MLA Position Statement on the English for a Stronger America Act

​

A Press Release

​

Any attempt to improve the overall quality of education in the United states in a manner that would contribute positively to inclusion, literacy, professional growth and consequently the economy is always encouraged. Any changes need to address specific problems and research-identified gaps in the current curriculum. Changes should contribute positively to not only the economy but to a stronger America.

​

The rationale for the proposal is not identified. Increased funding would be provided to English Departments and to pay for more English secondary teachers across the United States. This is not a question of numbers of teachers, rather it is an issue of quality of English Language instructions. Why do we need an English first agenda that pours funds into recruiting a larger number of secondary English teachers? The real question here is the following: do have an insufficient number of English teachers in US schools? Where are the statistics? Where is the capacity building? Is the quantity of teachers the solution? And what is the problem we are trying to solve? We don’t need more teachers, the number of students is not increasing. We need a needs assessment in order to identify the problem that this act should solve.

All students would be required to pass a national standardized test covering writing, grammar, and usage. If the goal is to have students do better at standardized tests to show their abilities in English, then we need research that shows what can help them improve. What research can we do research in order to get first-hand evidence which would give us a deeper look into the types of skills our students require? Research shows that learning more than one language promotes better success on standardized tests.

​

Universities would also be required to use a standardized entrance writing exam and exiting writing exam. Teaching to a standardized test would be teaching to only a homogenized standard of English. This is a reductive view of language, and it fails to take into consideration that students can function in the grammar of a language, but does not prove that students understand the features of language. This approach is exclusionary.

​

Regarding teaching English only, being successful in a college ed and professionally requires knowledge in different fields, and to really understand them, students may not need to learn fully the language but students do need to understand the context in which these disciplines originate and interact each other.

​

Concerns regarding improving economic opportunities for U.S. citizens. Does not makes sense because in order to do these things we need to have an understanding of the other cultures. What is the cause and effect here? A senator’s feelings about a very personal family case is affecting a whole nation and taking it in a direction that requires substantial evaluation and piloting before it is implemented? The rationale behind this act is illogical. We at MLA do not see the necessity of this act unless specific problematization is put forth. What is the problem that we are trying to solve and does the solution match or address the problem directly?

​

Research in other languages shows that students who engage in multilingualism have significant improvement in memory, problem solving and critical think skills, listening skills, and enhanced memory, greater creativity and flexibility. These are all skills that enhance the call EFASAA’s call for “promoting increased economic opportunities for U.S. citizens”

(EFASAA).