RUTH FISHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT v. BUCKEYE UNION HIGH …
| Decision Date | 12 March 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 1 CA-CV 01-0133.,1 CA-CV 01-0133. |
| Citation | 41 P.3d 645,202 Ariz. 107 |
| Parties | RUTH FISHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BUCKEYE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Udall, Shumway, Blackhurst, Allen & Lyons, P.C., Mesa, By Patricia K. Husbands, for Appellee.
Hufford, Horstman, Mongini, Parnell & McCarthy, P.C., Flagstaff, By Patrice M. Horstman and James S. Manlowe, for Appellant.
¶ 1 For favorable funding purposes, appellant Buckeye Union High School District (Buckeye) enrolled high school students residing in appellee Ruth Fisher Elementary School District (Fisher) as open enrollment students rather than as tuition students. In an action seeking clarification filed by Fisher, the trial court ruled that Buckeye must enroll Fisher students as tuition students. We hold that the open enrollment tuition policies outlined in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 15-816.01 (Supp.2001) do not apply to high school students living in a common school district1 that is not within a high school district. We therefore affirm the ruling of the trial court.
¶ 2 Fisher is a common school district that offers instruction for students in kindergarten through eighth grade. Fisher does not have a high school within its district. Many high school students living in Fisher attend Buckeye Union High School as tuition students. See A.R.S. § 15-824 (Supp.2001). Fisher pays the tuition for those students, and they are counted as Fisher students for apportionment of state education aid.
¶ 3 In the spring of 2000, a dispute arose between Fisher and Buckeye concerning the amount of tuition owed by Fisher. By the end of the summer, the districts still had not resolved the dispute.
¶ 4 As a result, in September 2000, Buckeye notified Fisher and parents of Fisher students attending Buckeye Union High School that it would accept those students as open enrollment students, rather than as tuition students. Buckeye advised the parents of Fisher students that in order to avoid future tuition disputes, parents could enroll their high school students under the state open enrollment laws and Buckeye's revised open enrollment policy, which gave priority to Fisher students over other nonresident students. They further advised the parents that students enrolled as open enrollment students would receive bus transportation from Buckeye, rather than from Fisher, and would be counted as Buckeye students for purposes of state education funding. The parents of seventeen Fisher high school students enrolled their children at Buckeye Union High School under the open enrollment policy. Approximately one hundred Fisher high school students continued their placement at Buckeye Union High School as tuition students.
¶ 5 Fisher filed an action requesting the court to declare that A.R.S. § 15-824(A)(2) compels Buckeye to admit and charge tuition for all Fisher students electing to attend Buckeye Union High School. Fisher also requested the court to declare that Fisher students attending Buckeye Union High School remain Fisher students for the apportionment of state aid. Fisher further requested the court to enjoin Buckeye from 1) encouraging parents of Fisher students to sign up for open enrollment, 2) sending Buckeye Union High School buses into Fisher to transport students attending Buckeye Union High School, and 3) claiming average daily membership (ADM) for Fisher students.
¶ 6 Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Fisher's motion, concluding that the open enrollment provisions of A.R.S. § 15-816.01 do not apply to Fisher students who are eligible to attend Buckeye Union High School as tuition students under A.R.S. § 15-824(A)(2). Buckeye timely appealed from the judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(B) (1994).
¶ 7 Buckeye argues that the plain language of Arizona's open enrollment statutes does not prevent Fisher students from enrolling as either open enrollment or tuition students at their discretion. We disagree.
¶ 8 The statute providing for admission of tuition students, A.R.S. § 15-824, was enacted before A.R.S. § 15-816.01. Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-824 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
¶ 9 "Open enrollment" is defined as "a policy adopted and implemented by a school district governing board to allow resident transfer pupils to enroll in any school within the school district, to allow resident pupils to enroll in any school located within other school districts in this state and to allow nonresident pupils to enroll in any school within the district pursuant to § 15-816.01." A.R.S. § 15-816(2) (Supp.2001). A "nonresident pupil" is a student "who resides in this state and who is enrolled in or is seeking enrollment in a school district other than the school district in which the pupil resides." A.R.S. § 15-816(1).
