The Biliteracy Education Seal and Teaching (BEST) Act authorizes a competitive grant program at the Department of Education to help States establish or improve Seal of Biliteracy programs and early language initiatives that recognize high-level proficiency in English and a second language. Grants last two years (renewable), may fund administration, outreach, and subgrants to local districts for teacher development and subsidized testing for low-income students.
The bill explicitly requires States to set proficiency criteria that include speaking and writing, to include English learners and students with disabilities, and to permit Native American languages to serve as the base language in lieu of English where appropriate. The Act authorizes $10 million per year for fiscal years 2025–2029 and requires States to report on implementation within 18 months of receiving funds.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a competitive two-year grant program for States to build or expand Seal of Biliteracy systems that document student proficiency in speaking and writing in English and a second language, with options to include reading and listening. Grants may be renewed and must be used for administration, outreach, and subgrants to local educational agencies.
Who It Affects
State education agencies that choose to apply, local educational agencies and schools that operate Seal programs, language teachers (including those of Native American languages and ASL), English learners and heritage language students, and low-income students eligible for subsidized testing.
Why It Matters
This is federal seed funding to standardize and scale Seals of Biliteracy nationwide and to broaden inclusion of underrepresented languages and learners. It sets federal expectations for proficiency evidence, accommodations, and outreach—creating new compliance and implementation work for States and districts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The BEST Act sets up a competitive grant program within the Department of Education to help States start or strengthen Seal of Biliteracy programs and related early language efforts. States that win grants get two-year awards (with possible renewal) to build the administrative systems, outreach, testing pathways, and educator supports needed to award a formal seal or transcript notation to students who demonstrate high-level proficiency in two languages.
A central design choice: the bill requires States to assess and document productive language skills—speaking and writing—as the backbone of the Seal, while allowing reading and listening to be part of the proficiency profile. Importantly, the Act requires explicit inclusion of English learners, former English learners, students with disabilities (including vision, hearing, and cognitive impairments), heritage-language learners, and speakers of Native American languages.
For Native American languages, the statute permits equivalent proficiency in that Native language to substitute for proficiency in English when a Native language is a student’s government-recognized official language.Applications must show how the State will ensure all languages (including ASL, Braille, classical languages, and Native American languages) can be tested or otherwise measured, how outreach will reach elementary and middle grade students and families, and that students will not be charged fees to provide required participation information. Grant funds may be used for State administrative costs, public outreach, and subgrants to local educational agencies to finance teacher professional development, outreach, and subsidized baseline and final testing for low-income students.
States must return unspent funds within six months after a grant term ends and must submit an implementation report to the Secretary within 18 months of receiving a grant.The grant program is capped by the bill at $10 million per year for FY2025–2029. The statute limits a State to one active grant at a time and makes renewal discretionary for the Secretary, creating a defined but time-limited federal investment designed to catalyze State and local systems rather than ongoing entitlement funding.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Grants are two-year awards, renewable at the Secretary’s discretion, and each State may hold only one active BEST Act grant at a time.
The bill requires States to adopt proficiency criteria that include speaking and writing (productive skills); reading and listening may be included but are optional.
Native American languages are explicitly covered: a State program must allow equivalent proficiency in a government-recognized Native language to substitute for proficiency in English.
Grant funds may be used for State administrative costs, public outreach, and subgrants to LEAs for teacher professional development, outreach, and subsidizing Seal testing for low-income students.
Congress authorized $10 million per year for fiscal years 2025–2029 and requires States to submit an implementation report within 18 months of receiving a grant.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — BEST Act
This short section names the statute the 'Biliteracy Education Seal and Teaching Act' or 'BEST Act.' It carries no policy mechanics but signals the bill’s focus on both recognition (seals) and teaching (language education supports).
Definitions
The bill borrows ESEA definitions for basic education terms and defines key terms that shape coverage: 'second language' explicitly includes Braille, ASL, and classical languages; 'Native American language' uses the Native American Languages Act definition; and 'Seal of Biliteracy program' is any program established or improved with grant funds. These definitions govern which language forms count for testing and which populations the program must serve.
