The controversial issue of bilingual education in California has made its way to the halls of Congress. While House Republicans are working on a bill that would require major changes to federal bilingual education programs to prioritize English-language instruction, six GOP senators are planning to introduce a resolution advocating for Americans to learn multiple languages and for immigrants to preserve their native tongues. The debate in Washington is poised to escalate after California voters decide on June 2 whether to replace almost all bilingual education in the state with "sheltered English immersion" teaching methods. If the anti-bilingual-education measure wins, it could give the House bill the necessary momentum to pass through the legislative process before Congress adjourns in the fall. Representative Frank Riggs of California, the sponsor of the proposed English Language Fluency Act and chairman of the House education committee’s Early Childhood, Youth, and Families Subcommittee, believes that this is one of the highest educational priorities for the Republican Party. However, Republicans in the Senate may not share this viewpoint. The day after the House subcommittee’s decision, Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico and five other GOP members plan to introduce a nonbinding resolution that would declare English as the "common language" of the country but also encourage Americans to learn and maintain other languages.
This Senate resolution, even though symbolic, recognizes the political reality, according to advocates of bilingual education. They argue that Republicans have alienated Hispanic voters with their positions on immigration and language, and they are now seeking ways to appeal to this growing voting bloc. James J. Lyons, executive director of the National Association for Bilingual Education, says the proposed resolution sends a clear message that not all Republicans support the English-only bill passed in the House. Representative Riggs, however, disputes this claim, stating in an interview that his bill is a reasonable and moderate proposal. The bill, H.R. 3892, would completely revamp the $160 million federal bilingual education program, which provides support for teaching programs aimed at limited-English-proficient students. It would place a strong emphasis on English-language immersion and give parents the option to remove their children from "transitional" bilingual programs, which heavily rely on instruction in the student’s native language. Additionally, the bill would impose a maximum of three years for native-language instruction under the federal program, whereas current federal law does not specify a time limit. Representative Riggs argues that many children spend up to six or seven years in native-language instruction classes without attaining fluency in English. Democrats, however, reject this argument, with Representative Matthew G. Martinez of California, the senior Democrat on the subcommittee, claiming that the bill would restrict teachers, parents, and children. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley expressed concern that H.R. 3892 would significantly hinder efforts to teach English to limited-English proficient students.