¶ 10 Under A.R.S. § 15-816.01(A), school district governing boards are required to establish and implement open enrollment policies that allow nonresident students to enroll without paying tuition. This statute also provides that tuition may be charged to nonresident students only when tuition is authorized under certain delineated statutes. One such statute is A.R.S. § 15-824(A). A.R.S. § 15-816.01(A).
¶ 11 Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 15-816.01 and 15-824 both allow students to attend schools outside the districts in which they reside. We must determine if the legislature intended to grant to students in common school districts that are not within high school districts the liberty to choose to enroll in high schools as either students whose tuition is paid by their home district or as open enrollment students for which no tuition is charged.
¶ 12 When we interpret the meaning and application of related statutes, we keep in mind that "[i]f reasonably practical, a statute should be explained in conjunction with other statutes to the end that they may be harmonious and consistent." State ex rel. Larson v. Farley, 106 Ariz. 119, 122, 471 P.2d 731, 734 (1970). The Larson court further explained the method of construing related statutes:
If the statutes relate to the same subject or have the same general purpose—that is, statutes which are in pari materia—they should be read in connection with, or should be construed together with other related statutes, as though they constituted one law. As they must be construed as one system governed by one spirit and policy, the legislative intent therefor must be ascertained not alone from the literal meaning of the wording of the statutes but also from the view of the whole system of related statutes. This rule of construction applies even where the statutes were enacted at different times, and contain no reference one to the other ....
Id. When statutes concern the same subject matter and the later enactment does not expressly repeal or amend the former, the later statute is deemed to have been enacted in accord with the legislative policy contained in the earlier statute. Hibbs ex rel. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue v. Chandler Ginning Co., 164 Ariz. 11, 16, 790 P.2d 297, 302 (App.1990).
¶ 14 In the present case, the trial court concluded that unlike A.R.S. § 15-816.01, A.R.S. § 15-824(A)(2) is a specific statute that grants qualifying students the absolute right to attend high school in the school district of their choice. "This is an unqualified right and a school district may not impose any criteria for admission under the statute."2 The court noted that, in contrast to A.R.S. § 15-824, students seeking admission pursuant to a district's open enrollment policy must meet the admission criteria or be denied admission.
¶ 15 The court did not accept Buckeye's argument that the passage of A.R.S. § 15-816.01 evidences the legislature's intent to provide students meeting the criteria of A.R.S. § 15-824(A)(2) with an option. The trial court concluded that "since students entitled to enrollment under A.R.S. § 15-824(A)(2) already have the ability to attend the school of their choice, A.R.S. § 15-816.01 offers no real option."
¶ 16 We agree with the trial court. First, we find that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freeman v. Grain Processing Corp.
...is presumed to accord with the legislative policy embodied in prior statutes. See Ruth Fisher Elementary Sch. Dist. v. Buckeye Union High Sch. Dist., 202 Ariz. 107, 41 P.3d 645, 648 (Ariz.Ct.App.2002). When prior and later statutes deal with the same subject matter, although in apparent con......
-
Pleak v. ENTRADA PROPERTY OWNERS'ASSN.
...See Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 177 Ariz. 244, 866 P.2d 1330 (1994); Ruth Fisher Elementary Sch. Dist. v. Buckeye Union High Sch. Dist., 202 Ariz. 107, 41 P.3d 645 (App.2002). And, although title and section headings of statutes are not law, we may look to them for guidan......
-
Mccloud v. State, Dept. of Public Safety
...to legislative intent.'"), quoting State v. Kearney, 206 Ariz. 547, ¶ 5, 81 P.3d 338, 340 (App.2003); Ruth Fisher Elementary Sch. Dist. v. Buckeye Union High Sch. Dist., 202 Ariz. 107, ¶ 12, 41 P.3d 645, 648 (App.2002) ("When we interpret the meaning and application of related statutes, we ......
-
PLEAK v. ENTRADA PROPERTY OWNERS'ASS'N
...See Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 177 Ariz. 244, 866 P.2d 1330 (1994); Ruth Fisher Elementary Sch. Dist. v. Buckeye Union High Sch. Dist., 202 Ariz. 107, 41 P.3d 645 (App.2002). And, although title and section headings of statutes are not law, we may look to them for guidan......