# 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
2024
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
2030
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
2025
7th sp
2026 :
State government
State elections
2006
2010
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
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
2026
Attorney General elections
2014
2018
2022
2026
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
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 :
Ballot measures
List of Arizona ballot propositions
2000
203
2004
200
2006
107
204
207
2008
102
2010
100
203
2020
207
2024
139 :
Phoenix
Mayoral elections
2011
2015
2018–19 (sp)
2020
2024 :
Tucson
Mayoral elections
1991
1995
1999
2003
2007
2011
2015
2019
2023 :
Other localities
Gilbert
2012
Glendale
2012
2016
Maricopa County
2024
Mesa
2008
2012
2020
2024
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.