Arizona students learning English as a second language are exiting the state’s mandatory structured English immersion programs at a significantly higher rate following a change in the passing score for the Arizona English Language Learner Assessment (AZELLA). The Arizona Department of Education, under the direction of outgoing Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, lowered the grade threshold required to demonstrate proficiency. This administrative change resulted in the percentage of test-taking students classified as proficient in Tucson Unified School District more than doubling from 10% in 2025 to 24% in 2026, despite no reported major shift in student demographics or instructional resources.
The AZELLA exam measures progress in reading, writing, speaking, and listening for students identified as English learners. Arizona is the only state with English-only laws still in effect for its public schools, a mandate established by Proposition 203, a 2000 ballot initiative that banned bilingual education. Students who do not pass the test remain in structured English immersion classes, which limit their time for core subjects like math and science, until they achieve proficiency. The recent adjustment to the passing score has drawn scrutiny from education researchers who warn that moving students into mainstream classrooms before they are linguistically prepared may hinder their long-term academic success.
What the Right Is Saying
Superintendent Tom Horne, a longtime Republican defender of Arizona’s English-only policies, approved the changes to the AZELLA passing score. Horne and his supporters have historically argued that the state’s English-only mandate is essential for ensuring that students acquire English proficiency quickly to succeed in American society. By adjusting the assessment criteria, the department aims to reflect a different standard of readiness, allowing students to exit the specialized programs sooner. Supporters of the English-only model contend that structured English immersion, while intensive, should eventually yield results that allow students to integrate into mainstream classrooms without prolonged separation from their peers.
Proponents of the current policy framework maintain that the state’s obligation is to ensure English acquisition and that the administration of the test falls within the purview of the Department of Education. Horne’s approval of the lower threshold suggests a confidence that the students exiting the program now possess the necessary baseline skills to engage with mainstream curriculum. This perspective aligns with the original intent of Proposition 203, which sought to eliminate bilingual education models in favor of rapid English immersion.
What the Left Is Saying
Education researchers and civil rights advocates argue that lowering the proficiency threshold undermines the educational rights of Latino students, who make up the majority of English learners in Arizona. Katie Bernstein, an applied linguist and professor of early childhood education at Arizona State University, stated that placing students in classes where they do not understand the instruction results in them learning neither the language nor the content. "If you’re put in a class where you don’t understand what’s going on at all, you’re not learning language or content," Bernstein said. "And so those are the worst outcomes of all, are students who are not given any language services."
Advocates point to historical precedent, noting that previous attempts by the Arizona Department of Education to reclassify large numbers of children as fluent led to federal investigations by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education. Federal officials previously determined that the version of AZELLA administered between 2006 and 2012 was "not a valid measure of English language proficiency and readiness," leading to a settlement after the state removed at least 28,000 students from immersion programs who still lacked reading and writing skills. Critics argue that the current changes risk repeating these civil rights violations by denying specialized instruction to students who still require it.
What the Numbers Show
In Tucson Unified School District, the percentage of students scoring high enough to be classified as proficient in English rose from 10% in 2025 to 24% in 2026. This increase occurred without a corresponding reported spike in instructional funding or changes to the daily two-to-four-hour language instruction block. Nationally, nearly 1 in 10 students in Arizona public and charter schools speak a language other than English at home. State law mandates that these students be assessed for fluency and placed in structured English immersion until they pass the AZELLA. The 2026 test results indicate that the number of students exiting the program has surged, potentially increasing the number of English learners in mainstream classrooms who may lack full proficiency.
The Bottom Line
The adjustment to the AZELLA passing score has created a divergence between reported proficiency rates and the assessments of independent education researchers. While the state reports a higher number of students exiting English-only programs, experts warn that this may result in students entering mainstream classrooms without adequate language support, potentially affecting their performance in core subjects like math and science. The situation raises the possibility of renewed federal scrutiny, given that the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education previously investigated similar reclassification practices in Arizona. Educators and policymakers will be watching to see if student outcomes in standardized tests and college readiness metrics reflect the increased exit rates, or if the change exacerbates achievement gaps for English learners.
The implications of this policy shift extend beyond Arizona, as it is the only state with English-only laws still in effect. The data from the 2026 assessment cycle will likely serve as a case study for other states considering adjustments to their English language proficiency standards. Stakeholders, including school districts, parents, and federal oversight agencies, are awaiting further analysis on whether the lowered threshold accurately reflects student readiness for mainstream academic environments.