BOSTON — Should a teacher who can’t speak fluent English to her students be allowed to stay in the classroom?

The outcome of Phanna Rem Robishaw’s case against the Lowell School Department and Lowell School Committee holds statewide ramifications for the state’s educational system.

Today, the state Supreme Judicial Court was scheduled to hear arguments from Robishaw, a former Lowell teacher who was fired for failing an English-fluency test, after a lower-court judge upheld the firing, saying the teacher’s English proficiency was “utterly incomprehensible.”

In 2002, Massachusetts’ voters passed Question 2, requiring all school superintendents to attest to the English fluency and literacy of their teachers where “the teacher’s fluency is not apparent through classroom observation and assessment or interview assessment.”

Robishaw was given an Oral Proficiency Interview test to evaluate her English fluency.

The test has been criticized for lacking a definition of what is “proficient” or “fluent” in English. Also, it was pointed out that non-native-speaking teachers had to demonstrate fluency in English, while “native speaking” teachers were assumed to be fluent in English.

Robishaw, a native of Cambodia who is now a U.S. citizen living in Lowell, sued the city, claiming a $1.3 million breach of contract after she was fired as a classroom instructor at the Greenhalge Elementary School in June 2003. She had worked for the city’s schools for 11 years and had tenure.

An arbitrator sided with Robishaw, saying there was “no just cause” to fire her, and awarded her 18 months of back pay and benefits.

But on appeal, Middlesex Superior Court Judge Dennis Curran in 2008 overturned the arbitrator’s decision. Curran relied on a tape of the teacher’s Oral Proficiency Interview test in making the reversal.

Curran wrote that he listened to Robishaw’s test tape and “found it to be utterly incomprehensible.”

Transcripts of the superintendent’s hearing and the arbitrator’s hearing show Robishaw had “great difficulty both in expressing herself and understanding the examiner’s questions,” the judge wrote.

“Clearly, if an adult has difficulty in ascertaining what Robishaw is saying, a young child would face even greater difficulty,” Curran added.

His ruling continued, “To sacrifice schoolchildren at the altar of political correctness is an act I decline to endorse.”

Attorney James Hall, who represents the Lowell School Committee, wrote in court briefs that it is “readily apparent to any layperson that Ms. Robishaw is not proficient enough in English to teach in a mainstream classroom.”

Robishaw’s attorney, Srinivas Ramineni, wrote in court documents that Curran was wrong because absent fraud, courts may not vacate a 2006 arbitrator’s award even if there was an error of law or facts. He accused Curran of “trampling” on Robishaw’s right to due process and accused the judge of not being qualified to assess fluency.

Ramineni said the arbitrator excluded the unauthenticated test tape from his original ruling, so it should not be introduced at this stage of the litigation.

Robishaw was teaching elementary school in Cambodia when her village was taken over by the Khmer Rouge. After marrying, she immigrated to the U.S. and in 1992, she earned a bachelor’s degree from Westfield State College.

By 2002, Robishaw had taught for 17 years in Massachusetts and accrued 54 master’s degree credits for accreditation in different fields of teaching. That same year, Robishaw began teaching at the Greenhalge School. After several years as a transitional bilingual teacher, she was assigned as a classroom teacher.

Throughout her career, Robishaw had received satisfactory evaluations until 2002, when fluency testing began. Robishaw, along with three other Cambodian teachers, received unsatisfactory English evaluations. In a 2003 lawsuit, Robishaw claimed the unsatisfactory evaluations were done with the purpose of getting rid of all the Cambodian teachers.

Ramineni described the evaluations as “scathing and derogatory.”