On July 17, the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, was handed a defeat by the Arizona Court of Appeals in his quest to enforce the provisions of Proposition 203. Since Proposition 203 was placed on the 2000 ballot by a citizen’s initiative and approved by the voters by a substantial margin of 63.02% to 36.98%, it cannot be undermined or modified except by a direct vote of the people.
Since significant provisions of Proposition 203 are being routinely ignored by a substantial number of government schools, someone should hold those schools accountable and enforce the law. Let us look at exactly what that law is.
The full text of the law may be accessed by clicking HERE. Some of the more commonly asked questions may be answered in the following three excerpts.
1. Why did AZ citizens submit, and subsequently approve prop 203?
“4. The public schools of Arizona currently do an inadequate job of educating immigrant children, wasting financial resources on costly experimental language programs whose failure over the past two decades is demonstrated by the current high drop-out rates and low English literacy levels of many immigrant children.
5. Young immigrant children can easily acquire full fluency in a new language, such as English, if they are heavily exposed to that language in the classroom at an early age.
6. Therefore it is resolved that: all children in Arizona public schools shall be taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible.”
2. What are the main provisions of this proposition, as found in ARS 15-752?
“SECTION 15-752. ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION SUBJECT TO THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION 15-753, ALL CHILDREN IN ARIZONA PUBLIC SCHOOLS SHALL BE TAUGHT ENGLISH BY BEING TAUGHT IN ENGLISH AND ALL CHILDREN SHALL BE PLACED IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS. CHILDREN WHO ARE ENGLISH LEARNERS SHALL BE EDUCATED THROUGH SHELTERED ENGLISH IMMERSION DURING A TEMPORARY TRANSITION PERIOD NOT NORMALLY INTENDED TO EXCEED ONE YEAR. LOCAL SCHOOLS SHALL BE PERMITTED BUT NOT REQUIRED TO PLACE IN THE SAME CLASSROOM ENGLISH LEARNERS OF DIFFERENT AGES BUT WHOSE DEGREE OF ENGLISH PROFICIENCY IS SIMILAR. LOCAL SCHOOLS SHALL BE ENCOURAGED TO MIX TOGETHER IN THE SAME CLASSROOM ENGLISH LEARNERS FROM DIFFERENT NATIVE LANGUAGE GROUPS BUT WITH THE
SAME DEGREE OF ENGLISH FLUENCY. ONCE ENGLISH LEARNERS HAVE ACQUIRED A GOOD WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF ENGLISH AND ARE ABLE TO DO REGULAR SCHOOL WORK IN ENGLISH, THEY SHALL NO LONGER BE CLASSIFIED AS ENGLISH LEARNERS AND SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO ENGLISH LANGUAGE MAINSTREAM CLASSROOMS. AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, CURRENT PER CAPITA SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. FOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSES FOR CHILDREN WHO ALREADY KNOW ENGLISH SHALL BE COMPLETELY UNAFFECTED, AS SHALL SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR PHYSICALLY- OR MENTALLY-IMPAIRED STUDENTS.”
3. Are parents allowed to opt out?
“SECTION 15-753. PARENTAL WAIVERS A. THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 15-752 MAY BE WAIVED WITH THE PRIOR WRITTEN INFORMED CONSENT, TO BE PROVIDED ANNUALLY, OF THE CHILD’S PARENTS OR LEGAL GUARDIAN UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION. SUCH INFORMED CONSENT SHALL REQUIRE THAT SAID PARENTS OR LEGAL GUARDIAN PERSONALLY VISIT THE SCHOOL TO APPLY FOR THE WAIVER AND THAT THEY THERE BE PROVIDED A FULL DESCRIPTION OF THE EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS TO BE USED IN THE DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM CHOICES AND ALL THE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO THE CHILD. IF A PARENTAL WAIVER HAS BEEN GRANTED, THE AFFECTED CHILD SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO CLASSES TEACHING ENGLISH AND OTHER SUBJECTS THROUGH BILINGUAL EDUCATION TECHNIQUES OR OTHER GENERALLY RECOGNIZED EDUCATIONAL METHODOLOGIES PERMITTED BY LAW. INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS IN WHICH 20 STUDENTS OR MORE OF A GIVEN GRADE LEVEL RECEIVE A WAIVER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO OFFER SUCH A CLASS; IN ALL OTHER CASES, SUCH STUDENTS MUST BE PERMITTED TO TRANSFER TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL IN WHICH SUCH A CLASS IS OFFERED.”
