America and the English Language

1. Introduction
When America's founding fathers decided to abstain from delegating an official language, their reasons "included 'a belief in tolerance for linguistic diversity within the population, the economic and social value of foreign language knowledge and citizenry, and a desire not to restrict the linguistic and cultural freedom of those living in the new country'" (Judd 15, qtd. In Official English, par.1). In America, only twenty-seven states have made English their official state language. Two states repealed their official English mandates, and only twenty-five of them still have English as their sole official language. Four additional states, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, and Rhode Island have adopted English Plus legislation, where the citizens are required to be proficient in English plus one other language ("States With"). This is only just over half of the states in America who have unified themselves with one common language. The remaining states have no official language. There are two schools of thought when it comes to making English the official U.S. language: Official English and English Plus. These two schools of thought both exist for the same reasons; to unite the nation, improve or abolish bilingual education, and reduce funding for bilingual education, publications, and other needs of the non-English speaking citizens.

2. Official English
Advocates of the official English movement want to pass a constitutional amendment making English the official language of the United States. This movement is advocated by two groups: U.S. English, Inc. and English First. In addition to the passing of a constitutional amendment, the organizations that support official English also wish to repeal bilingual legislation, including the bilingual voting requirements and education mandates and reduce federal funding for bilingual education. They also want the naturalization process to require knowledge of the English language. The purpose behind their activism is to prevent an ethnic separatism within the country as the result of increasing bilingualism ("Official English", par 2).

3. English Plus
Proponents of the English Plus philosophy believe that all United States citizens should become proficient in English plus one other language, regardless of their heritage or original language. For non-native English speakers, they would be allowed to remain proficient in their official language while also learning English and becoming proficient in it as well. For native English speakers, this means maintaining proficiency in English as well as learning one other language ("Official English", par 3). Their philosophy dictates that "cultural diversity is a national strength", and believe that, while immigrants are motivated to learn English, it provides a bridge for those who have not yet become proficient in English ("Official English", par. 4). Advocates of English Plus, just like the advocates of Official English, believe that ample opportunities should be available for immigrants to learn English; however, they do not believe that it should be put into effect by an amendment to the Constitution ("Official English", par. 7).

4. English Language Legislation
Congress has never voted on the English Language Amendment. The Senate convened hearings on Official English in 1984, and the House of Representatives followed suit in 1988. A Language of Government Bill (H.R. 123) was passed by the House of Representatives in 1996. A second bill that was intended to be its companion and which would have made English the official Government Language was never voted on in the Senate. A similar bill, also entitled H.R. 123, still pending in Congress, would make English the official language of the United States government, and use of any other languages in "programs, publications, proceedings, and services would be outlawed - with a few exceptions for national security, language teaching, and use of Native American languages" ("Official English", par. 12). Some legislation has set back the Official English and English Plus movements. An example of this is Executive Order 13166, which was issued on October 11, 2000 by President Bill Clinton, made the "inability to speak English a protected civil right" ("Repeal EO13166", pars. 3-4). The negative effect of this Executive Order was seen in the firing of Zita Wilensky, sixteen year veteran of the Florida government who was given 60 days to learn Spanish and failed to do so ("Stand up for Zita", par.1). The English First organization is advocating H.R. 300, a bill that would repeal EO13166 ("Repeal Eo13166"). This bill was introduced by Congressman Peter King, a Republican from New York, and if passed, it would forbid any further funding of EO13166 ("Defund EO13166" par.2).

5. Uniting a Nation
Having no official language creates divisions within a country. For example, Hispanic Americans are treated in some ways as second class citizens. Due to the wording of EO13166, any person who is believed to be of Hispanic descent, sometimes determined by his or her last name, will be sent letters from government institutions (such as schools) in Spanish and greeted by officers in government buildings in Spanish and asked if they understand English, even if their family has been in America for ages. This sends the message to Hispanics that they are second class citizens and will never be "true" Americans (Boulet Jr). Having no official language also helps contribute to class segregation. During the industrial revolution over a century ago, immigrants saw that the means to achieving success in the United States was directly related to the ability to speak English. Children of immigrants who are placed in bilingual education programs are taught mainly in their native language. Once they leave school and enter the workforce, due to the language boundary, they cannot obtain high ranking positions. They instead must work menial jobs to earn a small paycheck. This contributes to growth in the lower class as more and more people are migrating to the United States ("Why Official English", pars.1-3). Evidence from studies of bilingual education supports this. When the first generation of Hispanic students enrolled in bilingual education programs graduated in 1991, their average salary was $19,240. This is drastically different from their peers, who learned English and did not need to participate in these programs, and had an average salary of $26,794 ("Bilingual Students Earn" par 3). The second generation earned 30% less than their peers in English only programs ("Bilingual Students Earn" par.4). If all citizens of the United States are required to have the ability to speak English, it will help reduce the effects of these and other boundaries that immigrants face in becoming part of America's society, creating a society that is more united.

