When a charter school abruptly closes mid-year, who can authorize the Arizona Department of Education to update student records so kids can enroll elsewhere?

View original AG opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

In January 2018, an Arizona charter school abruptly closed mid-year. Its students sought to enroll in other schools, but a problem followed them: the closed charter school had not removed them from its enrollment roster in AELAS (the Arizona Education Learning and Accountability System). The new schools could not properly enroll them in AELAS. The opinion reports resulting problems with school finance, accountability, and federal programs.

A.R.S. § 15-1043(B) limits who can update student-level data: "Student level data may not be updated unless the change is authorized by the school district, career technical education district or charter school." The school had stopped routine operations and could not manage its data. State Superintendent Diane Douglas asked the AG: who can authorize the updates?

AG Mark Brnovich answered that the State Board for Charter Schools (the supervisory body of the closed school) could authorize ADE to update the data. He used two analytical moves:

1. Statutory structure. Under §§ 15-182(E)(1) and 15-183, sponsoring entities have supervisory and administrative authority over the charter schools they sponsor. They evaluate, oversee, and can revoke charters. By analogy to § 15-1043(B)'s rule for closed school districts (where the district authorizes the update) and closed career technical education schools (where the CTE district does), the supervising entity is the natural backstop when a charter school cannot act for itself.

2. Absurdity doctrine. Reading § 15-1043(B) literally would mean that when a charter school closes, the displaced students can never be properly enrolled anywhere again. They would remain on a defunct school's roster, and their new schools might not receive funding for them. That's an absurd result the legislature could not have intended. State v. Estrada, 201 Ariz. 247 (2001), and Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55 (1930), allow courts to depart from literal text in "rare and exceptional circumstances." This was one.

The AG declined to answer the second question (whether ADE has independent authority to update student data) since the first answer was sufficient.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2019. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical context: what the opinion meant in 2019

For the State Board for Charter Schools

If a sponsored school abruptly closes and cannot manage student data, the Charter Board may authorize ADE, through the Superintendent, to make necessary corrections.

For displaced students and their families

The opinion identifies a route for correcting data that obstructs enrollment at another school: the closed school’s sponsor may authorize ADE to update it.

For ADE and the Superintendent

The opinion says ADE may make the necessary updates through the Superintendent when the school's sponsor authorizes them. It cites § 15-182(E)(7), which permits the Charter Board to delegate execution of its policies to the Superintendent.

For state legislators

The AG found that the Legislature apparently did not foresee abrupt charter school closure during a school year. He interpreted the existing statutory scheme to let the sponsor authorize a correction.

Common questions

Q: What is "student-level data"?
A: Defined in A.R.S. § 15-1042(J): "all data elements that are compiled and submitted for each student in this state and that are necessary for the completion of the statutory requirements of [ADE] and [the State Board] relating to the calculation of funding for public education, the determination of student academic progress … state and federal reporting requirements and other duties prescribed to [ADE] or [the State Board]." Excludes behavior, discipline, criminal history, medical history, religion, physical descriptors, and family information not parent-authorized.

Q: Why couldn't ADE just update the records on its own when the school closed? A: Because § 15-1043(B) says student-level data "may not be updated unless the change is authorized by the school district, career technical education district or charter school." ADE wasn't on that list. The closed school had stopped operations and could not manage its data. The opinion fills the gap by reading the supervisory entity's authority to include this kind of fix.

Q: What's "AELAS"?
A: The Arizona Education Learning and Accountability System (A.R.S. § 15-249) collects and maintains student data. The opinion says AzEDS operates within AELAS for enrollment and attendance data, and SAIS was incorporated into AELAS.

Q: How does per-pupil funding work?
A: Based on average daily membership over the first 100 days of the school year (A.R.S. § 15-901(A)(1)). The school closed after the 100-day mark. The opinion says the data problem did not directly affect funding for the previous school year, but could affect funding for the current 2017–2018 school year.

