Eileen Sigmund
All public school students — district or charter — are entitled to the same educational privileges afforded by Arizona’s Constitution. A recent ruling by the Maricopa County Superior Court in the lawsuit Craven et al. v. State of Arizona et al. confirmed just that.
This lawsuit, filed by an 18-year-old Lake Havasu High School student and the parents of public school children, challenges Arizona’s system of K-12 school funding. It addresses the wide disparities in Arizona school finance, last overhauled in 1980 when the state government had only one fax machine.
When it comes to Arizona’s out-of-date school funding system, students are treated differently. Charter students are funded, on average, $1,500 less per student than their district peers.
The State and others argued in court that public district school students and public charter school students are not members of a similarly situated group of people. The State has maintained that Arizona’s pubic charter school students occupy an inferior, secondary, supplemental level in Arizona’s public school hierarchy. The recent ruling rejects that argument.
But this lawsuit is not a district versus charter story; it affects all Arizona public school students. It is about the inequitable distribution of Arizona taxes to all public school students — rural, urban, district, or charter.
Arizona has more than 1.1 million students in its K-12 system. An easy way to look at the disparities is to break out the top funded 100,000 students and the bottom funded 100,000 students with the remaining students in the middle. When you look at all taxes that fund our K-12 education system, the bottom 100,000 are funded almost $7,000 less per child than the top 100,000 students. Over their K-12 career, these 100,000 children on the bottom of Arizona’s K-12 funding scheme receive $7.5 billion less than those top 100.000 students.
These disparities are unjust. This lawsuit seeks to affirm a basic American principle: that all children in public schools receive an equally good education, backed by similar, adequate resources. By the luck of geography, more taxpayer money should not flow to some public schools at the expense of others.
In light of the ruling, the remainder of this litigation will focus on the determination of whether Arizona’s K-12 student finance scheme is constitutional. To be upheld, the system must be rational, reasonable, and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or capricious. It is expected that the case will now move to trial in the summer of 2012.
The system has failed our children, families, and schools. We cannot treat some students as if they are worth less than others.
Eileen Sigmund is President/CEO of the Arizona Charter Schools Association.
