Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-04179/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-04179-79/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

 

1

FINAL Jnt. Statement Re: RSIP Framework (Emma C. v. Eastin. USDC Northern C96-4179 TEH) 

Arlene B. Mayerson, Esq., CA Bar # 79310 

Larisa M. Cummings, Esq., CA Bar # 131076 

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION & DEFENSE 

FUND, INC. 

2212 Sixth Street 

Berkeley, CA 94710 

Telephone: (510) 644-2555 

Fax: (510) 841-8645 

Email: amayerson@dredf.org 

Email: lcummings@dredf.org 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

William S. Koski, Esq., CA. Bar #166061 

STANFORD LAW SCHOOL 

YOUTH & EDUCATION LAW PROJECT 

559 Nathan Abbott Way 

Stanford, CA 94305-8610 

Telephone: (650) 724-3718 

Fax: (650) 723-4426 

Email: bkoski@stanford.edu 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MICHAEL P. MURPHY 

COUNTY COUNSEL (SBN 83887) 

BY: KATHRYN E. MEOLA DEPUTY (SBN

172034) 

BY: AIMEE B. ARMSBY, DEPUTY (SBN 226967) 

Hall of Justice and Records 

400 County Center, 6th Floor 

Redwood City, CA 94063 

Telephone: (650) 363-4647 

Facsimile: (650) 363-4034 

Email: kmeola@co.sanmateo.ca.us 

 aarmsby@co.sanmateo.ca.us 

Attorneys for Defendant Ravenswood City 

School District 

EDMUND G. BROWN JR. 

Attorney General of California 

JULIE WENG-GUTIERREZ

Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

LISA A. TILLMAN

Deputy Attorney General 

State Bar No. 126424 

1300 I Street, Suite 125 

P.O. Box 944255 

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 

Telephone: (916) 327-7872 

Fax: (916) 324-5567 

E-mail: Lisa.Tillman@doj.ca.gov 

Attorneys for Defendants Department of 

Education, Delaine Eastin, Superintendent of 

Public Instruction 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EMMA C., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

DELAINE EASTIN, et al. 

Defendants. 

Case No. C-96-4179 THE 

CLASS ACTION 

FINAL JOINT STATEMENT AND 

STIPULATION CONCERNING RSIP 

BENCHMARK AND COMPLIANCE 

FRAMEWORK

In response to this Court’s June 30, 2010 order, the Parties submit this joint statement of 

stipulated terms concerning an RSIP compliance deadline and benchmark framework. 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1547 Filed 07/08/10 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 2

FINAL Jnt. Statement Re: RSIP Framework (Emma C. v. Eastin. USDC Northern C96-4179 TEH)

STIPULATED TERMS AND PROVISIONS 

I. Final Deadline for RSIP Compliance. 

Plaintiffs, Defendant Ravenswood City School District and related defendants (District) and 

Defendants California Department of Education, Delaine Eastin and the Superintendent of Public 

Instruction (State Defendants), have agreed that the final deadline date for full RSIP compliance should 

be July 2014 as to all outstanding RSIP items, except as to item 13.4.1 due to its five-year maintenance 

period. 

II. Measurement of RSIP Compliance and Benchmarks. 

 Attached as Exhibit A is a list of all RSIP items and requirements for which the District has not 

reached full compliance and/or completed the requisite maintenance period. An RSIP item that has met 

maintenance period requirements and so is no longer monitored by the Court Monitor is not subject to 

this benchmark framework. 

Exhibit A states specified dates by which specified benchmarks must be obtained for the 

indicated RSIP items. The Court Monitor will issue an annual report following each such benchmark 

period which shall state the District’s compliance status with each such benchmark. The Parties 

understand that the applicable date for measurement of compliance with the initial benchmark for certain 

RSIP items will be July 31, 2011, and the level of compliance with that initial benchmark will be 

published in the Annual Trends Report filed by the Monitor in October 2011 (2011 Trends Report). 