Q: What's the "absurdity doctrine"?
A: A canon of statutory construction that allows courts (and AGs interpreting statutes) to depart from the literal words of a statute when literal application would produce an absurd, irrational, or unworkable result the legislature could not have intended. The AG cited Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55 (1930), for the rule that this doctrine applies only in "rare and exceptional circumstances."

Q: Why didn't the AG just say ADE has independent authority to update the data? A: The AG said the sponsor’s authority was sufficient to resolve the situation, so he did not answer whether ADE also had independent authority.

Q: Who else can sponsor a charter school besides the Charter Board? A: Per A.R.S. § 15-101(4) and § 15-183(C): the State Board of Education, a university under the Arizona Board of Regents, a community college district, or a group of community college districts. The same logic in the opinion would apply to any of these supervisory bodies if their sponsored schools closed.

Background and statutory framework

The Arizona Constitution requires the legislature to provide for "the establishment and maintenance of a general and uniform public school system" (Art. XI, § 1(A)). The State Board of Education, the Superintendent, and county school superintendents share supervisory authority (Art. XI, § 2). ADE administers policies set by the State Board (A.R.S. § 15-231).

Arizona law provides for charter schools (A.R.S. §§ 15-181 et seq.). Sponsors include the Charter Board, the State Board, universities, and community college districts. Sponsoring entities have oversight: they grant charters, set operating policies through the charter contract, evaluate performance, and can revoke charters (A.R.S. §§ 15-182(E)(1), 15-183).

The data system (A.R.S. § 15-249) requires schools to submit student-level data to ADE. Section 15-1043(B) says the data "may not be updated unless the change is authorized by the school district, career technical education district or charter school." The opinion notes that a 2013 amendment removed earlier language calling the data "the property of school districts and charter schools" (S.B. 1447, 51st Leg., 1st Reg. Sess.).

When a school district closes a school, § 15-341(A)(32) requires explicit notice and the district authorizes the data updates. When a CTE school closes, the CTE district authorizes. Charter schools have no analogous statutory closure procedure (A.R.S. § 15-183(E)(5) excludes charter schools from this notice requirement). That gap is precisely what produced the 2018 problem.

The absurdity doctrine is the AG's resolution. Under State v. Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40 (2004), language gets its usual ordinary meaning unless that creates an absurd result. State v. Estrada defines an absurd result as one "so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion." Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. at 60, says the doctrine applies "only under rare and exceptional circumstances." A school closure that traps every student forever on a defunct roster, with downstream effects on funding, special education, Title I, and English-language services, qualifies.

Citations and references

Constitutional provisions:

• Ariz. Const. art. XI, § 1(A) (general public school system)
• Ariz. Const. art. XI, § 2 (supervisory authority)

Statutes:

• A.R.S. § 15-181 et seq. (charter schools)
• A.R.S. § 15-182(E) (Charter Board powers)
• A.R.S. § 15-183 (charter sponsorship)
• A.R.S. § 15-231 (ADE administration)
• A.R.S. § 15-249 (AELAS state data system)
• A.R.S. § 15-901 (per pupil funding)
• A.R.S. § 15-1042 (student-level data definition)
• A.R.S. § 15-1043(B) (limits on data updates)

Cases:

• Premier Physicians Grp, PLLC v. Navarro, 240 Ariz. 193 (2016), plain language is best indicator of legislative intent
• State v. Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40 (2004), language gets ordinary meaning unless absurd
• State v. Estrada, 201 Ariz. 247 (2001), defining "absurd result"
• Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55 (1930), absurdity doctrine applies only in rare and exceptional circumstances

Source

• Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i19-001-r18-012
• Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/I19-001.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARIZONA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION
No. I19-001
(R18-012)
By
Re: Charter School Student Data
MARK BRNOVICH
ATTORNEY GENERAL

January 4, 2019

To: The Honorable Diane Douglas
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction

Questions Presented

1. Does the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools (“Charter Board”) have the

ability to authorize the Arizona Department of Education (“ADE”) to update a charter school’s

student-level data after the charter school closes?

