Testimony of Mr. Eric Stone

Testimony of

Eric J. Stone
Director of Research, U.S.ENGLISH

Before the House Subcommittee
on Early Childhood, Youth and Families

Regarding H.R. 3892*
"The English Language Fluency Act"

April 30, 1998

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families:

My name is Eric Stone. I am the Director of Research for U.S.ENGLISH, Inc., the nation's oldest and largest citizens' advocacy group devoted to protecting English as the common language of the United States. On behalf of the over 1.2 million members of U.S.ENGLISH nationwide, I would like to thank you for allowing me to testify in favor of H.R. 3892, the English Language Fluency Act.

First of all, let me make one thing perfectly clear: U.S.ENGLISH firmly believes that students of Limited English Proficiency should receive help in learning English. Our goal is to ensure that every student learns English, so they can take advantage of the wonderful opportunities this nation has to offer. I believe that most people here, and throughout the United States, share that goal.

U.S.ENGLISH believes the federal government has a legitimate role in achieving that goal. Since the number of Limited English Proficiency students is directly related to our national immigration policies, it is only fair that the federal government help states and localities to deal with the impact of those policies. While the current law regarding the teaching of English to students with Limited English Proficiency is misguided, and has had disastrous results, Congress cannot merely wash its hands of the subject and turn the issue back to the states. Instead, Congress has the responsibility to reform federal law to create a sensible policy that will help immigrant students to learn English.

We believe H.R. 3892 is a responsible, balanced approach to correcting the flaws in our nation's education of Limited English Proficiency children.

U.S.ENGLISH has no ideological commitment to any particular methodology of teaching students English. But we are ideologically committed to a particular outcome: English fluency as soon as possible.

Let me put it another way: we do not care whether a particular program for teaching students uses the students' native language or not, as long as the students are learning English well and within a reasonable time frame.

Current federal law, however, commits 75% of federal funding to just one type of program: bilingual education; that is, programs which spend much of their time teaching students their regular school subjects in their native languages. While this is an improvement over a previous policy which committed over 90% of federal funds to such programs, it is still the result of an ideological commitment to one particular process, rather than a commitment to making sure students learn English. Some of bilingual education's proponents seem more committed to the means--bilingual education--than to the end--English fluency.

It is a truism that the end does not justify the means. But neither do the means justify the end, if in the end students are left with only a limited command of the English language.

H.R. 3892 is committed to the goal of English fluency, rather than to promoting one particular mode of instruction. This bill does not prescribe the methods to be used to help students to learn English--but it does introduce the idea of tracking how students are doing, and shifting funds from programs that aren't working to programs that are. This gives schools an incentive to make sure that they are committed to the end--English fluency--and not the means.

The current law's lack of proper tracking and accountability has led to some perverse incentives. Rather than developing programs that teach English effectively so that students are quickly able to move into mainstream classes, schools have an incentive to keep as many students in bilingual education for as long as possible, in order to receive extra funding.

The risk of losing funds may be why school bureaucrats sometimes fight so hard to keep parents from moving their children out of bilingual education classes. Parents in Brooklyn, New York, sued the state because their children were staying for years in bilingual education classes without learning enough English to move to regular classes. Parents in Los Angeles kept their children out of school for two weeks in a boycott of bilingual education classes, because they wanted more English instruction. And an African--American parent in Oakland was surprised to find his English--speaking son had been placed in a Cantonese bilingual education classroom, and has been stymied in his efforts to remove his child from that class.

Under the provisions of H.R. 3892, a child could be placed in a bilingual education class only with the parents' consent, and parents would be able to remove their children from the program upon request. This important item--parental choice--is a key reform. It introduces an element of market competition to programs teaching English to students of Limited English proficiency. With the accountability and reporting requirements of this bill, parents will be able to see how well different programs perform in teaching English, and will be able to move their children from programs that fail to programs that succeed.

Ultimately, that is what our efforts here today are about--helping children succeed. On behalf of U.S.ENGLISH members nationwide, I urge the Members of this subcommittee to keep in mind the goal of English fluency, and to do everything in their power to achieve it. Our nation's children deserve it. Thank you.

*This testimony has been updated to reflect a change in the bill number, which was originally H.R. 3680.