Cecilia Ochoa v.

Anaheim City School District (2017)

Legal Brief #2 - 107-110

Citation:
- FindLaw | Cases and Codes. FindLaw: Cases and Codes. Retrieved November 16, 2017, from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1858656.html
Facts:
- “Under the Parent Empowerment Act of 2010, if a school in California continues to fail in
meeting certain benchmarks, including the requirement that it meet adequate yearly progress as
defined by federal law, parents may trigger a process to implement one of the four intervention
plans at the school.”
-Palm Lane Elementary School was considered a school meeting requirements of the Parent
Empowerment Act.
-“Palm Lane Elementary School parents Cecilia Ochoa, Magdalena Paredes, Marlene Gatan,
Mayra Cervantes, and Geronimo Gaytan, along with California Center for Parent Empowerment
filed a petition for a writ of mandate against Anaheim City School District and Anaheim City
School District Board of Education.”
Issues:
- This case was presented to the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, in California, in
regards to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and its mandated rule that all schools make
‘“adequate yearly progress.
- The defendants being Anaheim City School District and the appellants being parents of
students enrolled at Palm Lane Elementary School in Anaheim, California.
Ruling:
- In 2015, a petition was submitted by parents of students at Palm Lane Elementary School in
Anaheim. This petition sought the implementation of the “restart model”. This model transitions
the control of the school district to a charter operator.
- Anaheim City School District declined the petition, stating that it did not meet ample
requirements.
- After a six day trial, the court ruled the District’s reasons for turning down the petition invalid
and granted the petition for a writ of mandate.
Rationale:
- The petition for writ of mandate was rejected for a series of unexplained reasons and evidence.
- As previously stated, under the Parent Empowerment Act, parents are entitled to the
opportunity to petition for reform to meet adequate yearly progress.
-The parent’s rights were minimized, when the school district neglected to allow for a thorough
review and/or resubmission.
Conclusion:
- Abiding by No Child Left Behind in a public school and being held to standards of meeting
adequate yearly progress, is is only fair that all students, including those in a charter school, to
have access to an education that provides evidence of adequate yearly progress.
- To our profession, this ruling, allows for equal opportunity for students and staff to show
growth in accordance to adequate yearly progress on standardized tests.
Cecilia Ochoa v. Anaheim City School District (2017)
Legal Brief #2 - 107-110