English language debate and argumentation

English Only Education

State Laws Regarding Language(s) of Instruction

Public education is a resource guaranteed by the federal government to all citizens and other legal residents of the United States, yet it is up to each of the individual states to develop and implement their own system for meeting its learner's needs. The issue of English-only vs. bi- or multi-lingual instruction has become more and more prevalent as the number of non- and limited-English speakers in the country has increased while educations costs in general have also climbed quite steeply. There are significant benefits and challenges to providing instruction in languages other than English, and each state has developed its own unique legislation to address the issue. This paper examines three such states and their laws regarding the language of instruction in public schools, weighing the up= ad down-sides of each.

California, Colorado, and New York: Three Approaches to Multi-Lingual Education

No state's education code or other body of law mandates that instruction take place only in English; every state has had to face the reality of a population that does not necessarily speak English and so must provide at least some avenue of assistance to limited English speakers. California, Colorado, and New York have all passed legislation that provides for instruction in other languages, yet each also insists that such instruction take place on a limited basis, and that the teaching of English to limited- and non-English speakers is mandatory.

Surprisingly, California has some of the most restrictive guidelines concerning instruction in languages other than English. Despite having one of the most diverse populations of all fifty states, including one of the largest (if not the largest) populations of immigrants, the only provision in the state's educational code for students struggling with English instruction is that they be placed in a sheltered "English immersion" classroom for a period not to exceed one full year of instruction (CA Education Code Section 305). All other instruction is required to take place in English, and students are required to attend English-speaking classrooms after their year in immersion. This causes some obvious difficulties to non-English speakers who do not hear English spoken in their communities r at home, but instead only learn the language (or, as is often the case, fail to learn the language ) in the schools. California's overall population, and the cost of education that it entails, must be taken into account, however; the benefit of limiting instruction in other languages is that it frees up resources for the general population of English speaking students and those who have learned English through immersion.

Colorado's method of providing instruction for non-English speakers is similar to California's but is less restrictive in several ways. Whereas California law requires instruction to take place in English except for the immersion classrooms, Colorado only provides a funding limitation for non- and limited-English speakers that expires after two years (Colorado Statute 22-24-104). That is, a student may receive instruction in languages other than English for longer than two years, but no institution, district, or facility will receive state funding for that student after the two-year period until they are moved to English-only classrooms. Thus, not only does Colorado provide for twice the amount of time for a student to learn English at the expense of the public education system, but they are also not prohibited from continuing at their own cost (as they are in California).