Appeals court hears oral arguments in Arizona English language learner case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has heard oral arguments in appeal by the State of Arizona of a federal district court's ruling that the state legislature's latest effort to fund English language learner (ELL) programs violates the state constitution's requirement to provide students with an adequate education. The state is asking the three-judge Ninth Circuit panel to uphold the law, which would increase funding for thousands of English-learners from $358 to $432 per pupil. It is also requesting that the appeals court overturn the district court's order fining Arizona $21 million for missing a deadline to come up with a plan to help ELL students. The court will examine three key questions: 1) Does the English-learner legislation passed by the legislature meet the requirements of a 2000 federal court order?; 2) Should the district court have imposed the fines?; and 3) If so, how should the fines be distributed? "All along, this has always been about inadequate funding, and they still have not figured out how much it costs to educate these kids," says Tim Hogan, the attorney representing the parents who brought the suit. "Resources bring opportunities. It's about kids having opportunities. Some will take advantage, and some will not." Arizona Schools Superintendent Tom Horne counters that the state has undergone a significant "change in circumstances" since the district court's 2000 ruling that Arizona funded English-learners in an "arbitrary and capricious way." In addition to quashing the $21 million in fines, Mr. Horne also wants the Ninth Circuit to overturn the district court's ban on the state requiring English-learners to pass the state AIMS test to graduate.
The district court rejected the legislature's latest funding plan as "arbitrary and capricious" because it was not based on research and was $18-per-pupil less than what a study suggested for English-learner programs in 1988. The lower court also struck down the portion of the plan requiring schools to divert federal funds already in their budget to pay for needed tutoring, smaller classrooms, and other programs if the costs for teaching English turned out to be higher than $432 per child. It is illegal to use federal funds, which go to a variety of poverty-related programs, to supplant money for a state's responsibility to educate English-learners, the court found. Some observers believe the case is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Arizona Republic By Chip Scutari
[Link to full story][
Editor's Note: For background on the Arizona's ELL dispute, access the link below.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Arizona's ELL lawsuit]