PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 25, 2025
World Language Education Assistance Program Act or the World LEAP Act
This bill requires the Department of Education to award competitive grants to local educational agencies to establish and carry out new, or improve existing, world language or dual language programs.
People & committees
Rep. Kiggans, Jennifer A. [R-VA-2] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1572 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1572 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1572 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1572 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-25 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed World LEAP Act would create competitive grants to start or improve school programs that teach other languages or provide instruction in English and another language. Grants would last three years, with possible renewal. Recipients would have to reserve at least 20 percent for teacher certification pathways and professional development. The bill would authorize $15 million annually beginning in fiscal year 2026; that authorization would not itself provide the money.
The Secretary shall award, on a competitive basis, grants to local educational agencies to establish and carry out new, or improve existing world language or dual language programs.
A grant awarded under this section shall be for a period of 3 years and may be renewed at the discretion of the Secretary.
reserve not less than 20 percent of such grant funds to provide— (A) accessible pathways for paraprofessionals to gain certification and licensure as world language or dual language teachers; and (B) professional development for certified and licensed world language or dual language teachers;
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2026 and for each subsequent fiscal year.
Sections 1–3 name the proposal the World Language Education Assistance Program Act, or World LEAP Act, and state its purpose of supporting school language programs. Its findings assert serious shortages of language educators. These are the bill's stated rationale, not independently established findings in this source bundle.
This Act may be cited as the World Language Education Assistance Program Act or the World LEAP Act.
(2) support and uplift dual language and world language programs; and (3) provide students with the language skills necessary for an interconnected and global world.
Congress finds the following:
The Nation’s education system is suffering from severe shortages of world language, English learner, and bilingual and dual language immersion educators.
A qualifying world language program would prepare students in pre-kindergarten, elementary school, or secondary school to communicate proficiently and with cultural understanding with people who speak a language other than English.
The term world language program means a program that educates and prepares pre-kindergarten, elementary, or secondary school students to communicate, in a proficient and culturally competent manner, with individuals who speak a language other than English.
The dual language definition covers pre-kindergarten and elementary programs providing instruction in English and another language for at least half of the instructional school day for each year of pre-kindergarten and elementary school, with the goal of proficiency in both languages. For grades 6–8, it covers students who participated in that earlier program and continue receiving instruction in English and another language for at least half of the instructional school day for each year of grades 6–8.
(A) with respect to pre-kindergarten and elementary school, a bilingual education program in which students receive instruction in English and a language other than English for at least half of the instructional school day for each year of pre-kindergarten and elementary school, with the goal of achieving proficiency in both languages; and (B) with respect to grades 6 through 8, a bilingual education program in which students who participated in a program described in subparagraph (A) continue to receive instruction in English and a language other than English for at least half of the instructional school day for each year of such grades 6 through 8.
A community-based heritage language school would mean a nonprofit community school teaching the language and culture of a non-English-speaking community to students from pre-kindergarten through grade 12. A heritage learner would be a student studying a language other than English who has proficiency in it or a cultural connection through family, community, or country of origin.
The term community-based heritage language school means a nonprofit, community-based school that offers classes for students in pre-kindergarten through grade 12, for the purpose of maintaining and teaching the language and culture of non-English speaking communities.
The term heritage learner means an individual— (A) with proficiency in, or a cultural connection to (through family, community, or country of origin), a language other than English; and (B) who is studying such language in pre-kindergarten, elementary school, or secondary school.
The bill would use definitions from an existing education statute for English learner, secondary school, local educational agency, professional development, Secretary, and State. The referenced definitions are not reproduced in the supplied source, so their full scope cannot be determined here.
The terms English learner, secondary school, local educational agency, professional development, Secretary, and State have the meanings given those terms in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
The Secretary would award competitive grants to local educational agencies for new or improved world language or dual language programs. Each grant would last three years; renewal would be discretionary. Applicants would have to follow the Secretary's requirements for timing, submission, information, and assurances.
The Secretary shall award, on a competitive basis, grants to local educational agencies to establish and carry out new, or improve existing world language or dual language programs.
A grant awarded under this section shall be for a period of 3 years and may be renewed at the discretion of the Secretary.
A local educational agency desiring a grant under this section shall submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information and assurances as the Secretary may require.