III. Interventions. 

A. Designated Dates 

The parties have agreed to the general principle that if a benchmark has not been met by the 

designated date, the District will be subject to interventions. Exhibit A contains suggested or possible 

interventions for Tier 1 and Tier 2, and is not an exhaustive list of interventions for each tier. In accord 

with this Court’s order, the interventions are graduated between the two tiers, with Tier 2 interventions 

introducing a greater level of severity. (CD 1480.) 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1547 Filed 07/08/10 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 3

FINAL Jnt. Statement Re: RSIP Framework (Emma C. v. Eastin. USDC Northern C96-4179 TEH)

B. The Trigger for Tier 1 or Tier 2 Interventions. 

The parties agree to the triggering of Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions on the following bases: 

1. Tier 1 interventions would be triggered the first time the District is determined 

noncompliant with one of the established benchmarks, under the process described in Section C below. 

Tier 1 interventions will also be applied if the District fails to meet the established benchmarks for a 

particular RSIP item for two consecutive benchmarking periods, but for the second such period, the 

District has made progress and reached or exceeded the level of the first benchmark. 

2. Tier 2 interventions would be triggered when the District has been found not to have met 

the established benchmarks for a particular RSIP item for two consecutive benchmarking periods and the 

District has not met or exceeded the level of the first benchmark for the second consecutive 

benchmarking period. 

C. The Process for Applying Interventions. 

The process by which an intervention will be selected is as follows: 

 1. Within seven days following the Court Monitor’s issuance of the annual report regarding 

compliance with the benchmarks, each party shall submit to all Parties and the Court Monitor a proposed 

intervention selected from either the Tier 1 or Tier 2 list, as appropriate, for each of the items for which 

the District was found non-compliant. 

2. Within fourteen days following the Court Monitor’s issuance of a report regarding 

compliance with the benchmarks, the parties shall meet and confer in an effort to reach agreement on the 

appropriate intervention for each non-compliant item. 

 3. If resolution cannot be reached on an appropriate intervention for any non-compliant 

items, such dispute shall be submitted to the Monitor immediately following the Parties’ meet-and-confer 

and the Monitor shall make a determination regarding the appropriate intervention for each noncompliant item within seven days following submission of the dispute. 

4. Any Party may request that the Court review the Monitor’s determination(s) within seven 

days following issuance of the determination. 

5. All agreed-upon interventions and all final determinations regarding interventions shall 

become orders of the Court. 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1547 Filed 07/08/10 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 4

FINAL Jnt. Statement Re: RSIP Framework (Emma C. v. Eastin. USDC Northern C96-4179 TEH)

D. No Waiver of Other Remedies or Rights Under Applicable Law. 

1. The parties agree that, by entering into this stipulation, the parties do not waive and are 

not foreclosed from seeking any and all remedies available under applicable law, including and not 

limited to those available under the California Education Code, for any failure to comply with the 

provisions of the First Amended Consent Decree and Ravenswood Self-Improvement Plan as well as 

applicable state and federal laws. 

 2. By entering into this stipulation, the State Defendants reserve the right to assert that the 

hiring of an outside consultant by the District or the State may not occur on a limited term, 

noncompetitive bid, or other basis outside the requirements of applicable State statutory and regulatory 

requirements. Further, the State Defendants do not agree or concede that the RSIP budget may be used 

to provide payments to such consultants. 

CONCLUSION 

The Parties thank the Court Monitor for his facilitation of the meet-and-confer process in 

formulating the RSIP benchmark and compliance framework. The Parties respectfully submit this 

statement of stipulated provisions of the RSIP benchmark and compliance framework to this Court for 

further consideration and determination. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION & DEFENSE FUND, INC. 

By: /s/ .

 Larisa M. Cummings 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

YOUTH AND EDUCATION LAW PROJECT 

By: /s/ .

 William S. Koski 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

COUNTY COUNSEL OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 

By: /s/ .

 Kathryn E. Meola 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1547 Filed 07/08/10 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 5

FINAL Jnt. Statement Re: RSIP Framework (Emma C. v. Eastin. USDC Northern C96-4179 TEH)

 Deputy County Counsel 

Attorneys for Ravenswood City School District 

OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: /s/ .

 Lisa Tillman 

 Deputy Attorney General 

Attorneys for Defendants Delaine Eastin, Superintendent of Public 

Instruction, and California Department of Education 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

U

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

07/08/10

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1547 Filed 07/08/10 Page 5 of 5