Flores v. Arizona

Citations: 480 F. Supp. 2d 1157; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20716; 2007 WL 896267Docket: CIV 92-596-TUC-RCC

Court: District Court, D. Arizona; March 22, 2007; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On March 22, 2007, the U.S. District Court for Arizona addressed the case involving Miriam Flores and the State of Arizona concerning the adequacy of House Bill 2064 (HB 2064) in meeting prior court orders related to English Language Learner (ELL) programs. The Court conducted hearings and reviewed multiple briefs from both parties and amici. Ultimately, the Court concluded that HB 2064 did not comply with the January 2000 Order and the December 2005 Order, denying the Intervenor's motion to purge contempt and dissolve injunctions. Key findings included that the Act failed to properly fund ELL programs, lacked a rationale for funding increases, did not comply with prior judgments, and imposed a two-year limitation that violated federal law. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed the District Court's contempt orders, directing it to hold an evidentiary hearing to assess if "changed circumstances" warranted modifications to the original court order under Rule 60(b)(5).

An eight-day evidentiary hearing was conducted by the Court starting on January 9, 2007, focusing on whether changes in funding and programs since the January 2000 Order justify modifying that judgment. The Superintendent and Legislative Intervenors argue that the Nogales Unified School District (NUSD) has met the original order's requirements due to improved performance, attributing this success largely to local efforts rather than state intervention. While NUSD has made significant strides, particularly in elementary and middle school education, high school performance remains inadequate. The moving Defendants claim that these improvements represent 'changed circumstances' warranting the lifting of sanctions, yet the Court notes that many advancements are still evolving and premature for assessment. The argument is made that success should not rely on individual leaders like former Superintendent Kelt Cooper and that the State must implement consistent standards and responsibilities. Furthermore, all parties acknowledge that effective English language learning (ELL) requires extensive resources and time, and the increased costs of NUSD’s ELL program may have significantly contributed to their progress. The Federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has also influenced state education strategies by mandating accountability for progress to secure funding.

NCLB mandates states to establish an accountability system of assessments to secure ongoing funding for public schools and emphasizes the obligation to effectively educate non-English speaking students. The implications of the Court's ruling extend beyond the Nogales Unified School District (NUSD), as all school districts must be considered in funding decisions. The Court's analysis of HB 2064 reveals persistent issues similar to those identified in the previous year, leading to a general finding in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendants. 

Key Findings of Fact include: 
1. At the time of the 2000 judgment, the State funded English Language Learner (ELL) instruction through an additional per-student amount for ELL students.
2. The State shifted its primary model of ELL instruction from bilingual education to structured English immersion since 2000.
3. Increased funding for school programs has been implemented, alongside federal grants for reading instruction in some at-risk schools, including four in NUSD.
4. ELL students require additional financial resources for effective education.
5. HB 2064 governs the funding process for ELL instruction, defining "incremental costs" related to structured English immersion, which must be approved by the Court to be implemented.
6. The law proposes a cost-based funding system starting in the 2007-08 school year, with instructional models developed by a task force.
7. School districts can select from approved instructional models and compute the incremental costs for implementation.
8. Additional funds may be requested from the Structured English Immersion Fund based on the incremental costs of the chosen model.

The Court's findings align with Federal Rules of Procedure, indicating a thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented.

The allowable request from the SEI Fund is restricted; districts and schools must first subtract various federal and other funding sources from their calculated incremental costs. Only if unmet costs remain after these deductions can they seek funding from the SEI Fund. Evidence presented indicates that the per-student incremental cost for ELL instruction exceeds both the current and proposed Group B weights, which will determine the funding available to districts for ELL education. Federal funds from Title I, IIA, and III are intended to enhance resources for at-risk students and are subject to a "supplement not supplant" provision, ensuring that federal funds do not replace state financial obligations. Arizona anticipates receiving significant federal funds under the No Child Left Behind Act, primarily for Title I programs. The state is obligated to comply with the supplanting restrictions and requires districts to agree not to substitute federal funds for state funds. Violating this requirement could result in the state needing to return misused funds and jeopardizing future federal funding eligibility. Testimony highlighted concerns that HB 2064 constitutes a serious violation of these restrictions. Additionally, the law limits funding for ELL students after two years of classification, ceasing additional support while maintaining base level funding.