2. Does ADE have the independent authority to update a charter school’s student-

level data when necessary after the charter school closes?

Summary Answers

1. Yes. If necessary, the entity that sponsors and supervises a charter school can

authorize ADE, through the Superintendent of Public Instruction (the “Superintendent”), to

update student-level data of a charter school it sponsors that abruptly closed and cannot

appropriately manage its student-level data. This authority would extend to the Charter Board if

it is the supervising entity of the charter school that abruptly closed.
2. It is not necessary to answer this question because, as discussed below, a charter

school’s supervisory entity can authorize ADE to update that charter school’s student-level data

when a charter school it sponsors abruptly closes and cannot appropriately manage its student-

level data.

Background

As described in the request for this opinion, 1 an Arizona charter school abruptly closed

on January 25, 2018—in the middle of the school year. It ceased all instruction and business

operations routinely conducted at the school, including managing student-level data. 2 Students

enrolled in the school were forced to seek enrollment at other district or charter schools.

Although these new schools allowed the displaced students to attend their schools, they were

unable to properly enroll the new students into the Arizona Education Learning and

Accountability System (“AELAS”) 3 because the closed charter school failed to withdraw the

students from its enrollment roster. This failure by the closed charter school has caused varying

data management problems related to school financing, school accountability, and federal

program management including special education, Title I, 4 and English language programs. Due

1
The facts described herein are derived from the opinion request.
2
“‘[S]tudent level data’ means all data elements that are compiled and submitted for each student in this state and that are necessary for the completion of the statutory requirements of [ADE] and [the State Board] relating to the calculation of funding for public education, the determination of student academic progress as measured by student testing programs in this state, state and federal reporting requirements and other duties prescribed to [ADE] or [the State Board]. Student-level data does not include data elements related to student behavior, discipline, criminal history, medical history, religious affiliation, personal physical descriptors or family information not authorized by the parent or guardian of the pupil or otherwise required by law.” A.R.S. § 15-1042(J). 3 The Arizona Education Data Standards system (“AzEDS”) currently operates within AELAS as the program primarily used for student enrollment and attendance data. For the purposes of continuity, AELAS will be used in this Opinion to refer to any current or future iteration of the student data system. ADE previously used the Student Accountability Information System (“SAIS”) established by A.R.S. § 15-1041 for data management purposes. SAIS has since been statutorily incorporated into AELAS. A.R.S. § 15-249(B)(2). 4 Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (commonly referred to as “Title I”) provides financial assistance to schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families.

2 to the timing of the school’s closure, the inability to properly enroll students did not directly

affect per pupil funding for the students of the closed charter school during the previous school

year, 5 but continuing data management issues could affect funding for the current 2017-2018

school year because these students’ attendance cannot be properly managed, and attendance data

is the primary means of calculating the per pupil funding provided to school districts and charter

schools. See A.R.S. § 15-901.

This Opinion answers questions relating to whether ADE, under authority provided to it

by the Charter Board, can update the student-level data of students who attended a closed charter

school so they can properly enroll at other schools.

Analysis

The Arizona Constitution requires the Legislature to enact laws that “provide for the

establishment and maintenance of a general and uniform public school system.” Ariz. Const.

art. XI, § 1(A). Supervisory authority over the public school system is vested in the State Board

of Education (the “State Board”), the Superintendent, and the county school superintendents.

Id. at § 2. ADE administers policies set by the State Board. A.R.S. § 15-231(B)-(D).

In executing its charge to establish a uniform public school system, the Legislature

provided for the establishment of charter schools. A.R.S. §§ 15-181 et seq. Various entities,

including the Charter Board, may sponsor charter schools. A.R.S. § 15-183(C). Sponsoring

entities have oversight and administrative responsibility for the charter schools they sponsor.

Federal funds are currently allocated through statutory formulas that are based primarily on census poverty estimates and the cost of education in each state. ADE manages the distribution of these funds to public schools within the State. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. 5 Per pupil funding is based on the average daily membership over the first 100 days of the school year. A.R.S. § 15-901(A)(1) (defining “average daily membership”). Here, the charter school closed after the 100-day mark.

