2000 Arizona Proposition 203
# 2000 Arizona Proposition 203

Elections in Arizona :

Federal government

Presidential elections

1912

1916

1920

1924

1928

1932

1936

1940

1944

1948

1952

1956

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

2012

2016

2020

2024

Presidential primaries

Democratic

2004

2008

2016

2020

Republican

2008

2012

2016

2024

U.S. Senate elections

1912

1914

1916

1920

1922

1926

1928

1932

1934

1938

1940

1944

1946

1950

1952

1956

1958

1962

1964

1968

1970

1974

1976

1980

1982

1986

1988

1992

1994

1998

2000

2004

2006

2010

2012

2016

2018

2020 sp

2022

2024

2028

U.S. House of Representatives elections

1911

1912

1914

1916

1918

1920

1922

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1933

AL sp

1934

1936

1938

1940

1942

1944

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1961

2nd sp

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1991

2nd sp

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

8th

2008

2010

2012

8th sp

2014

2016

2018

8th sp

2020

2022

2024 :

State government

State elections

2006

2010

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

Gubernatorial elections

1911

1914

1916

1918

1920

1922

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1934

1936

1938

1940

1942

1944

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

2026

Secretary of State elections

2014

2018

2022

Attorney General elections

2018

2022

Treasurer elections

2022

Superintendent elections

2018

2022

Senate elections

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

House of Representatives elections

1956

1958

1960

1962

2006

2018

2020

2022 :

Ballot measures

List of Arizona ballot propositions

2000

203

2004

200

2006

107

204

207

2008

102

2010

100

203

2020

207 :

Phoenix

Mayoral elections

2011

2015

2018–19 (sp)

2020 :

Tucson

Mayoral elections

1991

1995

1999

2003

2007

2011

2015

2019

2023 :

Other localities

Chandler

2006

Gilbert

2012

Glendale

2012

2016

Maricopa County

2024

Mesa

2008

2012

2016

2020

Scottsdale

2008

2012 :

vte :

Arizona Proposition 203, also known as English for the Children, is a ballot initiative that was passed by 63% of Arizona voters on November 7, 2000. It limited the type of instruction available to English language learner (ELL) students. Before Proposition 203, schools were free in terms of ELL instruction to use bilingual or immersion methods. According to a cover letter from the Arizona Department of Education Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham Keegan to the Arizona Legislature, it was impossible to make a correct analysis regarding how many students were learning through English as a second language programs, as opposed to bilingual education. The school districts had submitted "conflicting information," and 40% had not submitted any data, in spite of three deadline extensions.

Proposition 203, like the similar California Proposition 227, was named after its financial supporter Ron Unz, a Silicon Valley software entrepreneur. 61% of the voters had passed Proposition 227. Arizona, Massachusetts, and Colorado followed with similar campaigns directed by Unz. On November 5, 2002, Question 2 in Massachusetts was passed by 68% of the voters, but Amendment 31 in Colorado was rejected by 56% of the voters. Unz's goal was to replace bilingual education with structured or sheltered English immersion programs. The book English for the Children: Mandated by the People, Skewed by Politicians and Special Interests by Johanna J. Haver (Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2013) reconstructs the politics surrounding Unz's movement and its effects on the education of ELLs.

## Content

The actual text of the legislation begins with declarations regarding the importance of English and learning English. It goes on to state that immigrant parents want their children to acquire "a good knowledge of English," allowing them to "fully participate in the American dream." It explains that the government and Arizona public schools have a moral responsibility to "provide all of Arizona's children... with the skills necessary to become productive members of our society." It elaborates that public schools "currently do an inadequate job of educating immigrant children" by "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." It makes the point that "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."

The resolution states that "all children in Arizona public schools shall be taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible." ELLs should be educated in immersion programs during a temporary transition period "not normally intended to exceed one year." A parent may request for his or her child to be exempt if it can be determined that the child already knows English, the child is ten years old or older, or the child is identified as having special needs. However, for a child to claim to have special needs, it must be confirmed that education in English is not the best option for the child.

## Media coverage

The New York Times ran a front-page story in August prior to the November 2000 election, showing that California's version of the initiative, Proposition 227, had been highly successful, with a rise in standardized test scores among English language learners after two years. In spite of noted bilingual education theorists' arguments, disputing the particulars of the article, the Times story is believed to have strongly affected public opinion and the passage of Arizona Proposition 203.

## Implementation

Implementation of the policy was scheduled to occur at the beginning of the 2001–2002 school year. There was widespread confusion throughout the state because of differences of opinion regarding the language used in the text of the proposition. Following the implementation, some schools changed their approach to educating ELLs, but several districts obtained waivers for their ELL students and continued their bilingual education programs. For the most part, neither the bilingual nor the immersion programs were in compliance with the law. Fewer than 11% of the state's ELL students achieved proficiency in a year's time.

