Key Points: 

• Judge rules public school facilities funding scheme unconstitutional

• Ruling identifies disparities between districts based on bonding capacity

• Legislature found at fault, leadership plans to appeal ruling 

One school district boasts freshly renovated facilities, manicured turf fields and a new performing arts center, while another has hundreds of failing HVAC units and collapsed and leaking roofs. 

After years of litigation and discovery and a two-week bench trial in 2024, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge found the disparities in funding and subsequent state of school facilities across Arizona to be a constitutional failing, with blame falling squarely on the shoulders of the Legislature. 

“After carefully and thoroughly reviewing the record and considering the parties’ arguments, the Court concludes that the current public school capital finance system does not meet the constitutional minimum standards established by the Arizona Supreme Court,” Judge Dewain Fox wrote in a ruling on August 11. 

In 2017, four school districts, a taxpayer and three education organizations — the Arizona School Boards Association, the Arizona Education Association and the Arizona School Administrators — sued the state for facilitating an allegedly slow-moving and underfunded system that puts districts lacking the tax base and property wealth to pass bonds at a significant disadvantage in upkeep and condition of schools. 

The plaintiffs, represented by the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, claimed the Legislature failed to meet obligations to provide a “general and uniform public school system” as provided in the state Constitution. One requires appropriate funds to ensure proper maintenance, development and improvement of all state educational institutions. 

The Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest litigated the same issue before. It successfully argued that passing the buck to local taxpayers to pass bonds to cover school maintenance costs disadvantages low-income areas. 

In 1998, the Legislature enacted the Students FIRST Act and created the School Facilities Board to administer funds to cover capital needs across the state and determine a set of minimum adequacy guidelines to ensure schools could provide an environment conducive to achieving academic standards. 

The Legislature got off to a strong start, doling out about $1.2 billion to fix deficiencies in schools across the state and administer additional programs for building renewal and new facilities. 

But over time, appropriations to respective funds declined, or were repealed or modified in statute. 

For one, the Legislature changed Building Renewal funding from a formula structure based on the size and age of a facility to the Building Renewal Grant program, which excluded funds for any non-academic buildings and required that schools must fall below the minimum adequacy guidelines to qualify. 

Danny Adelman, attorney for the plaintiffs, said,“Initially, after those court rulings, they did it and fixed a lot of schools. And there were decent schools all throughout the state. And then just bit by bit, and then more than bit by bit, they started taking away all that funding until we’re largely right back where we were.” 

Adelman said the burden again falls to districts to seek bonds to make up the difference, which proves difficult for areas with low property wealth or with voters lacking a desire to greenlight a bond. 

“In either case, you’re just doing without,” Adelman said. 

In a 114-page ruling, Fox agreed with the plaintiffs that the state had failed to appropriate funds for the “establishment and maintenance of a general and uniform public school system,” in violation of the state Constitution.

Fox pointed out the Building Renewal grant program “routinely” lacks funding to complete approved projects and defers millions in repair year over year. 

Strapped funds make it so schools with “an eligible and urgent fire/life and safety” minimum adequacy guidelines (MAG) deficiency are pushed to the top, which creates a system that “guarantees that districts must operate below the MAG – often for significant periods of time – before state funding is provided to correct the deficiency,” Fox wrote.

And, because not all districts can secure bonds or override funds in the meantime, and solely rely on the Building Renewal Grant, they are left to “operate their schools in deficient facilities for months or even years while awaiting funding.” 

Fox’s ruling recounted schools with cracking walls, ceilings and floors, water damage, broken toilets and sinks, aging windows, failing HVAC units, collapsed and leaking roofs and sinkholes.

While others, with the bond capacity and voter base, could afford to fix deficiencies fast, as well as build and renovate schools and facilities. 

Fox found that the setup and lack of funding to the state system itself created the disparities, and it is therefore the responsibility of the Legislature to remedy them. 

In response to the ruling, the plaintiffs put out a joint statement. 

“Our state’s constitution requires the legislature to fund our public schools. It’s time for our legislature to fulfill its constitutional obligation to fund public schools in every corner of Arizona so that all students, whether or not they live in a wealthy area, can receive a quality public education.”

The court has yet to enter a final appealable judgment, but plans to do so soon. Fox noted, though, that he intends to grant a temporary stay while the issue makes its way through the appellate process. 

In a statement, Senate President Warren Petersen said, “We will appeal.” 

Adelman said the Legislature had “every right to do that,” but again made a plea for a more immediate fix. 

“They can say they’re going to appeal, but the evidence is the evidence, and the law is the law, and all they’re doing is digging the hole deeper,” Adelman said. 

He continued, “These roofs that are leaking, if they’re not fixed, it just causes more damage. And so when you do ultimately fix it, it’s more expensive, and there’s more things to fix, and there’s mold and you have to replace insulation, and it’s just not good management. They would never run their own buildings like that. They would never run their own businesses like that.”