3
A.R.S. §§ 15-183(R), -182(E)(1) (specifically addressing the Charter Board’s general

supervisory authority).

The Legislature also created a system of compulsory school attendance and open

enrollment with varying exceptions and administrative requirements. See A.R.S. §§ 15-801

to -807, -184, -816, -821(A), -824. Administration of this system requires schools to report

enrollment and attendance data on a regular basis. In order to manage data related to the

educational and financial aspects of the state school system, the Legislature established AELAS

“to collect, compile, maintain, and report student-level data for students attending public

educational institutions.” A.R.S. § 15-249(A). The system is required to maintain student-level

data to meet state and federal reporting requirements, and to comply with ADE’s and the State

Board’s statutory obligations. A.R.S. §§ 15-249(B)(1), -1041.

Given these requirements, the Superintendent directs ADE’s operation of AELAS as the

State’s public school data management system, which aids in the management of student-level

data as part of a compulsory and open school system. A.R.S. § 15-249(A). The proper

functioning and operation of this system requires schools to submit student-level data to ADE.

See generally A.R.S. §§ 15-249, -1042. Importantly, A.R.S. § 15-1043(B) provides that

“[s]tudent level data may not be updated unless the change is authorized by the school district,

career technical education district or charter school.”

Courts interpret statutes by looking first to the plain language of the law as the best

indicator of the Legislature’s intent. Premier Physicians Grp, PLLC v. Navarro, 240 Ariz. 193,

195, ¶ 9 (2016). Statutory provisions should be construed “in light of their place in the statutory

scheme so they may be harmonious and consistent.” Hosea v. City of Phoenix Fire Pension Bd.,

224 Ariz. 245, 250, ¶ 23 (App. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). “[L]anguage will be given

4 its usual, ordinary meaning unless doing so creates an absurd result.”
State v. Aguilar,

209 Ariz. 40, 47, ¶ 23 (2004). A result is absurd “if it is so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient

that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence

and discretion.” See State v. Estrada, 201 Ariz. 247, 251, ¶ 17 (2001) (internal quotations

omitted); Mendelsohn v. Super. Ct. in and for Maricopa Cty., 76 Ariz. 163, 169 (1953) (when

construing statutes, courts must give them “a sensible construction,” and “avoid an absurd

conclusion [.]”) The absurdity “principle is to be applied to override the literal terms of a statute

only under rare and exceptional circumstances[.]” Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55, 60 (1930)

(emphasis added).

A. If necessary, the supervisory entity of a charter school may authorize ADE to correct a charter school’s student-level data when the charter school closes and fails to properly update its data.
Sponsoring entities of charter schools have supervisory and administrative responsibility

over charter schools that they sponsor.
A.R.S. §§ 15-182(E)(1), -183(D), (R); Arizona

Administrative Code (“A.A.C.”) R7-5-401 to -607 (applying solely to the Charter Board).

Sponsoring entities are authorized to grant charter status to applicants and, through charter

contracts, set policies pertaining to the operation of the schools that they sponsor.

A.R.S. §§ 15-182(E), -183(C), (E); see also A.A.C. R7-5-101 et seq. The charter contract must,

among other things, require that the charter school be “subject to the same financial and

electronic data submission requirements as a school district.”
A.R.S. § 15-183(E)(6). 6

A sponsoring entity is obligated to evaluate the performance of charter schools that it sponsors

and can seek to revoke a charter school’s charter if it determines that the charter school is not

6
Sponsoring entities may opt to include in the charter contract necessary exceptions to this requirement not otherwise required by law. See A.R.S. § 15-183(E)(5), (6).

5 operating in accordance with requirements set forth by Arizona law, or the charter contract.

