In July 2016, the Education Law Center, along with ACLU of Pennsylvania, Troutman Pepper Locke, and Seth Kreimer sued the School District of Lancaster to stop its practice of diverting older immigrant students with limited English proficiency to an inferior, privately operated alternative school instead of enrolling them in McCaskey, the district’s main high school.

The federal case, Issa v. School District of Lancaster, was brought as a class action lawsuit. Named Plaintiffs were six refugees ages 17 to 21 whose families had fled violence in their native countries.

Pennsylvania law gives every child ages 6 through 21 the right to a free public education. Both federal and state law require school districts to provide an effective program of English language instruction to students who are not fluent.

At a preliminary hearing, the refugee students named in the lawsuit testified that the district had initially denied them enrollment — then relented and agreed to admit them. But instead of being admitted to McCaskey, the district’s main high school, the students were assigned to a credit-recovery program at Phoenix Academy, which was known for its strict disciplinary program. Phoenix was operated by Camelot Education, a private company, under a contract with the district.

Throughout the preliminary hearing, the refugee students offered powerful testimony, explaining that they came to the U.S. eager to learn English and build a better life. They were devastated when the school district initially told them they were “too old”, and they should instead “get a job.” They testified that the classes at Phoenix moved too fast in English so they couldn’t understand anything.

The students had all gained refugee status in the United States after fleeing war or persecution in their home countries of Somalia, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Myanmar. Each was excited to attend school in the United States and learn English.

The lawsuit alleged that the district had “a custom, practice, and policy of refusing to enroll [limited English proficiency] students, aged 17-21,” in McCaskey and that the district variously denied them enrollment altogether, discouraged or delayed their admission, or diverted them to Phoenix.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward Smith, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ordered a preliminary injunction in August 2016, finding that the district violated the federal civil rights of the students by placing them in an inferior program. Judge Smith ordered the school district to stop its discriminatory practices. The school district appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which also affirmed in January 2017 the students’ right to enroll in the district’s regular high school and access meaningful effective English language instruction. This case remains one of very few appellate level cases addressing the rights of students to receive English language instruction in school.

The Lancaster school board agreed to a settlement in March 2017 that restricted the district from placing newly arrived, older immigrant students who had little or no English language fluency at Phoenix. Instead, the agreement required placement in a newcomer program at McCaskey.

“There are still few cases that address students’ right to receive meaningful English language instruction, so the Issa case decisions—from both the district court and the Third Circuit —are really important reminders that older immigrant students are entitled to enroll in the district’s regular high school and must be provided an education that allows them to overcome language barriers,” said Education Law Center Senior Attorney Kristina Moon.

The district also agreed to offer appropriate language supports to help the students understand the curriculum and learn essential skills. In addition, the district agreed to provide $66,500 in funding to support supplemental services for immigrant students who had been dissuaded from enrolling at McCaskey since 2013. Under the agreement, plaintiffs’ attorneys monitored the district’s compliance for two years.

Joint Statement from the Education Law Center-PA and the Public Interest Law Center

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, August 28, 2025

Contact: Lindsay Wagner, Education Law Center-PA, 215-701-4264, [email protected]
Anna Sophie Tinneny, Public Interest Law Center, 267-546-1304, x224, [email protected]

HARRISBURG — All children in Pennsylvania are entitled to a comprehensive, contemporary, effective public education. Yet nearly two months past the Commonwealth’s budget deadline, 1.7 million public school students are returning to classrooms without state funding. While leaders wrangle over revenues and line items, one thing is not negotiable: the bipartisan adequacy funding commitment that seeks to deliver all children the education the Pennsylvania Constitution requires.

Last July, in a bipartisan agreement, the General Assembly measured the adequacy gap between what school districts have and what the state needs to provide them at $4.5 billion, and allocated $500 million towards closing that gap. Lawmakers must allocate at least that much again this year through the adequacy formula to continue closing the unconstitutional state funding gap.

Every day of delay harms children in both House and Senate districts, Democrats and Republicans alike.

“Our Constitution requires lawmakers to fund public schools adequately and equitably,” said Deborah Gordon Klehr, executive director of the Education Law Center-PA. “Instead, they are failing to do their most basic job—passing a budget. Pennsylvania children don’t get a do-over for the years they spend in underfunded classrooms.”

“A child’s right to a good public school cannot bend to Harrisburg horse trading,” said Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center. “Adequate funding means smaller class sizes, safe and modern facilities, and qualified staff in every classroom. The General Assembly started us on that path last year. They must keep going.”

In February 2023, the Commonwealth Court ruled that Pennsylvania’s school funding system is inequitable, inadequate, and unconstitutional — a landmark decision that made clear the state has a legal duty to fix the crisis. Last year’s bipartisan agreement to begin closing the adequacy gap was an important first step, but the pace of progress is far too slow, and this year’s budget stalemate risks stalling momentum altogether.

The General Assembly must act now to:

• Pass a budget without further delay;
• Invest at least $500 million in adequacy funding and work toward shortening the timeline for reaching funding adequacy;
• Increase funding for basic and special education; and
• Enact long-overdue cyber charter funding reform.

Pennsylvania’s students cannot afford more political gridlock. Lawmakers must stop dragging their feet and pass a budget that meets their constitutional duty to provide every child with the education they deserve.

###