Educating English Learners in Arizona: Is it Time for Change?

By Liz Zipp-Seng

Background: Educating English Learners in Arizona

Arizona’s Proposition 203, passed in 2000, mandates English-only education for English learners in Arizona public schools. The specific requirements of instruction for English learners have evolved over the past decades, but the fundamental basis of Proposition 203 remains codified in the Arizona statutes. While many states have moved away from this English-only model, Arizona has not completely followed suit, still allowing for English-only education as an instructional option.

As a former public school teacher and academic coach, I worked closely with English learners for over a decade. Arizona is home to children from all over the world—many years, I had over ten different languages in my classroom. If parents indicate that a child speaks a language other than English in the home, they are classified as English learners and are enrolled in a different course of study than non-English learners. This means that the result of Proposition 203 has been de facto segregation and sub-par access to content-based courses. Under Proposition 203, English-only education required, in practice, English learners to miss instruction in content courses such as science and social studies in order to receive language instruction. In the early 2000s before more recent changes, this segregated English learners from their peers, often causing them to fall behind in content-area courses.

In 2019, the approach to educating English learners evolved to allow for some integration of language instruction during content courses. Schools were tasked with implementing one of four state-approved models to meet the required language instructional minutes for English learner students. This provided more flexibility for schools and allowed English learners more equitable access to the learning environment.  Yet, even with these modifications that allow for increased integration of language instruction in the content areas, inequities remain.

An emphasis on segregated intensive language instruction so that English learners can engage with grade-level content appears to be logical. But this approach is flawed. Research tells us that language does not develop in a vacuum—access to grade-level course content is essential. Separating “language instruction” from learning in the content areas is not based on theories of cognition or language development. Furthermore, while instruction in English is essential, skills and knowledge from a student’s first language can transfer to their second language.

Compounding the system of separated language instructional time for English learners is the requirement that English learners achieve a passing score (“proficiency”) on a rigorous assessment called the AZELLA (Arizona English Language Learner Assessment). Students cannot exit the English learner instructional model until they pass the assessment—an assessment that becomes progressively more rigorous as students get older. The test is quite difficult and, in my personal experience, even students who do not speak another language would have difficulty achieving a passing score. Because of this requirement, English learner students are subject to yet another standardized test, causing them to miss valuable instructional time and enriching academic experiences. 

Does Arizona’s English-Only Education Model Work?

As a former educator who taught English learners within the English-only model, administered the AZELLA to children from kindergarten through eighth grade, and worked to develop an aligned curriculum for English learners at all levels—the answer is straightforward. No, this is not working. The amendments to the English-only model that were developed in 2019 and implemented in the 2020 school year did provide for more flexibility, but data indicates that these changes were insufficient to support English learners.

Public-facing data published by the Arizona Department of Education from the 2024 state English and math assessments, administered to all students in third through eighth grade and certain high school students, supports this assertion. In 2024, 4% of English learners (labeled in the state data set as “Limited English Proficient”) who were present for the full academic year (labeled in the state data set as “FAY”) passed the annual English Language Arts assessment, while 7% of this population passed the state math assessment. Compared to the state data for all students, this percent passing statistic is quite stark. In 2024, 42% of all tested students present for the full academic year passed the state English Language Arts assessment, while 34% of the student population passed the state math assessment. This difference is staggering when considering these percentages from the other direction. This means that 96% of English learners were not proficient in English Language Arts, while 93% of English learners were not proficient in math in 2024. This evidence indicates that the English-only model is not working to support English learners.

H.C.R. 2021: Legislators Advocating for Change

State Superintendent of Education Tom Horne has directly challenged the 50-50 Dual Language Immersion model–one of the four instructional models that became available to schools in 2020. Horne based his lawsuit on the assertion that the model, which allows for bilingual education provided that a parent or guardian signs a waiver, violates Proposition 203.

In response to this lawsuit, members of the Arizona House of Representatives began to push for change. House Bill 2021 proposed a resolution to submit to voters that essentially involves repealing sections 15-752 through 15-755 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.), which codify Proposition 203 into law. These sections are particularly illuminating when considering the model of instruction provided to English learners in Arizona. For example, A.R.S. 15-752 states, “English learners shall be educated through sheltered immersion during a temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed one year.” A.R.S. 15-753 and A.R.S. 15-754 focus on parental rights, while A.R.S. 15-755 details the standardized testing requirements for English learners.

Arizona House Bill H.C.R. 2021 proposed not only to repeal A.R.S. 15-752 through 15-755 but also proposed to amend A.R.S. 15-756 to replace the existing model. A.R.S. 15-756 currently provides guidance on the identification of English learners. The proposed amendments to the statute remove the approach that provides for a separated English language education program and instead tasks schools with implementing “high quality, innovative, research-based language programs” so that English language learners “receive the highest quality education.” The amendments proposed by H.C.R. 2021 emphasize the importance of evidence-based strategies and provide for the establishment of dual-language immersion programs for both native and nonnative English speakers.

These changes are significant, especially in tandem with the codification of dual-language programs, shifting Arizona away from the English-only approach. The heavy emphasis on evidence-based instruction for English learners likely reflects the poor outcomes produced by the English-only programs and the goal of codifying alternatives such as the 50-50 Dual Language Immersion Model into law.

What Comes Next?

On January 23, 2024, H.C.R. 2021 was presented to the Arizona House of Representatives. The measure was referred to the Education and House Rules Committees. The proposal was held in committees. After the Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Cooper ruled against Horne, stating that he had “no legal authority to force all Arizona schools to use only ‘structured English immersion,’” the measure was dropped, with the hope to reintroduce the initiative in 2025 given the Court’s decision. As we move into the new year, it will be interesting to see if this measure is reintroduced and submitted to voters. 

This proposal seems to be a step in the right direction for Arizona’s diverse students. While education in Arizona has many areas in which it must improve, removing de facto segregation that does not lead to positive learning outcomes for a large subset of Arizona’s population is a positive starting point.