FLORES v. ARIZONA (2009)

Background

• Plaintiffs - Parents of children enrolled in the Nogales Unified School District
• Plaintiffs alleged civil rights of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students were violated because program of instruction did not include:
• Adequate language acquisition
• Academic instructional programs and funding for
• At-risk
• Low income
• Minority students
• Plaintiffs argued state’s inadequacy regarding LEP programs was a violation of the federal Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA).

Arizona Senate Research Staff. (2013, December 30). Arizona State Senate Issue Brief: Flores v. Arizona. Retrieved February 7, 2016, from http://www.azleg.gov/briefs/Senate/FLORES V ARIZONA.pdf

FLORES v. ARIZONA (2009)

• Also known as Horne v. Flores (2009)
• Originated in Nogales, AZ
• Thomas C. Horne - AZ State Superintendent
• Civil Rights case
• Specifically ELL Rights

Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA)

• EEOA prohibits discrimination in education
• Requires public schools to provide LEP children with a program designed to make them competent in speaking, understanding, reading and writing English
• Students still receive standard curriculum taught to all students in the school district.

Arizona Senate Research Staff. (2013, December 30). Arizona State Senate Issue Brief: Flores v. Arizona. Retrieved February 7, 2016, from http://www.azleg.gov/briefs/Senate/FLORES V ARIZONA.pdf

References:

Arizona Senate Research Staff. (2013, December 30). Arizona State Senate Issue Brief: Flores v. Arizona. Retrieved February 7, 2016, from http://www.azleg.gov/briefs/Senate/FLORES V ARIZONA.pdf

IRDA. (n.d.). Horne vs Flores Summary. Retrieved February 07, 2016, from http://www.idra.org/Education_Policy.htm/IDRA_Publications_Related_to_Education_Policy_/Horne_vs_Flores_Summary/

Lewin, T. (2009, June 25). Supreme Court Sides With Arizona in Language Case. Retrieved February 07, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/education/26educ.html?_r=0

The Civil Rights Project. (n.d.). Horne v. Flores: Statement on the Decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved February 07, 2016, from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/legal-developments/court-decisions/crp-statement-on-the-flores-decision-of-the-u.s.-supreme-court

Walsh, M. (2009, April 13). Supreme Court Preview: Horne v. Flores. Retrieved February 07, 2016, from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2009/04/supreme_court_preview_horne_v.html

FLORES v. ARIZONA (2009)

Effects of FLORES v. ARIZONA

• Greatly increases the barriers for Latino and other language minority students in winning resources for their children's education
• Narrows the meaning of the Equal Educational Opportunity Act
• Strengthens the state's rights.

The Civil Rights Project. (n.d.). Horne v. Flores: Statement on the Decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved February 07, 2016, from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/legal-developments/court-decisions/crp-statement-on-the-flores-decision-of-the-u.s.-supreme-court

2000

2007

2009

1992

June 2009

November 2007

September 2007

January 2000

August 2000

November 2000

1992

• Flores v. State of Arizona was filed in federal district court

Results:

June 25, 2009

• The United States Supreme Court overturned the decision of the state court
• Allows the state to determine its own requirements with regards to ELL instruction.
• Decided that evaluating the actions of the state attention should focus on student outcomes rather than on spending and inputs to schools

The District Court declared Arizona’s LEP programs in violation of the EEOA because the funding level as it related to LEP students was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The ruling stated that there were:

1) too many students in a classroom;

2) not enough classrooms;

3) not enough qualified teachers;

4) not enough teacher aids;

5) inadequate tutoring programs; and

6) insufficient teaching materials.

The District Court ruled that the above were a result of inadequate funding and the state did not appeal this decision.

• The Task Force adopted the budget form developed by ADE to fund the SEI models
• ADE reported that public schools had submitted $274.6 million in funding requests
• Approximately $40.7 million was approved
• Enacted as law in April 2008

Voters approved Proposition 203

Proposition 203

• Repealed existing bilingual education laws and enacted new laws
• All classes be taught in English, except that pupils who are classified as English Language Learners (ELL)
• ELL would be educated separately through Structured English Immersion (SEI) for a period not to exceed a year.

The State Board of Education and the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) were forced to adopt official rules and policies that put in place:

1) Standardized methods of identifying LEP students;

2) Uniform performance standards for determining and reassessing English proficiency

3) Alignment of curriculum with academic standards and instructional strategies

4) Criteria on individual education plans for English learners

5) Monitoring and compliance responsibilities by the ADE.

A Task Force for the state formally adopted SEI models. Key points of the models are as follows:

• Four hours of English language development daily for the first year, including vocabulary, reading, writing and grammar.

• Entry/exit and classification into an SEI program only through annual administration of the Arizona English Language Learner Task Force Assessment (AZELLA).

• Classroom/student grouping determined by overall proficiency level within grade.

• Class size targets of 20-28 students dependent on the student’s proficiency level.

Arizona Senate Research Staff. (2013, December 30). Arizona State Senate Issue Brief: Flores v. Arizona. Retrieved February 7, 2016, from http://www.azleg.gov/briefs/Senate/FLORES V ARIZONA.pdf