Compensatory instruction funds for students not achieving English proficiency within two years are available but not guaranteed or formulaic, as per A.R.S. 15-756.04(C) and 15-756.11(G). These funds are restricted to services outside normal classroom instruction. Under previous legislation (HB 2010), funds could support both academic and English language proficiency, but HB 2064 narrows this to solely improving English proficiency. Consequently, districts must absorb the costs of regular instruction for English Language Learner (ELL) students beyond two years or reduce their Group B weight funds, significantly impacting funding (e.g., NUSD's reduction from $365 to $182 per student).

Furthermore, HB 2064 limits compensatory instruction funds for reclassified English proficient students to the first two years post-reclassification, despite them being proficient. There have been no distributions from the $10,000,000 fund established by HB 2064, which would equate to $74 per ELL student. While some students can attain proficiency in two years, many require longer; NUSD averages four to five years for reclassification, and in some districts, a significant percentage exceeds this timeframe. The Moving Parties did not provide evidence supporting the sufficiency of two years for all ELL students, and expert testimonies affirmed that while some may achieve proficiency in two years, many will need additional time. Testimony from Arizona Department of Education officials and former NUSD superintendent indicated a consensus that proficiency can take up to three years or more for various students.

The excerpt outlines legal conclusions pertaining to the obligations of a state under the Federal Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA). Key points include:

1. Findings of fact are integrated into the conclusions of law.
2. The EEOA mandates that states take appropriate actions to eliminate language barriers affecting student participation in educational programs.
3. States have the discretion to select from legitimate instructional methods without court interference but must provide adequate funding for the chosen method.
4. A prior court judgment from January 2000 found the state deficient in funding English Language Learner (ELL) programs in the Nogales Unified School District, citing inadequate resources and a lack of funding proportional to the instructional model's costs.
5. Compliance requires a funding system that aligns with the actual costs of ELL instruction, rather than just addressing specific shortcomings identified in the past.
6. Intervenor Defendants argue that changed factual circumstances justify the termination of judicial oversight and the satisfaction of the 2000 judgment.
7. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), relief from a judgment can be sought if it has been satisfied or if significant changes in facts or law warrant modification.
8. The movant must demonstrate that continued application of the judgment is no longer equitable and that changes in circumstances make compliance more burdensome.
9. A successful Rule 60(b)(5) motion requires evidence of substantial changes in factual or legal conditions, with proposed modifications designed to address the resulting issues.

Movants have argued that the judgment has been satisfied by presenting evidence of new funding methods and changes in practices since 2000, alongside claiming that HB 2064 meets legal funding requirements for ELL programs. The Court must assess if these changes justify ending court supervision, noting that prolonged voluntary compliance alone is insufficient for termination. However, HB 2064 is found to violate federal law by improperly factoring in federal funds from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in its funding calculations for ELL programs, contrary to 20 U.S.C. 7902. The law mandates that federal funds cannot replace state funding obligations, and HB 2064's approach to ELL funding does not fulfill this requirement, as it deducts federal funds from the state's contribution, undermining compliance with the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA).

The funding system established by HB 2064 jeopardizes nearly $600 million in federal educational funds by risking non-compliance with federal laws, which could lead to the loss of funding or repayment obligations. Additionally, the law imposes a two-year funding limit for ELL instruction, which is against EEOA regulations since some students may require more than two years to reach English proficiency. Consequently, HB 2064 fails to ensure adequate funding for all ELL students, as it systematically underfunds their education by inappropriately using federal funds and restricting funding duration, thereby not aligning with the Court's judgment or the EEOA's requirements.

Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is restricted to specific conditions: a significant change in facts or law justifying a decree revision, substantial changes in defendants' activities that eliminate the need for court supervision, altered conditions making compliance with the consent decree excessively burdensome or detrimental to public interest, and a modification proposal that is appropriately tailored to address the new circumstances. The Moving Parties did not meet any of these criteria. The Court previously determined that the State's minimum funding for ELL programs was arbitrary and unrelated to actual funding needs for student success. Seven years later, no significant changes have occurred; the Moving Parties failed to demonstrate compliance with the decree or any changed conditions justifying a modification or dissolution of the order. Consequently, the Court rules in favor of the Plaintiffs and concludes that the Defendants did not fulfill the requirements for Rule 60(b)(5) relief. The State is ordered to comply with the Original Order by the end of the current Legislative Session.