated employees as it reasonably relates to the progress of pupils toward the standards adopted by the district locally
. The ―evaluate and assess‖ aspect of the

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->