A.R.S. § 15-182(E)(1), -183(I)(3), (R); A.A.C. R7-5-607. 7

Although A.R.S. § 15-1043 provides limitations on the authority to update student-level

data, a charter school’s sudden closure and failure to fulfill its obligation to submit and update

student-level data brings about consequences apparently not considered by the Legislature.

Neither the text of the statute nor the legislative history indicate that the Legislature ever

envisioned the abrupt closure of a charter school during the school year.
For example,

A.R.S. § 15-341(A)(32) requires an explicit notification process when school districts will decide

whether to close a school within the district. Charter schools are not subject to this notice

provision or any similar provision. See A.R.S. § 15-183(E)(5). Similarly, nothing indicates that

the Legislature intended to forbid other supervisory entities, such as the Charter Board, from

fulfilling the charter school’s obligations, where the charter school is unable or fails to do so.

Although the Legislature likely intended to protect student-level data from improper or

unnecessary modifications, that protection was not intended to be unqualified, as evidenced by

the Legislature removing ownership status of that data from school districts and charter schools

as part of an amendment package to the previous student-level data management system.

S.B. 1447, 51st Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2013) (removing language providing that

student-level data was the property of school districts and charter schools).

Further, the statutory scheme governing schools itself is further evidence the Legislature

did not foresee this absurdity and suggests the appropriate remedy. Under A.R.S. § 15-1043(B),

when a public school closes, the school district can authorize an update to the student-level data

and exit students from the defunct school. Similarly, when a career technical education school

7
In addition to the Charter Board, other sponsoring entities include the state board of education, a university under the jurisdiction of the Arizona board of regents, a community college district, or a group of community college districts. A.R.S. § 15-101(4), -183(C).

6 closes, the career technical education district can authorize a change to the student-level data for

the school. The analogous body for charter schools would be a supervisory entity such as the

Charter Board, but in the absence of statutory authorization for a supervisory entity to update

data, the supervising entity is the entity authorized by statute. Therefore, and without giving the

supervisory entity authority that it does not have by statute, a charter school’s supervisory entity

may authorize ADE to update the data when a charter school is unable to.

Interpreting A.R.S. § 15-1043 to be an absolute bar on the adjustment of student-level

data by a supervisory entity would create an impossible and untenable result by impeding the

functioning of the statewide school system and obstructing a student’s ability to enroll in a new

school after his present school abruptly closes. The students would be forever enrolled in a

defunct school. Even if a new school enrolled the students, that school may not receive funding

for them—solely due to a data management issue. In other words, it would lead to an absurd

result that no reasonable person could approve. See Estrada, 201 Ariz. at 251, ¶ 17. Although

the absurdity doctrine should be applied only under “rare and exceptional circumstances[,]” such

circumstances are presented here. See Crooks, 282 U.S. at 60.

The absurdity doctrine must be applied to read this statute to give an individual charter

school’s supervisory entity the authority to ensure that the charter school’s obligations are

fulfilled to limit the negative impact on students, parents, and other schools that it sponsors, as

well as public schools generally. See A.R.S. §§ 15-182(E)(1), -183(D), (R). Thus, the Charter

Board, as the supervisory entity of the charter school described in the opinion request, may

authorize ADE, through the Superintendent, to make necessary adjustments to the student-level

data of the closed charter school. See also A.R.S. § 15-182(E)(7) (the Charter Board may

delegate the execution of its policies to the Superintendent). This authorization will ensure that

7 the data remains accurate and that former students of the charter school can enroll in other

schools without impediments caused by the charter school’s inability or failure to appropriately

manage student-level data. Under the foregoing analysis, a charter school’s supervisory entity

may delegate authority to ADE to update the charter school’s student-level data where the school

unexpectedly closes without appropriately updating its student-level data. Thus, there is no need

to answer your second question regarding whether ADE has independent authority to update the

charter school’s student-level data.

Conclusion

A charter school’s supervisory entity has the authority to authorize ADE, through the

Superintendent, to update student-level data if a charter school it sponsors abruptly closes and is

unable to properly manage its student-level data.

Mark Brnovich
Attorney General

8