The US District Court for the District of Arizona granted the Arizona Department of Education’s motion to dismiss a decades old lawsuit over English Language Instruction and reaffirmed that the state has discretion and flexibility to design programs that meet local needs. The ruling by Judge Ranier Collins vacated the 2000 judgment in Flores v. Arizona.
The opinion affirmed that the Structured English Immersion (SEI ) that the four-hour model meets the needs of our English language learners.
This is the latest court ruling in an issue that began in 1992, when the state was sued by parents in the Nogales school district asserting the state failed to provide adequate ELL instruction in the Nogales Unified School District, in violation of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. EEOA requires states to take “appropriate action to overcome language barriers” in schools.
In 2000, the court found that the state violated EEOA because of inadequate funding to provide sufficient ELL instruction. The court applied this ruling statewide.
In 2006 the state filed a motion to vacate judgment based upon the significant improvements in programming and funding. The State argued that outcomes for ELL students demonstrated improvement.
In January 2011, during the most recent trial, the State offered evidence to support its claim that its programs, which included SEI, met the State’s responsibility to provide adequate instruction under EEOA. Finally on Friday the Court ruled, finding that the State had met its obligation and noted that the State has the flexibility to provide ELL instruction that meets the goals of the EEOA.
There are still some who claim that the State’s program to provide instruction to “English language learners” is legally insufficient. However, the Court’s decision ends the debate unless the parents who filed the case in 1992 opt to appeal. In 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court said Judge Collins overstepped his authority when he found that the State was not funding the program adequately.
Collins found that the State’s implementation of the four-hour classes was not “driven by a deliberate intent to discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin.” Judge Collins found that the federal law leaves it to state or local authorities to determine appropriate teaching methods, and found that the “evidence presented, the court finds that the structured English immersion method and the four-hour model are valid educational theories.”
In February of this year, federal judge Wallace Tashima found for the State in the matter of TUSD’s Mexican American studies classes on the basis that states do have the right to determine what is taught in the classroom, and what pedagogy can be employed. At issue in that case was the use of Critical Race Theory as a foundation for classes intended to indoctrinate students to adopt a Chicano identity.
“This ruling validates that we’ve made great improvements in English language instruction since 1992,” said Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal. “We believe our current approach represents the best in education research and this order seems to validate this. The department is committed to ensure that all non-English speaking students learn English as quickly as possible so they can participate fully in their education.”