Law & Courts

Arizona Governor Allows ELL Bill to Become Law

By Mary Ann Zehr — March 14, 2006 4 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

Gov. Janet Napolitano has broken the legislative stalemate over how to pay for the education of English-language learners in Arizona.

The governor decided to let a bill spelling out how to finance English-acquisition programs become law without her signature, essentially thrusting the issue back into the hands of a federal judge.

“After nine months of meetings and three vetoes, it is time to take this matter to a federal judge,” the governor wrote in a March 3 letter to the legislature, explaining her decision.

On the same day, at Ms. Napolitano’s request, state Attorney General Terry Goddard filed a motion in the U.S. District Court in Phoenix, asking the court to speed up its decision on whether the measure satisfies its earlier rulings. Last week, U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins scheduled a hearing for April 3 on the adequacy of the legislation.

In December, Judge Collins had given the state until Jan. 24 to find a way to finance programs adequately for the state’s 150,000 English-language learners, or be hit with hefty fines. The ruling was one of many in the 14-year-old lawsuit, Flores v. Arizona, concerning the education of Arizona’s English-language learners.

Fines Piling Up

While the Republican-controlled legislature and the governor, a Democrat, failed to agree on a plan during the current legislative session, the state accrued $21 million in court-imposed fines. Fines began at $500,000 a day on Jan. 24, increased to $1 million a day on Feb. 23, and have the potential to rise to $2 million a day at the end of the legislative session this spring.

Sen. Ken Bennett, a Republican and the president of the state Senate, said he believes the new law for English-learners will satisfy the court.

“It has reasonable and fair mechanisms for districts to be reimbursed on actual costs” for educating such students, he said. The legislature responded, Mr. Bennett contended, to the fundamental flaw the court had identified in the funding system: The system was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The measure became law March 9 but won’t take effect until 90 days after the close of the legislative session. It will increase the state’s extra funding to school districts per English-language learner from the current $355 to at least $432. It will limit that base aid for an individual English-learner to two years, but provide an additional sum of $10 million that districts can use for students who still need extra help after that time.

The legislation also will set up a task force to identify model programs. Once the models are selected, schools can request additional state money to carry them out, after proving actual costs and first using a proportion of federal funds available for ELL students.

Further Delay Feared

Timothy M. Hogan, the executive director of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest and the lawyer representing the plaintiffs in Flores v. Arizona, says he wishes the governor would have vetoed the latest bill because it doesn’t provide enough money.

“I think if she had vetoed it—and with the accumulating fines—there’s a point in which the fines would have brought the legislature back to the negotiating table,” he said.

Negotiations outside of court, Mr. Hogan said, might have been more meaningful for establishing a structure for paying for ELL programs than within the court.

“What concerns me is the time,” he said. “These kids have gone long enough without getting the programs they need. I’m concerned that going back to the court process raises the potential for further delays.”

Identifying Models

Mr. Hogan believes the two-year cap that the legislation places on funding for English-language learners violates federal civil rights laws. He argued that it is also a violation of federal law to supplant state aid with federal funds.

But Mr. Bennett and Tom Horne, the state superintendent of public instruction, maintained that the law meets state and federal laws. Mr. Horne plans to file a brief in the federal court supporting it.

Mr. Horne, a Republican, particularly likes how the law will provide money for increased monitoring of programs for English-learners and set up a task force to identify model programs.

“The court has been calling for a number of years for a scientific basis for determining the amount to be spent on English-language learners,” he said. “Simply increasing the amount is not sufficient if there is no scientific basis to determine that.”

According to Mr. Horne, the new measure sets up a structure for determining costs. “When the schools show how they comport with the model, they have to show how much that will cost, how much they have available, and how much they will need,” he said. “There’s nothing more scientific than going out and seeing what the facts are.”

Gov. Napolitano wrote in her March 3 letter that while she decided to let the measure become law, “I do not believe this bill meets either the court’s multiple orders or our existing consent decree.”

A version of this article appeared in the March 15, 2006 edition of Education Week as Arizona Governor Allows ELL Bill to Become Law

Events

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Teens Drop Lawsuit Against Trump's Trans Sports Order After Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court last month upheld state bans on transgender girls in school sports.
4 min read
Two teens challenging New Hampshire's new law banning transgender girls from girls' sports teams, Parker Tirrell, third from left, and Iris Turmelle, sixth from left, pose with their families and attorneys in Concord, N.H., Aug. 19, 2024.
Parker Tirrell, third from left, and Iris Turmelle, sixth from left, pose with their families and attorneys in Concord, N.H., Aug. 19, 2024. The teens initially sued over New Hampshire's law banning transgender girls from school sports teams, and later expanded their lawsuit to challenge President Donald Trump's February 2025 executive order threatening to withhold federal funds from schools that allow transgender girls to join girls' sports teams. They've since withdrawn the legal challenge following a Supreme Court ruling allowing states to ban transgender girls from sports under Title IX.
Holly Ramer/AP
Law & Courts What Schools Need to Know About the Supreme Court’s Transgender Sports Ruling
The justices upheld two state laws that bar transgender girls from participating in female sports.
10 min read
A group prays outside of the Supreme Court ahead of the court's ruling on whether transgender girls and women can play on school athletic teams, on June 30, 2026, on Capitol Hill in Washington.
A group prays outside of the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of the court's ruling on whether transgender girls and women can play on school athletic teams, on June 30, 2026, in Washington. The court upheld two state laws barring transgender girls from joining girls' school sports teams.
Jose Luis Magana/AP
Law & Courts Judges Strike Down Trump Admin.'s Student Loan Forgiveness Overhaul
Two judges sided with advocates who said the program risked becoming a tool for political retribution.
3 min read
In this May 5, 2018, file photo, graduates at the University of Toledo commencement ceremony in Toledo, Ohio.
Graduates at the University of Toledo commencement ceremony in Toledo, Ohio, on May 5, 2018. Two judges have ruled against the Trump administration's overhaul of a public service loan forgiveness program for which teachers have qualified.
Carlos Osorio/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship, Rejecting Trump's Proposed Limits
The justices relied on the 14th Amendment and federal law to rule that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen.
4 min read
Members of the Supreme Court sit for a group portrait in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. Bottom row, from left, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The Supreme Court justices will take the bench Monday, July 1, 2024, to release their last few opinions of the term, including their most closely watched case: whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution.
Members of the Supreme Court sit for a group portrait in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. Bottom row, from left, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The high court, on June 30, 2026, rejected President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP