338 P.3d 324
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellants are parents of students attending Arizona charter schools who challenged the state statutory funding scheme as unconstitutional, seeking injunctive relief and a declaration that charter schools are funded in a manner that creates gross disparities with district public schools.
- Charter schools in Arizona are statutorily public schools that are subject to different regulation than district schools: they have exemptions from many district governance rules and greater programmatic flexibility.
- Funding differences: charter and district schools share the same base support level, but district schools receive state facility construction funding, may use bonds and budget overrides, and have other funding mechanisms unavailable to charters; charters receive per‑pupil equalization assistance and certain grants/assistance but lack access to some district funding tools.
- Appellants conceded their children receive adequate educations at their charter schools and that attendance is voluntary; they did not allege district schools were inadequate or that their children had been forced into charters by lack of alternatives.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding (1) no general-and-uniform clause violation because plaintiffs’ children receive adequate educations, and (2) no equal protection violation because plaintiffs failed to show they were treated differently from similarly situated students.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding appellants’ claims fail as a matter of law under both constitutional theories and that it was unnecessary to decide the appropriate level of scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arizona’s funding scheme violates the general and uniform clause | Craven: Funding disparities between charter and district schools breach the constitutional requirement for a general and uniform public school system | Huppenthal/State: Clause requires funding a constitutionally adequate public school system; adequacy satisfied, so no violation | Court: Dismissed — plaintiffs admit their children receive adequate education, so no general-and-uniform violation |
| Whether funding scheme violates equal protection | Craven: Charter students are similarly situated to district students and are denied equal funding privileges | Huppenthal/State: Charter attendance is voluntary; students can attend district schools; no disparate treatment of similarly situated persons | Court: Dismissed — plaintiffs failed threshold showing of unequal treatment of similarly situated class members |
| Whether strict scrutiny or rational basis applies to charter funding disparities | Craven: Argues for strict scrutiny | Huppenthal/State: Argues for rational basis review | Court: Did not decide; unnecessary because plaintiffs’ claims fail under either standard as a matter of law |
| Remedy requested: injunctive relief and attorney fees | Craven: Sought injunction to change funding and attorneys’ fees | Huppenthal/State: Opposed relief; defended legality of funding scheme | Court: Denied injunctive relief; refused plaintiffs’ fee request; awarded defendants appellate taxable costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Salt River Pima‑Maricopa Indian Cmty. Sch. v. State, 200 Ariz. 108, 23 P.3d 103 (App. 2001) (standard of review and treatment of charter funding claims)
- Roosevelt Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 66 v. State, 205 Ariz. 584, 74 P.3d 258 (App. 2003) (appellate review of school funding constitutional claims)
- Hull v. Albrecht, 190 Ariz. 520, 950 P.2d 1141 (1997) (general-and-uniform clause requires funding an adequate public school system)
- Roosevelt Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 66 v. Bishop, 179 Ariz. 233, 877 P.2d 806 (1994) (plurality discussion of uniformity; footnote suggesting adequacy may not be dispositive)
- Shofstall v. Hollins, 110 Ariz. 88, 515 P.2d 590 (1973) (constitutional guarantee of a basic education)
- Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Frank Harmonson Co. Metal Prods., 63 Ariz. 452, 163 P.2d 667 (1945) (equal protection requires like treatment of similarly situated persons)
- Shelby Sch. v. Ariz. State Bd. of Educ., 192 Ariz. 156, 962 P.2d 230 (App. 1998) (equal protection requires equal treatment of persons in a class)