House Statement - "U.S. Supreme Court Renders Decision in Flores Today"
June 25 2009 10:35
Today’s decision is a tremendous development for all Arizonans. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that it is incumbent upon federal courts to adopt a flexible approach that respects both federalism and the separation of powers. After almost two decades of litigation, this direction is a breath of fresh air. Arizona’s public policy assisting ELL students belongs with elected representatives, not in the courts.
There is great reason to be excited about the future. Recent test results have proven that Structured English Immersion works and is the best way to teach our youngsters a command of the English language. Today’s decision will help move past gridlock in the court room, to success in the classroom. That’s good news for students and good news for Arizona. Now we need to roll up our sleeves and get on with it and teach these children English.
Please see our previous post for a link to the Court’s opinion.
There is great reason to be excited about the future. Recent test results have proven that Structured English Immersion works and is the best way to teach our youngsters a command of the English language. Today’s decision will help move past gridlock in the court room, to success in the classroom. That’s good news for students and good news for Arizona. Now we need to roll up our sleeves and get on with it and teach these children English.
Please see our previous post for a link to the Court’s opinion.
Legislature Prevails in U.S. Supreme Court ELL Case
June 25 2009 08:24
Speaker Adams, President Burns and Superintendent Horne prevailed by a 5-4 decision in the United States Supreme Court ELL case.
You can view the Court’s opinion here - Horne v. Flores (PDF)
You can view the Court’s opinion here - Horne v. Flores (PDF)
SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments in ELL Case
April 21 2009 10:28
Yesterday the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the ELL case.
You can find the transcript to the oral argument here at the SCOTUS website.
Additionally, a good article by the Arizona Republic on yesterday’s oral arguments can be found here.
Some key graphs include:
“The bottom line is these kids are going to learn English and quickly," David Cantelme said.
"Our fundamental quarrel with the approach of the District Court is it blinded itself to the significant changes structurally, as well as the progress that had been made, and just said it doesn't matter because this is all about funding," Starr told the court. "And that is not true."
You can find the transcript to the oral argument here at the SCOTUS website.
Additionally, a good article by the Arizona Republic on yesterday’s oral arguments can be found here.
Some key graphs include:
“The bottom line is these kids are going to learn English and quickly," David Cantelme said.
"Our fundamental quarrel with the approach of the District Court is it blinded itself to the significant changes structurally, as well as the progress that had been made, and just said it doesn't matter because this is all about funding," Starr told the court. "And that is not true."
AZ's ELL Issue Before SCOTUS Today
April 20 2009 09:50
Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Speaker of the Arizona House and President of the Arizona Senate v. Flores, 08-294. The Court will render a decision before June 30, 2009.
The Nation’s High Court will consider whether the lower federal courts improperly refused to modify an eight-year old injunction addressing the state-wide funding that Arizona provides for programs for English language learners. Specifically, the Supreme Court will decide whether the refusal to modify the injunction complies with its earlier precedents given the significant changes that have occurred over the last eight years both in Arizona’s schools and in federal educational policy.
Ken Starr argued the case on behalf of Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, Kirk D. Adams, and President of the Arizona Senate, Robert L. Burns. “It is clear from the Justices’ questions that they understand the importance of this case,” Starr said. “We are hopeful that the Court will restore local control back to Arizona’s Legislature over funding the state’s ELL school programs.”
“One size does not fit all,” Speaker Adams explained. “Only the Legislature has the authority and the ability to tailor policy solutions that meet the diverse educational needs of our state. It’s time for the federal courts to return this area of policy to the elected representatives of the People of Arizona.”
Speaker Adams continued: “I hope the Court issues a decision that enables Arizona to return to the task of implementing its highly-effective, intensive, four-hour a day program of immersion in English language instruction. This program was designed by national experts to immerse Arizona ELL students in a course of reading, writing, grammar, and listening and speaking skills. We are confident that this program will work, and will quickly and cost-effectively teach these students English.”
For more information about this case please see our previous post at this link.
The Nation’s High Court will consider whether the lower federal courts improperly refused to modify an eight-year old injunction addressing the state-wide funding that Arizona provides for programs for English language learners. Specifically, the Supreme Court will decide whether the refusal to modify the injunction complies with its earlier precedents given the significant changes that have occurred over the last eight years both in Arizona’s schools and in federal educational policy.
Ken Starr argued the case on behalf of Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, Kirk D. Adams, and President of the Arizona Senate, Robert L. Burns. “It is clear from the Justices’ questions that they understand the importance of this case,” Starr said. “We are hopeful that the Court will restore local control back to Arizona’s Legislature over funding the state’s ELL school programs.”
“One size does not fit all,” Speaker Adams explained. “Only the Legislature has the authority and the ability to tailor policy solutions that meet the diverse educational needs of our state. It’s time for the federal courts to return this area of policy to the elected representatives of the People of Arizona.”
Speaker Adams continued: “I hope the Court issues a decision that enables Arizona to return to the task of implementing its highly-effective, intensive, four-hour a day program of immersion in English language instruction. This program was designed by national experts to immerse Arizona ELL students in a course of reading, writing, grammar, and listening and speaking skills. We are confident that this program will work, and will quickly and cost-effectively teach these students English.”
For more information about this case please see our previous post at this link.
SCOTUS to hear AZ ELL case next Monday
April 13 2009 13:00
Next Monday morning, April 20, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and President of the Senate v. Flores. The issue involves the interference of the federal courts with the authority of the Arizona legislature to establish education policy for English Language Learners.
The Court will decide whether the judgement put in place in 2000 should be modified or ended given significant developments in the intervening years.
Developments include: Prop 203 (2001), the Federal No Child Left Behind Act, and HB2064 (2006).
Here are the Speaker’s legal filings with the Supreme Court:
1. Petition for writ of certiori brief (PDF)
2. Petitioner's Opening Brief (PDF)
3. Petitioner's Reply Brief (PDF)
For more resources on this case, click here.
Additionally, from the Arizona Republic, read Robert Robb’s most recent column on ELL issues.
The Court will decide whether the judgement put in place in 2000 should be modified or ended given significant developments in the intervening years.
Developments include: Prop 203 (2001), the Federal No Child Left Behind Act, and HB2064 (2006).
Here are the Speaker’s legal filings with the Supreme Court:
1. Petition for writ of certiori brief (PDF)
2. Petitioner's Opening Brief (PDF)
3. Petitioner's Reply Brief (PDF)
For more resources on this case, click here.
Additionally, from the Arizona Republic, read Robert Robb’s most recent column on ELL issues.