Selected applications would have to describe programs with instructional approaches that lead to demonstrated language growth from kindergarten through grade 12. The programs must be capable of being shared and replicated in other local educational agencies, include professional development, and have a plan to continue after the grant ends.
the Secretary shall select applications describing programs that— (A) provide approaches to instruction that lead to demonstrated growth in language proficiency from kindergarten through grade 12; (B) can be disseminated and duplicated in other local educational agencies; (C) have a plan for how the program will continue after the conclusion of the grant period; and (D) include a professional development component.
Grant priorities would include intensive summer professional development for world language and dual language teachers, partnerships with community-based heritage language schools and communities, and world language and dual language immersion programs that include English learners and heritage learners.
the Secretary shall give priority to applications describing programs that— (A) include intensive summer professional development for world language program and dual language program teachers; (B) enter into partnerships with community-based heritage language schools and communities; (C) provide world language and dual language immersion programs, including with respect to English learners and heritage learners;
Other grant priorities would include consortia containing the recipient agency and an elementary or secondary school it serves, with a preference for consortia that also include a higher education institution; work with state licensing offices to broaden teacher certification pathways; or outreach and recruitment of secondary and post-secondary students into language-teacher preparation programs, including former English learners and heritage learners.
(D) are carried out through a consortium that shall include the agency receiving the grant and an elementary school or secondary school served by such agency, with a preference for consortia that include an institution of higher education; (E) collaborate with the appropriate State licensure office to broaden pathways for language or dual language teacher certification; or (F) conduct outreach and recruit secondary and post-secondary students, including former English learners and heritage learners, into programs that prepare such students to become dual language or world language program teachers.
Recipients would have to reserve at least 20 percent of their grant for both accessible certification and licensing pathways for paraprofessionals to become world language or dual language teachers and professional development for already certified and licensed world language or dual language teachers. The bill does not specify how that reservation must be divided between the two uses.
A local educational agency that receives a grant under this section shall— (1) reserve not less than 20 percent of such grant funds to provide— (A) accessible pathways for paraprofessionals to gain certification and licensure as world language or dual language teachers; and (B) professional development for certified and licensed world language or dual language teachers;
Recipients would also have to reserve funds to evaluate program effectiveness, capped at 5 percent of the grant. After the teacher-development and evaluation reservations, the remaining money would support new and improved language programs, including related administrative expenses.
(2) reserve not more than 5 percent of such grant funds to evaluate the efficacy of programs carried out with funds awarded under this section; and (3) after making the reservations required under paragraphs (1) and (2), use the remainder of such grant funds to establish and carry out new, and improve existing, world language or dual language programs (including any associated administrative expenses).
Within 18 months after receiving a grant, each recipient would have to report on implementation. Reports would compare pre-grant and current language-course enrollment, numbers of certified bilingual educators, and community support for language education.
Not later than 18 months after receiving a grant under this section, each local educational agency shall submit to the Secretary a report that— (A) describes the implementation of the program for which the local educational agency received the grant;
(B) includes data that identifies— (i) the number of students enrolled in language education at the elementary and secondary schools served by the local educational agency prior to receiving a grant under this section; (ii) the number of students enrolled in such language instruction as of the date of submission of the report; (iii) the number of certified bilingual educators working for the local educational agency prior to receiving a grant under this section; (iv) the number of certified bilingual educators working for the local educational agency as of the date of submission of the report; and (v) levels of community support for language education— (I) prior to receiving a grant under this section; and (II) as of the date of submission of the report.
Recipients would have to prepare their reports in a way that protects each student's privacy in accordance with the referenced Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act provision. That provision is not reproduced in the supplied source, so its detailed requirements cannot be determined here.
A local educational agency shall prepare the report required under paragraph (1) in a manner that protects the privacy rights of each student in accordance with section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g; commonly known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974).
The bill would authorize appropriations of $15 million for fiscal year 2026 and each subsequent fiscal year, without a stated final funding year. This is an authorization for future appropriations, not an appropriation itself.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2026 and for each subsequent fiscal year.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 19, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on February 25, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:12:22Z. 2025-02-25: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2025-02-25: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-25. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to this version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places qualifying as an earmark was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This text-only conclusion does not establish formal earmark status or absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential benefit warranting a finding was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. Ordinary program eligibility and selection priorities were assessed in relation to the program's purpose. This conclusion is limited to this version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 19, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI