Attorneys for Arizona have requested a judge dismiss a five-year-old lawsuit claiming lawmakers have failed to satisfy their legal obligations to adequately fund school facility maintenance and construction.
The lawyers argued before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Daniel Martin that changes have occurred in the funding system since school districts and outside education advocates filed the lawsuit in 2017.
They argued the question of school funding methods should be left to elected legislators, noting that changes have already been made and alleging they need flexibility in addressing future policy issues.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued the Arizona Constitution requires lawmakers to adequately fund education, and they alleged capital funding has been insufficient to allow districts to operate at the state’s standards for facilities. They asked that the judge immediately direct lawmakers to develop a functional system under the Constitution’s guidelines, as they were previously directed by the Arizona Supreme Court in 1994.
Since that time, one implemented solution has been the creation of the School Facilities Board. Even though the Board was created to identify and direct funding needs, no new source of revenue was created that would address the estimated $300M annual cost.
Attorneys argued the state still does not provide adequate funds for construction, maintenance and major repairs.
Lawyers for the state argue that assertion is not supported by the record. They also said the law only requires funding sufficient to meet minimum guidelines.
Plaintiff attorneys responded that even that low standard is not being adequately met. They added that if the state funded new schools, rather than placing the burden on districts, none of those issues would be in effect.
The state’s attorneys argued the plaintiffs’ allegations do not show any proof of harm from the current funding formula. They claim that without such proof being offered, there is no basis for the plaintiffs’ claims.
Judge Martin did not say when he intends to rule on the arguments. (Source)