1 / 12

Legal Update

Legal Update. AASBO Spring Conference April 22, 2011. Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. Arizona student tuition tax credit program Passed in 1997; ETC credit passed at same time As-applied challenge vs. facial challenge

hakeem-ingram
Download Presentation

Legal Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Legal Update AASBO Spring Conference April 22, 2011

  2. Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn • Arizona student tuition tax credit program • Passed in 1997; ETC credit passed at same time • As-applied challenge vs. facial challenge • Standing issue: under Flast v. Cohen taxpayers have right to challenge government action/programs that violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment • USSC held 5-4 that since the program didn’t involve the expenditure of public monies, taxpayers don’t have standing to sue; never reached the merits of the case • Dissent: Court’s opinion gives a roadmap of how to violate Establishment Clause and to accomplish indirectly what could not be done directly

  3. Cave Creek Unified School District, et. al v. Ducey • Prop. 301 inflation mandate – FY2011 didn’t provide mandated increase • “Or” vs. “and” • Superior Court: voters merely suggested the Legislature make appropriations – cannot require appropriations be made (calls into question all propositions that use general fund as revenue source and require annual appropriations from Legislature)

  4. Reeves v. Barlow • Arizona Court of Appeals: School districts do not have authority to pay CSF funds to individuals that are not certified as teachers • School districts do have discretion to include individuals that do possess teaching certificate • Overrules/contradicts AGO I01-014

  5. General and Uniform Clause • AZ Constitution (Art. 11, Sec. 1): “The legislature shall enact such laws as shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a general and uniform public school system…” • Roosevelt v. Bishop (1994): …Units in "general and uniform" state systems need not be exactly the same, identical, or equal. Funding mechanisms that provide sufficient funds to educate children on substantially equal terms tend to satisfy the general and uniform requirement. School financing systems which themselves create gross disparities are not general and uniform.”

  6. Craven v. Arizona, Hobday v. Arizona • Is it a violation of General & Uniform clause for charters to receive different funding than traditional school districts; is it a violation of G & U for some districts to have overrides and some not • Transportation, overrides, bonds v. additional assistance • What about other non-financial regulation?

  7. Gilbert v. Arizona • Is it a violation of G & U for some districts to receive Career Ladder monies and some not? • 1985: 5-year pilot program began; started with 7 and added 7 at a time to 28 districts; funding mix between local and state; since 1994 no other districts have been able to join program and state funding has been cut • allows districts in program to spend 5.5% above their revenue control limit (and tax local taxpayers for it) to fund the program – FY2012 – state continuing phase-out • Districts that are part of program represent 40% of teachers in state • 2006, resulted in $74 million in funding for those districts for teacher pay • Superior Court: If state causes ANY disparity in funding, it’s a violation of G &U

  8. Congress v. Warren • May a school district enjoin citizens that make “vexatious” public records request, presumptively denying those requests unless they are approved by a court • Jean Warren & Friends: • 2002-03: 5 PR requests • 2007-08: 1 PR request • 2008-09: 45 PR requests • 2009-10: 12 PR requests • Arizona Court of Appeals – found for the defendant on the facts, didn’t reach the underlying legal issues • District never contested legitimacy of requests made – specificity, etc. – only that responding to the requests were time consuming

  9. Greene v. Camreta • USSC: Did a school district violate a student’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of seizure by not calling parent to inform about CPS inquiry or getting a warrant (court order) • Alleged sexual abuse of father • Looks like case will be set aside over whether a live case or controversy exists – student is not suing investigators for money damages violation of civil rights only school district • Justices seem to think 9th Circuit got it wrong when concluding that such child-abuse interviews would always require a warrant or parental permission

  10. Home Language Survey – AZELLA • Used to be three question survey used to identify if student needed English Language Learner services • 2009: ADE changed survey to one question: • What is the primary language of the student? • If answer was English, student was mainstreamed • ADE/OCR reached agreement: • What language is spoken in student’s home? • What language did student learn first? • What is the language spoke most often by student? • Answer must be English to all three or school must test student to ascertain English skills

  11. Plyler v. Doe revisited? • SB1407 – held in Legislature • What does Plyler say? • Chilling effects covered?

  12. Questions? cthomas@azsba.org

More Related