Competitive grants to States and inclusion rules
The Secretary awards competitive grants from the appropriated pool to States to establish or improve Seal programs and early language activities. Grants run for two years and can be renewed. The statute mandates that proficiency be demonstrated for speaking and writing in both languages (reading and listening optional), and it imposes a specific inclusion requirement allowing Native American languages to stand in for English when the Native language is recognized by a government entity. The provision limits States to one active grant and requires return of unspent funds six months after a grant term ends.
Application requirements and student participation rules
State applications must supply explicit proficiency criteria (must include productive skills), plans to include English learners and students with disabilities, assurances that all languages can be tested (including Native languages and ASL), and outreach strategies targeting elementary and middle grades. The statute permits students who gained second-language proficiency outside school to apply through their State of residence and forbids charging students a fee for providing required participation information—shaping both eligibility pathways and access protections.
Permitted uses of funds and reporting
Grant funds may cover State administrative costs of running a Seal program, public outreach, and subgrants to school districts for educator professional development and subsidizing baseline and final Seal testing for low-income students. States must report to the Secretary on program implementation within 18 months of receiving a grant—an accountability hook intended to produce data on participation, testing approaches, outreach, and inclusion outcomes.
Authorization and funding limits
Congress authorizes $10 million annually for fiscal years 2025 through 2029 to operate the competitive grant program. That dollar figure establishes the program’s scale and implies limited per-State award sizes, making the grants catalytic rather than expansive unless Congress appropriates more later.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Bilingual and heritage-language students — Gain formal recognition (seal or transcript notation) that can help with college admission and employer signaling, including students who developed proficiency outside school.
- Native American language communities and tribal schools — Receive statutory recognition and an explicit pathway for Native languages to substitute for English proficiency, improving inclusion of tribal language speakers.
- Low-income students — Stand to benefit from subsidized baseline and final Seal testing funded through LEA subgrants, lowering financial barriers to earning a seal.
- Local educational agencies and language teachers — Access subgrant funds for professional development and outreach that can expand language instruction capacity and elevate teacher skills.
- Institutions of higher education and employers — Gain a clearer, state-supported credential (seal or transcript notation) to identify applicants with measurable biliteracy skills.
Who Bears the Cost
- State education agencies — Must design and implement proficiency criteria, testing pathways (including for under-resourced languages), conduct outreach, manage subgrants, and return unspent funds on a tight timetable; these administrative responsibilities may require matching internal resources.
- Local educational agencies and schools — Face implementation duties (testing logistics, accommodations, outreach) that may exceed available subgrant funds, particularly in small or rural districts and tribal schools.
- Language assessment developers and specialist educators — Will encounter demand to create valid assessments for under-tested languages (including many Native languages and ASL), a technical and resource-intensive task.
- Students with disabilities — While the bill requires inclusion plans, accommodating alternative assessment modes (e.g., tactile or adapted assessments) will demand additional expertise and resources at school and State levels.
- The Department of Education — Receives a new discretionary role to design competition rules, review applications, and judge renewals; although funded, DOE must build capacity to evaluate diverse language assessment approaches and equity assurances.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expanding equitable recognition of bilingualism (including tribal and under-tested languages) and the administrative and technical demands of creating standardized, defensible assessments and sustainable programs: a federal seed program can drive inclusion, but it risks imposing one-size-fits-all assessment expectations and leaving States and districts to fund long-term implementation gaps.
The BEST Act balances federal encouragement of biliteracy with minimal ongoing funding, creating several implementation challenges. First, the statute requires speaking and writing proficiency as core criteria but leaves reading and listening optional; that choice prioritizes productive skills but complicates alignment with existing assessments and transcript practices.
Second, insisting that all languages be testable—while laudable—collides with the reality that standardized, validated proficiency instruments do not exist for many Native languages, dialects, and heritage varieties. States and assessment developers will face a technical burden to produce defensible measures or to create alternative assessment pathways that withstand scrutiny from colleges and employers.
A second tension is scale versus sustainability. The authorization—$10 million per year—appears designed to seed State systems rather than sustain them.
Given the single-grant-per-State rule and two-year award window, much of the program’s success will depend on States institutionalizing seals with their own funds after the grant ends. That creates potential inequities between well-resourced and under-resourced States and districts.
Finally, the discretionary renewal authority vested in the Secretary and the requirement to return unspent funds within six months create timing and planning risks for States trying to phase in testing, accommodations, and educator training across diverse school systems.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.