(CNSNews.com) – The Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in a case that will determine whether federal judges have the power to restructure local school programs even after they have been defined by state legislatures.
The case, Horne v. Flores, involves the English-language instruction program in Nogales, Ariz., for students identified as “English Language Learners (ELL).” Nogales is a border town and many of the the students in the school district speak Spanish as a first language.
In 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Alfredo Marquez found that the ELL program violated the federal Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974, which says that students may not be denied educational opportunity based on the failure of a school district to take “appropriate action” to remedy language barriers.
“No state shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual,” the law reads, “by – (f) the failure by an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs.”
Marquez ruled that Nogales’ ELL program was not adequately funded and that the school district needed to fund the program based on its needs. The judge said that the district should conduct a study to determine what an adequate level of funding would be.
Arizona and the Nogales School District agreed with the decision, and asked the Arizona Legislature to increase funding for ELL programs. Lawmakers took repeated action to increase funding, beginning in 2000, only to have the federal court keep issuing rulings that Arizona’s cost study and its funding scheme were inadequate.
In 2001, the Legislature passed HB 2010, which set ELL funding levels to those prescribed in the first study and provided for a newer, more comprehensive study, according to court documents. The federal court again ruled Arizona’s efforts did not constitute “appropriate action” under the 1974 law.
When Judge Marquez set a deadline of 15 days after the start of the 2006 Arizona legislative session for the state to comply with his order, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill (HB 2064) establishing dedicated funding for the ELL program as well as a special task force within the state Department of Education to develop ELL teaching criteria and to monitor ELL students.
Then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, who had vetoed three previous efforts, disagreed with the Legislature that HB 2064 met the judge’s demands, but allowed the bill to become law anyway, saying that she would rather see the matter go back to court than continue to fight with lawmakers.
“After nine months of meetings and three vetoes, it is time to take this matter to a federal judge,” I am convinced that getting this bill into court now is the most expeditious way ultimately to bring the state into compliance with federal law,” Napolitano said in a statement accompanying the bill.
Judge Marquez, meanwhile, again found that Arizona was not taking “appropriate action” as required by the 1974 law.
Arizona School Superintendent Thomas Horne appealed the 2006 ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that HB 2064 constituted “appropriate action” under the law, adding that the federal No Child Left Behind law had made the lower court’s previous ruling moot, because it had defined what ELL programs should look like.
The 9th Circuit disagreed, sending the case back to Judge Marquez, who has essentially been running the Nogales ELL program since 2000. The 9th Circuit agreed that Arizona’s funding system had not changed enough to constitute “appropriate action.”
“[T]he fundamentals of the Arizona school funding system (have not) changed in any way that undermines the district court’s original conclusion,” Judge Marsha Berzon wrote for the court.
At issue now is who gets to decide what constitutes “appropriate action” -- the Arizona Legislature or the federal courts. Horne and Arizona’s legislative leaders argue that since the 1974 law doesn’t define what actions are appropriate, it is up to Arizona’s Legislature to define the goals of the ELL program and to decide how to fund them -- not Judge Marquez.
The plaintiffs, including the office of former Gov. Napolitano, argue that the state must meet Judge Marquez’s test in order to comply with the law. The original plaintiff, Miriam Flores, is no longer enrolled in Nogales’ schools.
Richard Samp, chief counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation, told CNSNews.com that the real issue is whether a federal judge can direct a state’s education programs.
“The real issue raised by this case is: Is it appropriate for courts to be taking over educational policy and running school systems for decades on end,” Samp said.
Marquez should be deciding cases based on what the law says, according to Samp, whose foundation filed an amicus brief in the case. If the law doesn’t define “appropriate” then the judge can’t define it either.
“The law at issue doesn’t say anything about what the standards are,” he explained. “So how can you determine that they (Arizona) are not doing enough based on a law that doesn’t really say what enough is.”
The case, Horne v. Flores, involves the English-language instruction program in Nogales, Ariz., for students identified as “English Language Learners (ELL).” Nogales is a border town and many of the the students in the school district speak Spanish as a first language.
In 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Alfredo Marquez found that the ELL program violated the federal Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974, which says that students may not be denied educational opportunity based on the failure of a school district to take “appropriate action” to remedy language barriers.
“No state shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual,” the law reads, “by – (f) the failure by an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs.”
Marquez ruled that Nogales’ ELL program was not adequately funded and that the school district needed to fund the program based on its needs. The judge said that the district should conduct a study to determine what an adequate level of funding would be.
Arizona and the Nogales School District agreed with the decision, and asked the Arizona Legislature to increase funding for ELL programs. Lawmakers took repeated action to increase funding, beginning in 2000, only to have the federal court keep issuing rulings that Arizona’s cost study and its funding scheme were inadequate.
In 2001, the Legislature passed HB 2010, which set ELL funding levels to those prescribed in the first study and provided for a newer, more comprehensive study, according to court documents. The federal court again ruled Arizona’s efforts did not constitute “appropriate action” under the 1974 law.
When Judge Marquez set a deadline of 15 days after the start of the 2006 Arizona legislative session for the state to comply with his order, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill (HB 2064) establishing dedicated funding for the ELL program as well as a special task force within the state Department of Education to develop ELL teaching criteria and to monitor ELL students.
Then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, who had vetoed three previous efforts, disagreed with the Legislature that HB 2064 met the judge’s demands, but allowed the bill to become law anyway, saying that she would rather see the matter go back to court than continue to fight with lawmakers.
“After nine months of meetings and three vetoes, it is time to take this matter to a federal judge,” I am convinced that getting this bill into court now is the most expeditious way ultimately to bring the state into compliance with federal law,” Napolitano said in a statement accompanying the bill.
Judge Marquez, meanwhile, again found that Arizona was not taking “appropriate action” as required by the 1974 law.
Arizona School Superintendent Thomas Horne appealed the 2006 ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that HB 2064 constituted “appropriate action” under the law, adding that the federal No Child Left Behind law had made the lower court’s previous ruling moot, because it had defined what ELL programs should look like.
The 9th Circuit disagreed, sending the case back to Judge Marquez, who has essentially been running the Nogales ELL program since 2000. The 9th Circuit agreed that Arizona’s funding system had not changed enough to constitute “appropriate action.”
“[T]he fundamentals of the Arizona school funding system (have not) changed in any way that undermines the district court’s original conclusion,” Judge Marsha Berzon wrote for the court.
At issue now is who gets to decide what constitutes “appropriate action” -- the Arizona Legislature or the federal courts. Horne and Arizona’s legislative leaders argue that since the 1974 law doesn’t define what actions are appropriate, it is up to Arizona’s Legislature to define the goals of the ELL program and to decide how to fund them -- not Judge Marquez.
The plaintiffs, including the office of former Gov. Napolitano, argue that the state must meet Judge Marquez’s test in order to comply with the law. The original plaintiff, Miriam Flores, is no longer enrolled in Nogales’ schools.
Richard Samp, chief counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation, told CNSNews.com that the real issue is whether a federal judge can direct a state’s education programs.
“The real issue raised by this case is: Is it appropriate for courts to be taking over educational policy and running school systems for decades on end,” Samp said.
Marquez should be deciding cases based on what the law says, according to Samp, whose foundation filed an amicus brief in the case. If the law doesn’t define “appropriate” then the judge can’t define it either.
“The law at issue doesn’t say anything about what the standards are,” he explained. “So how can you determine that they (Arizona) are not doing enough based on a law that doesn’t really say what enough is.”