NCTE Testimony to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce, July 26, 2006

The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) is a non-profit, non-partisan membership organization serving more than 50,000 English language arts teachers who are committed to improving the teaching and learning of English. We are grateful that the Subcommittee is collecting testimony on English as the official language of the United States, and we are eager to assist by providing a perspective on how the proposed legislation may affect the scope and quality of efforts to provide high-quality English instruction to English Language Learners (ELLs).

NCTE’s mission is to “promote the development of literacy, the use of language to . . . achieve full participation in society, through the learning and teaching of English and the related arts and sciences of language.” We are keenly aware that the nature of the literacy challenge in our schools is growing in scale and complexity at an accelerated pace, and we take responsibility for helping to meet this challenge. The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) recently estimated that there are more than five million English language learners in U.S. schools, a number that has grown by 65% over the past decade.  If we are to serve these students and their families well by expediting their English language proficiency, we need a full complement of learning, assessment, and professional development tools. Establishment of English as the official language would deprive English teachers of resources that research has shown to be critical in advancing English language learning.

The No Child Left Behind Act has cast a bright light on the tested performance of English language learners, making districts, schools, and teachers accountable for steady, significant progress in math, reading, and (soon) science. The intent of the law is to ensure that ELL students receive the benefit of a rigorous education, and are prepared for success in academic, work, and civic contexts. Thus far, NCLB has given states the right to choose whether to use native-language assessments for ELL students; this flexibility is consistent with research that shows that second language acquisition is a gradual developmental process and is built upon students’ knowledge and skill in their native language. If all NCLB-mandated assessments were in the English language only, not only would students’ actual learning in math, science, and reading be mistakenly estimated by the tests (where language competence  performance would confound measures of actual growth in subject-matter knowledge), there would be pressure to force every student into English-immersion programs immediately. This, in turn, could actually delay fluency in English for all but a few students who had already acquired content knowledge and sophisticated reading and writing skills in their native language.

There is little evidence to suggest that immigrant students or their families are inadequately motivated to learn English, a putative rationale for legislation to make English our official language. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that the key problem in advancing English language learning today is one of supply, not demand. A recent national staffing survey suggests that while more than 41% of public school teachers have ELL students, only 2.5% of all teachers who instruct English language learners possess a degree in English as a Second Language instruction or bilingual education, and only 12.5% of teachers who work daily with English language learners have recently received any professional development in teaching these students. 

As an organization, NCTE recently strengthened its commitment to supporting English teachers in educating ELLs.  But volunteer and professional societies cannot do the job alone. NCLB recognizes the key roles that families play by mandating parental involvement in decisions regarding which language instruction program is best for their children. The choice becomes a hollow one under English as the Official Language legislation, if legal provisions that currently require advisory notices to parents “ . . . in a language that the parent can understand” (Title 3, No Child Left Behind Act) are eliminated.

If Congress sincerely wishes to preserve and enhance the role of English in our society, there are many constructive actions that can be taken. Programs designed to accelerate English language literacy can be supported in more communities, and targeted funds can be made available to defray the costs of teacher training and professional development so that the educational equity goals underlying No Child Left Behind can be met. Voluntary organizations like ours and others serving ELLs and their families can be supported and encouraged. Passage of the English as the Official Language Act will do more in the long run to undercut the development of English language skills by depriving teachers, learners, and their families of critical native language resources needed to accelerate progress down the path to full, fluent English usage.