SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- Education advocates on Wednesday urged the Oregon Supreme Court to order the Legislature to boost funding for local schools to meet ambitious education goals.

That plea came as the high court heard arguments in a long-running legal battle over the adequacy of state school funding.

A lawyer for the school backers told the Supreme Court that legislators are ignoring their obligation to provide more money for schools as required by a state constitutional amendment approved by Oregon voters in 2000.

"Here we have the Legislature violating the constitution," Portland attorney James Westwood said. "It has to be this (court) to tell them, 'This is what it means.' "

But an assistant attorney general who argued the state's case said lawmakers are under no obligation to provide the billions of extra dollars it would take to meet those goals.

"Voters were told this is an accountability measure, not a funding mandate," Jeff Payne said of the 2000 ballot initiative adopted by voters.

Advocates for education funding say lawmakers are constitutionally obligated to "adequately" fund schools, setting aside enough to bring nearly all students up to grade level in core subjects, as outlined in a blueprint known as the Quality Education Model.

Officials have said meeting the model's goals would cost $7.7 billion in the current two-year budget, about $1.5 billion more than schools actually got. The extra money would pay for smaller class sizes, more courses and extra help for struggling students.

It's not clear whether the Supreme Court, even if it agreed with the lawsuit, would order the Legislature to funnel additional money to schools in the current budget.

Kathryn Firestone, executive director of the Oregon School Funding Defense Foundation, said the court conceivably could order future Legislatures to provide the higher funding amounts to meet the education goals.

"The court could say to the Legislature, 'From here on out, you need to meet your own goals,' " she said.

Firestone and other school advocates have cited the 2000 constitutional amendment that requires lawmakers to set aside enough money to fully fund the model. If they did not comply, they were required to issue a public report explaining their failure to do so.

In May, the Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with the state's contention that voters in 2000 never intended to force the state to fund schools at a predetermined level and that they instead believed they were imposing an "accountability check" on lawmakers, not a funding mandate.