In Arizona, a New Generation of English Learners at Risk of Being Hurt by Outdated Political Agendas

The Superintendent of Public Instruction in Arizona, Tom Horne, is currently embroiled in a conflict with education leaders and advocates over control of the educational approach for the state’s 93,000 students classified as English learners (ELs). Specifically, Horne is trying to use the state’s English-only law to eliminate access to dual language programs for students classified as English learners.

Passed in 2000, Prop 203 instituted an English-only approach to EL education by outlawing bilingual education for students classified as ELs and requiring that they receive sheltered English instruction (SEI) for one year. This discriminatory policy was reified in 2006 when the legislature adopted HB 2064 which formally required ELs to be segregated from their non-EL peers for four hours a day for SEI. Prop 203 came on the heels of national anti-immigrant sentiment and Proposition 227 (1998) in California which similarly eliminated bilingual education for students classified as ELs in the state. Horne full-heartedly implemented Proposition 203 during his first time in office (2003-2011).

However, in the years since Prop 203 was passed conclusive evidence was mounting on Arizona's failure to provide students classified as ELs equitable access to education. As a result, the Arizona Legislature unanimously passed SB 1014 in 2019 which reduced SEI down to two hours each day. And importantly to the current public debate, SB 1014 gave school districts more flexibility to adopt alternative English instructional models, including dual language immersion (DLI) programs that provide instruction in English and a partner language, such as Spanish.

Thanks to SB 1014 the popularity of dual language programs in the state has grown– at least 110 schools offered the option in 2021-22– but only a fraction of students can access these programs. For example, 941 students (EL and non-EL) were enrolled across these programs while there are 93,000 EL students statewide. Despite the low enrollment of ELs in DLI programs, Horne is dead set on challenging the legality of SB 1014, and reverting back to the status quo. Horne believes that any form of bilingual education, including dual language programs, prevents English learners from adequately learning English.

As a former English learner who was educated in California before and after Prop 227, my educational trajectory and firsthand experience with bilingual education between the ages of three to seven is attestation to how misguided this belief is. When my family immigrated to Los Angeles from Mexico in 1992, I only spoke Spanish. My parents enrolled me in Head Start where bilingual education was the norm. Spanish and other languages flowed freely between children, parents, teachers and classroom helpers. I had the benefit of bilingual instruction being the norm until I moved to a different school district in second grade. Both my parents and I credit my time in bilingual education as the reason why I became fluent in English, conversationally and academically, by the age of seven. And most importantly, it is the reason I have been able to maintain my home language to this day. Unfortunately, too many children that came after me, including in Arizona, have not had the same privilege.

To be sure, Horne’s outdated beliefs are not research or data driven, and the political whims of political heads like him have had detrimental effects on generations of linguistically diverse students in the United States. In Arizona in particular, researchers have been carefully tracking whether these policies have improved outcomes for students identified as ELs in the state. So what do we know 20 years out?

Incremental increases in designated funding have not been enough to overcome the fallout of an ineffective education model.

In Se Acabaron Las Palabras: A Post-Mortem Flores v. Arizona Disproportional Funding Analysis of Targeted English Learner Expenditures, Davíd G. Martínez and Daniel D. Spikes reflected on how Arizona officials have continually reified barriers to learning for students classified as ELs. Specifically, the authors delve into several laws that came after Prop 203, including HB 2010 in 2001 and HB 2064 in 2006, and credit the cumulative effect of these policies as the basis for why Arizona English learner policy violates key features of Castañeda v. Pickard (1981). This seminal case requires that education leaders demonstrate the effectiveness of a program after its implementation by meeting a "three-pronged test” which require that language programs be: (1) based on a sound educational theory; (2) implemented effectively with sufficient resources and personnel; and (3) evaluated to determine whether they are effective in helping students overcome language barriers. Based on the trajectory of EL education in Arizona, the authors argue Arizona policy fails to meet prongs one and three.

In addition, Martinez and Spike found that incremental increases in funding designated for EL education has essentially “worked to support the previously instituted segregation of Prop 203.” In other words, without addressing the ineffective instructional approach at the core of EL education, state officials were essentially throwing money at a failing mandate. And importantly, the authors found that over time, EL expenditures per-pupil have actually gone down in districts with more ELs.

Educational outcomes for students whose educational experience was constrained by these policies have gotten worse.

In 2022, researchers Kate Mahoneya, Karen E. Lillie, Kellie Rolstad, Jeff MacSwan, Natalie DuBois, and Tom Haladyna evaluated the effects of Prop 203 on the achievement of students identified as ELs, specifically those whose entire school experience had been conditioned by Prop 203 and HB 2064. In the study they looked at how former ELs performed academically compared to students who had never been classified as EL and they found that instead of closing performance gaps, former ELs fared worse over time. This means that Arizona’s highly restrictive language instruction policies have not improved educational outcomes for these students, though proponents such as Horne purport to be the case.

These failures are further supported by the growth of students classified as long-term ELs (LTELs) in Arizona. Between 2020-21 and 2021-22, for example, the number of students who had not reclassified after five years of receiving EL services increased by 3,601 students. This is alarming given that a 2016 report found that the four-year graduation rate for LTELs in Arizona graduated was 49 percent, compared to 85 percent among those never classified as ELs. And in 2019-20, Arizona had one of the lowest graduation rates for students identified as ELs at 55 percent.

Arizona’s repressive approach to EL education has had non-academic ramifications, including negative mental health impacts.

In 2014, researchers Elena B. Parra, Mary Carol Combs, Todd Fletcher, and Carol A. Evans explored whether Arizona’s SEI model subjected monolingual Spanish-speaking students to conditions that could be considered maltreatment. Based on interviews with students and parents in one school district the authors found that ELs had “experienced clear psychological effects like anxiety, depression, anger, school phobia, and eating and sleeping difficulties.”

Emotional distress caused by Arizona’s strict SEI model has also been recently shared by former students, particularly recent arrivals from the late 90s and early 2000s, who recalled feeling isolated and confused about how they were treated in Arizona schools. Like me, these students eventually did become proficient in English, but not before internalizing negative feelings about their learning abilities.

California officially repealed Prop 227 in 2016 leaving Arizona as the last state with an “English-only” mandate for students classified as English learners. According to the findings and declarations included in the text of Prop 203, “The government and the public schools of Arizona have a moral obligation and a constitutional duty to provide all of Arizona's children, regardless of their ethnicity or national origins, with the skills necessary to become productive members of our society.” It is clear by now that Prop 203 and its continual reinforcement through other discriminatory policies have left students classified as ELs worse off in Arizona. On the other hand, empirical evidence has shown that dual language programs that support and integrate students’ home language lead to better outcomes for students classified as ELs.

Given the irrefutable evidence of the damage Arizona’s approach has had on linguistically diverse learners, one has to wonder what is fueling Horne and his administration to perpetuate the harm to future generations. At this point in time, it is imperative that Prop 203 be repealed and that state leaders work to ensure every school, dual language or not, is implementing an evidence and research-based EL program.