In its decision, the Arizona Court of Appeals did not address the merits of the legislation created by Proposition 203. It merely ruled that SPI Horne does not have the authority to enforce its provisions, only the SBE does. It was the correct ruling based on current law, but it illustrates the fact that we have a serious problem.
That sentiment was echoed by Diane Douglas, SPI from 2015 to 2019:
“The Legislature and the State Board of Ed have been undermining English Immersion instruction since my days in the office. However, this highlights a more important Constitutional issue which, in my opinion, is completely disregarded and should be addressed. It is the unelected State Board of Education (SBE) which has been given virtually all the statutory authority and influence for state level education policy. However the person elected by the citizens of Arizona, ostensibly to oversee state education on their behalf, only has the authority to implement the policies of the unaccountable SBE. This needs to change. The elected executive officer, i.e. the superintendent, should have the statutory authority for policy and the SBE serve in an advisory capacity OR the SBE should be elected not appointed so there is accountability to the citizens of Arizona.”
We only have to look at the AZ Constitution and the AZ Revised Statutes to determine that Ms. Douglas is correct in her assessment.
Here is what the AZ Constitution has to say about this subject in Article 11, Sections 3 and 4 (Emphasis added)
“Section 3. The state board of education shall be composed of the following members: the superintendent of public instruction, the president of a state university or a state college, four lay members, a president or chancellor of a community college district, a person who is an owner or administrator of a charter school, a superintendent of a high school district, a classroom teacher, and a county school superintendent. Each member, other than the superintendent of public instruction, shall be appointed by the governor with the consent of the senate in the manner prescribed by law. The powers, duties, compensation and expenses, and the terms of office, of the board shall be such as may be prescribed by law.”
“Section 4. The state superintendent of public instruction shall be a member, and secretary, of the state board of education, and, ex-officio, a member of any other board having control of public instruction in any state institution. His powers and duties shall be prescribed by law.”
In other words, when it comes to the powers and duties of both the SBE and the SPI, the Constitution punts to the Legislature. It is the Legislature that created the current situation, and it is the Legislature that has the power to correct it. However, it takes a willing Legislature and a governor who would sign the resulting legislation. Neither is likely to happen any time soon.
As an old polyglot whose formative years started in the 70’s and ended in the 80’s I completely support immersive instruction. When I went to school of course the classes were in English and of course the student had to adapt to and accommodate the curriculum; to even suggest the opposite would have one rightly branded a fool. Children have an incredible capacity to learn and adjust, and if they cannot then the problem – which needs identification and addressing – lies with the child, or the family. I’m just a simple man trying to make sense of the fact that bureaucrats, elected or not, may simply disregard not just the law but a law more directly instituted by The People. Dereliction on this scale requires impeachment, criminal conviction, and a lifetime ban from gov’t employment.
The envelope Please – and the answer is ; Total immersion in ENGLISH AT SCHOOL. In schools with ‘other’ languages – provide a bi-lingual translator. OR – a computer that TRANSLATES simultaneous manner – issued to the student upon arrival at class. We use this at work tada.. we are providing service to a ‘Chinese’ customer instantly. With today’s technology – there’s no excuse. Mandated testing in English – the instructor should be able to ‘teach’ in English with the ‘student’ receiving instruction in both – English – and ‘Tongues’ NEXT!