Proposition 203 was an initiative that was passed by 63% of the Arizona people. The bill was put in motion by a man named Ron Unz, who helped pass a similar bill in California. This bill states that English is the national public language of the United States and the state of Arizona, even though no national language has ever been declared by the United States. In 2006, Arizona voters made English the official state language, which was 6 years after Proposition 203 was passed. The bill then claims that English is the language of prosperity since it is often used as the first choice in Science, Technology and for international businesses. The goal of the bill was to remove bilingual education from the public schools, and enforce an English immersion approach. It claimed that the bilingual programs were very costly and were not working for the ELL students. By changing to the new guidelines the students would have a transition period, not to excessed one year, to work in an English immersion classroom, where the purpose is to teach the English language to the student as quickly as possible. Parents can opt out of this program if they can prove that their child knows English or if the student has special needs.
As a teacher that came from Ohio, who doesn’t speak any Spanish, this is what our classrooms look like up north. After spending a year teaching in Yuma, AZ , I see the need for bilingual education. It’s very hard as a Math teacher to instruct students who don’t understand anything you’ve said. I have no other choice than to teach in English because that’s all I know, so I have to find ways around the language barrier to make sure my students are getting the same education as their English speaking peers. Sometimes that means using their fellow peers to re-teach them the material in their native language.

Flores vs. Arizona argued that Limited English Proficient (LEP) programs were not being funded appropriately, by the Arizona Department of Education (ADE). It also claimed that the ADE failed to ensure that schools were providing adequate language acquisition and academic instructional programs for LEP students; both of which are in violation of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA). The District Court ruled in favor of Flores saying that the state was not following the EEOA. The ruling stated that there were too many students in a classroom, not enough classrooms, not enough qualified teachers, not enough teacher aides, inadequate tutoring opportunities, and insufficient teaching materials. In August of 2000, Superintendent Lisa Graham Keegan, entered into a consent agreement with the plaintiffs which resolved the District Court’s concerns. In the consent agreement she agreed that the schools will have to follow 5 provisions: Standardized method for identifying LEP students, uniform standards for monitoring students, alignment of standards and practices for student achievement, criteria on individualized education plans for English Language Learners, and monitoring and compliance by the ADE. The battle for funding of these programs has continued to be taken to court. Since these programs have been implemented since before I started teaching in this state, I find that the principals and school coaches make sure we are following all the provisions set forth by the Flores Consent Decree. Our principal and coach make sure to visit classrooms once a week to make sure we are on the right track with our students and to make sure each student is getting the same opportunities.

Lau vs. Nichols was a civil rights case brought by Chinese American students living in the San Francisco area. These students had limited English proficiency and were not being given any special help due to their lack of understand and fluency of the English language. They argued that they should be given extra help since they were entitled to it under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They believed that