 |
| Worn down buildings and outdated equipment were among the reasons the GESD Governing Board voted to join in a lawsuit challenging Arizona's finance system for education. |
The Glendale Elementary
School District Governing Board agreed tonight to join in a lawsuit against the
State of Arizona contending that the state’s current system for financing
schools is unconstitutional because it fails to provide adequate capital funding
for public schools.
GESD was approached by the
Center for Arizona Law In the Public Interests (ACLPI) and its lead attorney
Tim Hogan to join in the suit because the District has significant capital
needs and is a good example of how legislative cuts to capital funding
negatively impact school districts.
“We have not approached this
lawsuit cavalierly,” said Superintendent Joe Quintana. “Glendale Elementary has
urgent capital needs — to refurbish schools that were designed for education in
the 70s, to fix buildings that are sinking, and to upgrade or replace school
buildings in need of repair— and the state has failed to provide GESD and
districts across the state with the funding necessary to maintain our facilities
at a minimum standard.
“As a District, we cannot in
good conscience sit back and do nothing as our students are denied the tools
and facilities they deserve and need to meet ever increasing achievement standards.
Our students deserve better, safer schools, and our teachers deserve better working
conditions. This is the first step in getting that for them.”
“It’s time for us to stand
up for kids and lead that charge,” said Assistant Superintendent for Business
and Auxiliary Services Mike Barragan.
“We owe it to our community
and kids to be part of this,” said Governing Board President Mary Ann Wilson
before calling for the vote.
In addition to the failure
to provide necessary funding to maintain minimum standards at school, the
lawsuit will also claim that the minimum standards adopted by the School
Facilities Board in 1999, and subsequently frozen by the legislature, are
outdated and need to be revised. The suit, which will be brought at no cost to
GESD or District taxpayers, seeks to have Arizona’s school funding system
declared unconstitutional and will request that the court direct the state to
provide funding that will allow school districts to meet minimum standards.
Hogan and ACLPI won a
similar lawsuit, Roosevelt v. Bishop, in 1991. In response the legislature
developed Students FIRST, that established minimum standards for school
building, facilities and equipment necessary to support student achievement of
state-mandated academic standards.
Students FIRST divided
capital revenues into two camps: soft capital, which was used to provide short
term items such as technology and books; and the building renewal fund, which
was to provide schools with annual funding to improve school facilities based
on the buildings’ age, size and previous renovations.
Soft capital, which
originally provided school districts with $220 per student, was reduced and
then eliminated and combined with other funds into something called district
additional assistance (DAA). DAA is funded at a substantially lower rate than
soft capital. In addition, while soft capital funds were required to be spent
on capital items, DAA can be spent on either capital or operating expenses.
The legislature fully funded
the building renewal formula just once in its 15 years of existence, and
repealed it in 2013. Instead, the legislature has appropriated approximate $16
million yearly to the School Facilities Board (which oversaw the building
renewal fund). That annual amount falls fall short of the more the $500 million
some estimate school districts require.
“The legislature had totally
reneged on the commitment that it made to the Supreme Court at the time
Students FIRST was presented for approval by the court,” Hogan wrote in a
summary of the lawsuit and its intent for GESD. “It has eliminated basically
all funding that accompanied Students FIRST to the point that we are in pretty
much exactly the same position we were in 1991 when we filed the Roosevelt case. School districts are
quickly developing into the haves and the have nots, although there are more of
the have nots and less of the haves than there were before.”
