Public-interest attorneys argued in a March 19 court filing that the United States Supreme Court should rule that Arizona’s program to teach English to students who primarily speak another language fails to satisfy a nearly decade old court order and violated federal education laws.
The Supreme Court announced in December that it would consider overturning lower court rulings that pointed blame at the state for failing to provide adequate funding for English programs. The courts ruled that the failure violates a federal law requiring equal opportunities in education.
The appeal will be considered by the Supreme Court April 20. A ruling is expected in June.
Attorneys representing Arizona lawmakers and the state Superintendent of Public Instruction have argued that the Legislature already passed a law that provides enough money to help children learn English, and that additional demands by the court are unwarranted. They filed an appeal of the previous federal court ruling, saying the court infringed on legislative authority.
But the public-interest attorneys argued that the court in no way micromanaged the state.
“The district court never directed the state to implement any particular ELL programs…(or) adopt a particular method for determining the costs…or to spend any particular amount of money on ELL programs, instead ordering only that the state ensure that funding — whatever the method or source — bear a non-arbitrary relationship to the actual costs,” attorney Sri Srinivasan wrote.
Srinivasan also questioned whether Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne and legislative leaders even had standing to appeal the lower court’s ruling. The executive branch is charged with determining legal strategy under the Arizona Constitution and lawmakers can’t use “dissatisfaction with the executive’s litigation judgments” as standing in court.
While the superintendent’s office is named in the original suit, Srinivasan argued, Horne does not have standing because he was named in his official capacity and the state is the “real party of interest.” And since the state Board of Education sets department policy and it chose not to appeal the 2000 ruling against the state, he cannot circumvent that and appeal.
In that ruling, a federal court determined the state was violating the Equal Education Opportunity Act by inadequately funding English learner programs and failing to ensure students in the programs learned the language.
The state’s ELL program also violates federal education law by replacing federal funding instead of supplementing it, Srinivasan wrote.