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?

Plain-English summary

In January 2018, an Arizona charter school abruptly closed mid-year. Its students scrambled to find new 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). They were "still enrolled" at a school that no longer existed. Their new schools couldn't fully enroll them, and per-pupil funding, special education, Title I, and English-language program management all hit walls.

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 closed charter school was the only entity statutorily authorized to fix the records, but it had ceased to exist. 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'd remain forever on a defunct school's roster, and their new schools would never 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

The opinion gave the Charter Board a clear pathway to act when one of its sponsored schools collapses. It also implicitly suggested the Charter Board should be more proactive in monitoring, since it is the backstop for closure-related data updates.

For displaced students and their families

The opinion was the practical fix for a frustrating administrative trap. Families of displaced students could now look to the Charter Board to authorize the data update so their children could be enrolled and funded at a new school.

For ADE and the Superintendent

The opinion authorized ADE to make the updates upon Charter Board direction. The Superintendent could move forward without further legislative authority. The opinion also confirmed that under § 15-182(E)(7), the Charter Board could delegate the execution of its policies to the Superintendent, smoothing the operational handoff.

For state legislators

The opinion exposed a statutory gap. § 15-1043(B) hadn't been written with charter school closures in mind. The AG bridged the gap with the absurdity doctrine, but a cleaner solution would have been a legislative amendment explicitly authorizing supervisory entities to direct data updates. The opinion implicitly invites such an amendment.

For other states with similar charter school frameworks

The reasoning pattern is portable: when a charter school's statutory powers can't be exercised because the school no longer exists, the supervisory entity inherits those powers as a matter of necessary implication. Many states have parallel structures.

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 charter school couldn't authorize anything because it had ceased to exist. 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). It's Arizona's master state data system for student enrollment and attendance. AzEDS operates within AELAS for enrollment/attendance specifically. It replaced the older SAIS system established under A.R.S. § 15-1041.

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 2018 school closure happened after the 100-day mark, so funding for the closed school's students was preserved for that year. But ongoing data issues threatened funding for the next 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: Because finding inherent ADE authority would be a much larger expansion of agency power. By routing the authority through the supervisory entity, the opinion sticks closer to the statutory framework and respects the role the legislature gave to charter sponsors.

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).

The charter school regime (A.R.S. §§ 15-181 et seq.) creates a parallel structure for charter schools. Charters are sponsored by approved entities (the Charter Board most commonly, plus the State Board, university boards, 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. § 15-1043(B) protects that data: it "may not be updated unless the change is authorized by the school district, career technical education district or charter school." The 2013 amendment that added this language also removed an earlier provision that had said the data was "the property of school districts and charter schools" (S.B. 1447, 51st Leg., 1st Reg. Sess.). So student-level data is no longer property of the school; it is regulated state data.

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

To:

The Honorable Diane Douglas

Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction

Questions Presented

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?

Does ADE have the independent authority to update a charter school's student-level data when necessary after the charter school closes?

Summary Answers

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.

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, 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. 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") 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, and English language programs. Due 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, 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. A.R.S. §§ 15-183(R), -182(E)(1).

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).

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). 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). "[L]anguage will be given 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). 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).

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

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. 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.

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 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. 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 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.

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