Levi v. O’Connell, No. 05-1722 (Cal. App. Nov. 7, 2006)

A California appeals court has ruled that the California Department of Education (CDE) is not required under state or federal law to pay for the college education of an "extremely gifted" student under the age of 16. Leila Levi brought the suit on behalf of her son, 13 year-old Levi Clancy, who is currently attending UCLA. In essence, the court rejected her request that the court "establish an education voucher for Clancy’s college education during his years of mandatory school attendance." The lawsuit wedded California truancy law with the state constitution’s equal protection clause, the No Child Left Behind Act’s (NCLB) mandate that every student receive an adequate education, and the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The complaint argued that because state truancy laws require Levi to attend school until he reaches 16 and the state constitution requires California to provide him with a free education, he is entitled to attend UCLA tuition-free. The lynchpin of the suit was the claim that any education below the university level is inadequate for Levi, depriving him of a free and equal education under both state and federal law. The trial court granted the CDE’s motion for dismissal.

The appeals court found that the state constitutional guarantee of free public education was expressly limited to grades K-12 and did not provide for free college education. The court also rejected the contention that "the free school guarantee mandate[s] K-12 education individually tailored to each student’s specific and particularized needs." Both state and federal law recognize public schools should provide a "high quality education" for all students in the state, the court acknowledged, citing NCLB and provisions from the state’s education code by way of example. However, the court concluded, "plaintiffs have not cited us to, and we have not found, anything in the federal No Child Left Behind Act or the implementing California law that requires K-12 public education meet every student’s particularized educational needs." The court likewise rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Levi fell within the purview of IDEA and the state’s special education law as an exceptional child with special needs. Federal and state special education laws are applicable only to those students who meet the statutory definition of disabled, the court noted. In addition, the court disposed of the argument that California case law had established that there is a state constitutional "mandate to provide an education suited to the specific needs and abilities of each child." The plaintiffs’ reliance on Hayes v. Commission on State Mandates, 11 Cal.App.4th 1564 (1992), was misplaced because that case "did not consider or suggest that all children have a constitutional right to an education specifically tailored to their individual needs and abilities." Finally, the plaintiffs’ attempt to apply the state’s compulsory attendance or truancy law was "speculative and inadequate to plead a justiciable controversy."