6. Problems in Bilingual Education
Bilingual education was established in the 1960s and it refers to the policy of teaching children subjects such as math and science in their native language so that they can continue to develop those skills while they learn English in a separate class. It was intended to be a method of transition but most students rely on bilingual education for the majority of their education ("Our Positions", par. 1). Since the students are unable to succeed, they frequently drop out of school as well, further reducing their chances to be successful later in life ("Our Positions", par. 2). Studies have shown that English immersion programs are much more effective. These programs place students in classes where they study English intensively for one year, then continue to improve their skills afterward in English-speaking classrooms ("Our Positions", par.4). In Arizona, where bilingual education was eliminated by Proposition 203 in 1998 and English Immersion programs have been replaced them (Corrella 3), standardized test scores have increased. The increases have been constant over two years and are evident in all subjects ("Our Positions", par. 5). English immersion programs have also been proven effective in the state of California. Students in the Oceanside school district were placed in English immersion programs, and one year later, their standardized test scores increased by nearly 100%. This was compared to students in the San Jose school district, where students were allowed to remain in bilingual education classes. The students in the San Jose school district consistently fell behind the students in Oceanside as well as students throughout the rest of the state ("English Immersion"). Within a year, 32,000 of the state's "English learners" were reclassified as fluent, with the greatest percentage of them coming from students graduating from Elementary school ("California Students"). English as a Second Language (ESL) programs have also proven to be effective. ESL programs place students in English-speaking classrooms for all subject matter. The students also attend special classes in their native language where remedial English skills and new skills are taught ("Our Positions", par 6). A case study in New York, where both ESL and bilingual education is used, has shown that the ESL students score much higher on standardized tests and have a much lower dropout rate ("Our Positions", par 7). Schools continue to use bilingual education for two reasons. Most federal funding for programs designed for non-English speaking students are directed at bilingual education. Also, educators believe that bilingual education is "a way of maintaining cultural heritage", although the result of the program is generally the student becoming illiterate in both his native culture and American culture ("Our Positions", par 8).

7. Funding Multilingualism
Federal funding for American citizens who are not proficient in English is expensive. Bilingual education alone costs $650 million dollars in Federal funding alone. This does not account for the fact that the majority of funds for bilingual education come from state and local governments ("Status of" par.1). The prospective cost of maintaining a bilingual country is three cents per person per language per day ("Costs Of"). In Virginia, Spanish language certification programs have been put into effect for court reporters. The cost to taxpayers for these programs was 2.7 million dollars ("Facts and Figures", par.9). President G.W. Bush's budget for 2004 will allow for $665 million dollars to aid non-native English speakers in learning the language. This is an increase of 49% (Facts and Figures", par. 12). In the decade spanning 1980 to 1990, the cost of Canada's dual-language requirement was, at the very least, $6.7 billion. Canada has one-tenth the population of the United States and they only support two languages, French and Spanish. A similar policy would currently cost the United States more than $60 billion per decade ("Facts and Figures", par. 28). Printing bilingual ballots for elections is also expensive. California spent more than $900,000 in 1993 to print ballots in six languages for a mayoral election ("Facts and Figures", par.30). ESL programs in Bowling Green, Kentucky cost approximately $500,000 per year and the number of students requiring this program has tripled in the past five years ("Fact Sheet" par. 3). In June of 2003, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City reversed the decision to incorporate English immersion programs in New York and expanded the city's bilingual education program, authorizing $20 million in extra funding for students to take classes in their native tongues ("Fact Sheet" par. 5). The reasons for using taxpayer and government money to support a multilingual society are diverse, and entire books could be written on this subject alone. Maintaining a multilingual society is expensive to the government and the taxpayer, and designating an official language would dramatically reduce these costs because, aside from education programs which teach children of immigrants the English language, the need for other methods of translation would be reduced.

8. Conclusion
Ninety-two percent of the world's countries have an official language ("Facts and Figures" par.1). If the United States of America were to designate, through legislative action, English as the official language, it would help unify the citizens. Having an official language would also help the children of the nation receive a better education since bilingual education has been shown to fail. Having an official language would also open up more federal funds and taxes for other causes. This could be done through official English, where an amendment is added to the constitution making English the official language of the United States, or through English Plus, where all citizens are required to be proficient in English while allowing the choice to be bilingual.

9. Bibliography

"Bilingual Students Earn Less". 5 March 1998. .
25 October 2003.

Boulet Jr, Jim. "Assimilation, Not Amnesty: Treat Hispanics Like Americans". 21 August 2001.
.
25 October 2003.

"California Students are Now Learning English". 18 May 2002.
. 25 October 2003.

Corella, Hipoloto R. "Arizona Prop. 203: Bilingual Education Ban Passes Easily".
. 25 October 2003.

"Costs of Multilingualism". .
25 October 2003.

"Defund Executive Order 13166: H.R. 300". ?bill=1260531&size=full>. 25 October 2003.

"English Immersion Outperforms Bilingual Education in California." 23 August 2000.
. 25 October 2003.

"Facts and Figures". . 25 October 2003.

"Fact Sheet: Costs of Multilingualism". db_multiling.asp>. 25 October 2003.

"Language Laws and Demographics of the Fifty States". issues/offeng/states.html>. 19 October 2003.

"News and Media". . 18 October 2003.

"Official English and English Plus: An Update. ERIC Digest". May 1997.
. 18 October 2003.

"Our Positions: Bilingual Education". education/beindex.html>. 25 October 2003.

"Repeal Executive Order 13166". .
23 October 2003.

"Stand up for Zita Wilensky, FL Government Official Fired for Not Learning Spanish".
7 May 2002. . 25 October 2003.

"States with Official English Laws". 27 March 2002. .
25 October 2003.

"Status of Bilingual Education". .
25 October 2003.

"Why Official English?" . 19 October 2003.