Grijalva proposes three federal bills for English learners
The proposals would fund teacher training, family literacy and dual-language programmes. They have not been enacted and are considered unlikely to advance this year.
Arizona Democrat Rep. Adelita Grijalva filed three bills on 16 September to support students learning English. The proposals followed reporting by Arizona Luminaria and ProPublica on the state’s decision to lower the score required to pass its English proficiency test.
One bill would offer colleges competitive grants of up to five years to train teachers, provided they partner with high-need school districts or early childhood programmes. Colleges would cover at least half the training costs. The bill gives preference to programmes recruiting former English learners or candidates from underrepresented groups, but does not specify a total cost.
A second proposal would authorise up to $75 million a year from 2027 to 2031 for family literacy grants. Eligible applicants would include Head Start programmes, school districts, adult education providers and nonprofits. Grants would support English and literacy instruction for young children and caregivers together.
The third bill would authorise $15 million in 2027 for dual-language immersion programmes serving children from low-income families, with later funding amounts unspecified. Students from preschool to fifth grade would learn in English and another language, using the second language for at least half the school day.
The bills came as Arizona’s statewide reclassification rate rose to 26% in 2026 from 12% the previous year, after the state lowered the passing score. About 30,000 of nearly 113,000 test-takers were classified as proficient and removed from language services this school year. Arizona’s education department has defended the test change, while Superintendent Tom Horne disputes Grijalva’s criticism of the state’s English-only model.
ProPublica reported that the bills are unlikely to advance this year because Democrats lack a majority in either chamber of Congress. That is an assessment of their prospects; the proposals remain bills, not enacted programmes.
