Last month, Arizona Superintendent of Public instruction Tom Horne launched an attack on the Arizona State Board of Education approved Dual Language Program.
Passed by the Board in 2020, the Dual Language Program, which, according to AZ Central was taught to 941 students last year and administered in 110 schools during the 2021/22 year, was designed as a fourth option to choose from to further the aims of Proposition 203, the measure passed in 2000 by Arizona voters to better assist children become proficient in the English Language.
On June 19, 2023, the Superintendent, supplied with a memorandum from the Republican directed Arizona Legislative Council, issued a statement threatening the withholding of funds from schools that did not teach the version of Dual Language that he said would count towards fulfilling the goals of Proposition 203.
The statement reads:
“Proposition 203, the voter protected initiative passed in 2000, specified that classes for English Language Learners must be taught in English: ‘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.’ Dual language classes, typically taught for half of each day in Spanish, are an obvious violation of this initiative. A reduction in structured English immersion from four hours to two is okay, but the rest of the day must be spent in regular classrooms with the English-speaking students, not in classes taught in Spanish.”
“I want to emphasize that these rules only apply to students who have not yet attained proficiency in English. Once they attain English proficiency, we encourage dual language, or any other programs, that will cause them to be proficient in more than one language. I personally have studied six languages. Knowing multiple languages is beneficial and develops the brain in ways that help learn other subjects.”
“State law (A.R.S. §15-756.08) provides a District found in violation by the state board loses its access to English Language Learners funds. Another statute (A.R.S. §15-754) provides that any parent can sue any school board member or other elected office or administrator responsible for the violation and that person can be personally liable for damages and fees and cannot be indemnified by any third party. Any official found liable shall be immediately removed from office and cannot hold a position for five years.”
The memo from the Arizona Legislative Council stated in its conclusion that:
“If the 50-50 dual language immersion model allows students to be taught subject matter in a language other than English as part of structured English immersion, the model likely violates Proposition 203.”
Last Thursday, several Pro-Dual Language Activists led by Stand for Children Arizona and Supporters from the State Legislature including Alma Hernandez and Christine Marsh held a rally at the State Capitol Rose Garden calling for an end to the attack on the Dual Language Program.
Following the protests at the State Capitol last week, a letter was sent to the Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’s office by State Representatives Nancy Guiterez, Jennifer Pawlik, Judy Schweibert, and Laura Terech, asking if the Superintendent had the unilateral authority to deny schools ELL funding if they did not provide Dual Instruction according to Mr. Horne’s world view.
The Attorney General’s office reply to the Representatives letter came earlier today (July 17, 2023.)
In it, the Attorney General (A.G.) said that Mr. Horne did not have the unilateral authority to deem what ELL programs did not fulfill the purpose of Proposition 203. He also did not have the sole authority to determine what schools could lose funding for not following his interpretation of Proposition 203.
In the letter, the A.G. declared that it was only the State Board of Education had the right to decide what programs were sufficient to meet the goals of Proposition 203 and the power to determine if any school programs were in violation of those aims.
In their summary paragraph. the letter stated:
“Arizona law is clear that the Board has the sole authority to eliminate or modify an approved SEI model. The Board also has the sole authority to determine whether a school district or charter school has failed to comply with Arizona law governing English language learners. Only those school districts and charter schools found by the Board to be noncompliant are barred from receiving monies from the English language learner fund. For the reasons explained below, we respectfully decline to address your question regarding the Dual Language Model.”
Furthermore, the letter stated that if the Department of Education feels or finds that a school is not in compliance with Prop 203, then:
“…the Department “shall refer the school district or charter school to the state board of education for a finding of noncompliance.” Id. (J). A school district or charter school that “is found by the state board to be noncompliant shall not continue to receive any monies from the Arizona English language learner fund established by section 15-756.04 for English language learners.”
The letter further clarifies:
“The ELL Statutes do not authorize either the Superintendent or the Department to eliminate or modify an existing SEI model approved by the Board. See A.R.S. § 15-756.01(G). Additionally, the ELL Statutes do not authorize the Superintendent or the Department to determine that a school district or charter school is not in compliance with the ELL Statutes. SeeA.R.S. § 15-756.08(J). Rather, the Superintendent’s and the Department’s role in implementing the ELL Statutes is limited to monitoring and referring school districts and charter schools to the Board for a finding of noncompliance, as explained above. Id. (C), (E)–(J). Finally, the ELL Statutes do not authorize the Superintendent or the Department to withhold ELL funding from a school district or charter school absent a finding of noncompliance by the Board…”
In other words, Tom Horne is not the Duce of Arizona Education.
Within hours after the release of the Attorney General’s opinion, the Arizona State Board of Education released a letter, stating that they would not take action towards schools using the 50/50 Dual Language model.
Earlier this evening, the four State Representatives who sent the letter requesting the Attorney General’s opinion issued a joint statement praising the legal opinion.
Arizona Democratic Senate Leader Mitzi Epstein offered:
“Great thanks to our Teacher Caucus and to our Senate Education Champions – Senators Diaz, Gonzales, Marsh, and Miranda – for advocating for dual language immersion classes! It’s a great big world out there and our children will be best prepared to compete and to meet life’s challenges with a solid understanding of world languages. The results show that for students who choose it, dual language immersion programs produce excellent results in language and in other academic subjects.
Also great thanks to our Attorney General Kris Mayes who recognized it is a priority to bring clarity to these questions! Our schools will open in a few days and they will be glad to have this assurance that the State Board of Education is the one to decide, and that their dual language programs may continue to provide excellence in learning.”
While this is a great victory for proponents of Dual Language and the people who believe in Democracy and checks and balances, do not expect this issue to go away. Mr. Horne or his MAGA buddies at the Arizona State Legislature may try to take this matter to the courts. Voters may be asked to offer a 2024 version of Proposition 203 at the polls.
Stay Tuned.
UPDATE: Superintendent Horne released this statement on July 18, 2023 in reaction to the Attorney General’s opinion.
Look out for kook groups like Moms for Liberty to take him up on his suggestion to sue schools that offer Dual Language.
“It is surprising that the Attorney General evades the key issue, placing ideology over the law.
The Attorney General Opinion, in the second paragraph under background, recites that the voter passed, and voter protected initiative (Proposition 203) requires that English Language Learners be taught in English. A dual language program without waivers is an obvious violation of that to anybody who can read English. The Arizona Legislative Council reached that conclusion.
The Attorney General, for ideological reasons, wanted to rule in favor of the Democrat legislators who favor dual language. So, she refused to comment on whether a dual language program without waivers violates the voter protected initiative. She simply said that the State Board of Education has the power to adapt models under legislation. Neither the legislature nor the board has the power to overrule a voter approved initiative. Legislative Council found that dual language without a waiver does violate the initiative.
This will obviously be resolved in the courts. Until that happens, the State Board will not withhold funds. However, there are other remedies in the initiative for violation of its requirements. Any parent can sue a school or district that adopts dual language without waivers, and if the parent is successful, the school board, and the superintendent, and maybe the principal must leave office and cannot apply for their offices for five years. That will be a considerable incentive for school districts not to adopt dual language without waivers.”
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you Attorney General and public education advocates for supporting Dual Language in our public schools. Tom Horne’s history is fraught with bias against our culturally diverse student population. Arizona clearly will benefit from this victory for our upcoming generation of bilingual consumers and leaders in the global economy!