Supreme Court hears local case on education

The question of how Arizona should teach its students who are learning English landed on the menu of the U.S. Supreme Court this week and put Nogales, Ariz., in the national spotlight.

The legal case began in 1992 when Miriam Flores, a parent in the Nogales Unified School District No. 1 (NUSD), complained the district did not adequately prepare her daughter to learn subject matter in English.

The parents wanted to sue the district because “they didn’t feel the district was funding their children’s education adequately,” said Ana Doan Woolfolk, bilingual education director at NUSD from 1990 to 2000.

At the direction of Raul Bejarano, then superintendent, Woolfolk explained to the parents that the state allotted $150 each year per student classified as an English language learner (ELL).

The district spent its own funds to help teachers obtain a bilingual or English as a Second Language (ESL) endorsement and paid those teachers an extra $2,000 per year, Woolfolk said. It also hired teacher aides who spoke Spanish for kindergarten through second grade.

NUSD did extensive testing of its ELLs at every grade level and monitored their progress until they could perform at grade level, Woolfolk said. Once the state began standardized testing about 1994, “our high school ELLs were outscoring the state average in writing.”

“Once the parents found we were funding the education for ELLs way above the state level, they sued the state and they won.” Woolfolk said.

By a unanimous vote, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in 2000 that Arizona was in violation of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, wrote John W. Borkowski, in the January 2009 edition of ELA Notes (Education Law Association). The court found that Arizona failed to provide adequate resources to implement ELL programs throughout the state.

In December 2001, the Legislature narrowly passed a measure to double aid for ELL students from $162 to $340 next year, according to a Dec. 23, 2001, story in the Nogales International.

In January 2007, Guillermo Zamudio, former NUSD superintendent, testified in federal court in Tucson, he said.

“We had done some cost studies to show what it was costing us to educate the ELLs and show what progress we had made,” Zamudio said. “We were spending significantly more than the state was giving us for each ELL student.”

His successor, current NUSD Superintendent Shawn McCollough, questioned why school districts look at non-English-speaking students as a burden.

“Doctors don't complain when sick people come to their office,” McCollough said in an NI story published July 15, 2008. “Preachers don't complain when sinners come to their church. So why would educators complain when non-English-speaking kids come to them and need help?”

The Arizona Legislature studied the English proficiency issue and came up with a mandate to separate ELLs for four hours a day of intensive English instruction. It went into effect in the 2008-2009 school year. Many superintendents objected to the plan and claimed the state did not provide enough funding for extra teachers.

In summer 2008, Tom Horne, state superintendent of schools, and the Arizona Legislature asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, Borkowski wrote. It went before the court on April 20, 2009.

“We feel there is no need for the federal court to be involved,” Horne told the Nogales International.

NUSD is doing a good job of educating English learners, Horne said. Recently, students in four Nogales schools, classified two years earlier as ELLs, passed all three sections of the state AIMS test at a higher rate than the state average.

Horne expects the court to rule by June 30, he said.

What does he hope will happen?

“That the court will get out of our education process,” Horne said.