Does this sound threatening to you? Part 2

by

by David Safier
A few hours ago, I posted about a letter from Tom Horne to administrators and school board members that sounded both overly harsh and threatening to my ears.

Now I'm wondering if it may be deceptive as well. Just wondering, mind you. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator, so I'm only stating my opinion as a careful reader.

To recap: Horne's letter says that all districts must follow the new ELL Structured English Immersion model rules to the letter. No exceptions. No excuses like, "You didn't give me any money to implement your model." Districts were given a bit of leeway during the 2008-2009 school year, but no more.

Then the letter uses exact wording from state law, A.R.S. 15-754 to issue a not-so-subtle threat: mess with my rules, and if a parent sues, you've got to pay the damages. Here is the excerpt from 15-754.

… Any school board member or other elected official or administrator who willfully and repeatedly refuses to implement the terms of this statute [A.R-S. I5-752 and I5-753] may be held personally liable for fees and actual and compensatory damages by the child's parents or legal guardian, and cannot be subsequently indemnified for such assessed damages by any public or private third party. Any individual found so liable shall be immediately removed from office, and shall be barred from holding any position of authority anywhere within the Arizona public school system for an additional period of five years."

I went back and read 15-752 and 15-753, which 15-754 refers back to. Neither of them has language that lays out Horne's dictates about 4 hours of ELL instruction. That's in HB2064 — or to be more precise, in the decisions of the task force set up by HB2064 to establish guidelines for teaching ELL in Arizona.

Here is 17-752, in full.

Subject to the exceptions provided in section 15-753, all children in Arizona public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English and all children shall be placed in English language classrooms. Children who are English learners shall be educated through sheltered English immersion during a temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed one year. Local schools shall be permitted but not required to place in the same classroom English learners of different ages but whose degree of English proficiency is similar. Local schools shall be encouraged to mix together in the same classroom English learners from different native-language groups but with the same degree of English fluency. Once English learners have acquired a good working knowledge of English and are able to do regular school work in English, they shall no longer be classified as English learners and shall be transferred to English language mainstream classrooms. As much as possible, current per capita supplemental funding for English learners shall be maintained. Foreign language classes for children who already know English shall be completely unaffected, as shall special educational programs for physically- or mentally-impaired students.

There are no specifics about how the sheltered English immersion is to be administered in the classroom — nothing about length of the classes, nothing about the materials taught or the methods used — other than it must be in English and go on for about a year.

17-753 is about exceptions to 17-752, so it doesn't have more detailed requirements.

So let's look back. Horne is saying to districts, you'd better do exactly what the task force set up by HB2064 tells you to do. But then he says, if you don't, you could have 15-764 problems with parents suing and you having to pay damages. But the way I read 15-764, so long as the district is teaching sheltered English immersion classes as specified in 17-752, it's doing what it is legally required to do by 15-764, regardless of whether it follows the specific guidelines set up by Horne's task force.

I know this is mind-numbingly picky, and I may be totally wrong, but if Horne is conflating two pieces of legislation incorrectly to make his point, he's not only threatening administrators and board members with possible suits, but he's lying about misstating what parents can sue for.

Discover more from Blog for Arizona

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 thoughts on “Does this sound threatening to you? Part 2”

  1. Tragically long ago, especially in Arizona, parents gave control of their children over government in the form of corporate sponsored education curriculum, to teachers, especially the teachers union, and to the coveted rewards idealized through sport endeavors.

    I find it amusing that Horne can make newspaper headlines for speeding in school zones and multiple radar tickets and not a word, what the hell is going on…?

    Education of our children does not appear on the Arizona radar screen. Our focus is far more important things like making sure we can carry out weapons into bars or openly display them at public gatherings or making sure the stockholders of SRP and APS are rewarded with higher rates for utilities.

    Isn’t it time we stop this asinine merry-go-round…?

    Respectfully,

  2. Looks like La Raza and MeeCHA will meet there match at all TUSD Schools!

    The Government North of The Hila River is taking back Southern Arizona under The Rule of Law.

    Maybe we American Citizens do have a future in Southern Arizona!

Comments are closed.