Opinion ID: 2808341
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The State’s Adoption of New ELL Instructional

Text: Methodology The Supreme Court directed the district court to consider the State’s adoption of a new ELL instructional methodology, which the Court noted appears “significantly more effective than bilingual education . . . . In light of this, a proper analysis of petitioners’ Rule 60(b)(5) motion should include further factual findings regarding whether Nogales’ implementation of SEI methodology—completed in all of its schools by 2005—constitutes a ‘significantly changed circumstance’ that warrants relief.” Horne, 557 U.S. at 461. In response, the district court considered a number of developments concerning the first factor. It found that in 2000, Arizona voters approved Proposition 203, A.R.S. §§ 15-751–15-755, which changed the primary method of ELD in Arizona from a bilingual education model to SEI. Proposition 203 established a one-year goal for ELLs to become proficient, and required annual testing and monitoring of the ELL program. A.R.S. §§ 15-752, 15-755. The shift from bilingual education to the SEI methodology required that all ELL students be placed in English language classrooms and taught only in English. A.R.S. § 15-752. Proposition 203 initially left the implementation of the SEI model to the individual school districts, but in 2006, the 16 FLORES V. HUPPENTHAL Arizona legislature passed HB 2064. A.R.S. §§ 15-756–15756.13. HB 2064 established an ELL Task Force charged with developing a research-based model of ELL instruction in SEI methodologies, including a minimum of four hours of daily instruction in ELD for the first year, with the Task Force to determine the number of hours in each year thereafter (A.R.S. § 15-756.01); it delegated the duty of identifying ELLs to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (A.R.S. § 15-756); it required that the models be researchbased, with consideration paid to the size, location, grade levels, and number of ELLs at the school (A.R.S. § 15756.01); it required all school districts to adopt the Task Force’s model, or submit an alternative model for approval (A.R.S. § 15-756.02(B)); it mandated a uniform method of assessing and reclassifying ELL students, and for monitoring reclassified students two years after exiting the program (A.R.S. § 15-756.06); it required at least annual testing of ELLs to determine whether they should be re-classified as “English proficient” (A.R.S. § 15-756.05(A), (B)); it created the Office of English Language Acquisition Services, which was to monitor the school districts’ implementation of and compliance with the models (A.R.S. § 15-756.07); and it required the Task Force to refine the models yearly, as necessary (A.R.S. § 15-756.01). The Task Force met thirty-one times between September 2006 and September 2007, accepted drafts of proposed models, consulted experts, and held public hearings before choosing a model. The Task Force model groups students by proficiency, and for four hours each day, requires content that “emphasizes the English language itself” rather than “other types of instruction, e.g. math, science, or social science.” However, “[a]cademic content can be used as a vehicle for delivering ELD . . . .” As the district court observed, “[t]he FLORES V. HUPPENTHAL 17 extent to which ELL students in the four hours of ELD are exposed to academic content can vary from school district to school district and from school to school within a school district” because “[t]he state does not prescribe the kind of academic content that should be used as a vehicle for delivering English Language Development at various grade levels and the teachers have the flexibility to use the materials that they want.”