Recent federal actions portend new risks for English Learner students

Policies supporting K-12 English Learner students (ELs) are now in jeopardy following a series of federal actions earlier this year. In the spring, President Trump issued an executive order designating English as the official language. In July, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) withheld $6.2 billion in funding from K-12 schools, including $890 million in Title III Part A funds that provide states support for costs associated with educating ELs, before they were released nearly a month later. And in August, ED withdrew a 10-year old Dear Colleague letter offering legal guidance on how public schools should accommodate ELs to comply with federal civil rights laws, an action signaling less federal scrutiny on state and district actions. Moving forward, President Trump’s most recent budget proposal for the 2026-27 fiscal year proposes to eliminate Title III funds entirely. 

The combined effect of these federal actions leaves the status of EL students and educators in limbo. In this article, we assess the status of ELs in America’s public schools and describe the policy and funding landscape. Further, the paucity of data on ELs and the inability to compare EL programming and spending across state lines may amplify EL students’ vulnerability in this era of shifting policies.

Who are ELs and why are they now at risk?

EL students’ access to a free, public education on the same terms as their English-proficient peers is established in legal precedent. These rights extend to students regardless of their race/ethnicity (Mendez v. Westminster, 1946; Brown v. Board of Education, 1954), English proficiency levels (Lau v. Nichols, 1974), or their (or their parents’) immigration status (Plyler v. Doe, 1982). Recent policy actions at both the state and federal level, however, are poised to challenge these longstanding decisions, which could have direct implications on both EL students and the schools serving them.

ELs make up around 10% of public school students, or about five million students nationally. A disproportionate share of EL students are in the lower grades, with about 15% of kindergarten students classifying as ELs in fall 2021. As EL students develop English proficiency, they typically test out of EL status and are no longer considered ELs; hence, the share of ELs gradually declines in later grades.

Most ELs are students of color, live in high-poverty communities, and were born in the United States. Political rhetoric often conflates EL students with undocumented immigrants, though the reflexive association of ELs with illegal immigration is not accurate.  Counting the number of undocumented students is difficult due to data issues, but Fwd.us, a bipartisan political organization, estimates there were 620,000 undocumented K-12 students in 2021. Even if all undocumented students were ELs (note: they are not), they would constitute less than 12% of all ELs.

Academically, ELs lag their peers on key educational outcomes. For example, the 2024 NAEP 4th grade results showed that ELs, on average, scored 25 points lower than non-ELs in math, and 35 points lower in reading. For context, the corresponding Black-white gaps on this were 27 points in math and 26 points in reading.

According to a 2018 study, ELs made steady progress on the NAEP during the No Child Left Behind Era (2003 to 2015), though their progress was not readily seen in NAEP scores due to the constant churn of students considered ELs (a consequence of students shedding the EL label once they gain English proficiency). Yet, a recent multi-state study of EL students’ progress in the wake of the pandemic concludes they (like many other disadvantaged students) lost learning and have not yet returned to pre-pandemic performance levels.

Federal funding for EL students

Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act allocates funds to support ELs and is currently the only federal allocation designated for this purpose. The distribution of Title III funds across states is determined by ED, based on each state’s share of EL students and the share of recent immigrant students. Title III funds are required to be used as a supplement to existing state allocations, not to supplant those funds and free them up for different uses. Civil rights laws require states to provide basic instructional services for ELs, separate from Title III, and the federal funds can then be used flexibly for supporting functions that benefit ELs, which can include items as varied as teacher training, after-school programs, and supplementary instructional materials.

The dollar amounts given to states through Title III are modest and declining on a per-student basis. In the decade-plus following the Great Recession, the number of EL students modestly increased while Congressional allocations to Title III were mostly fixed, resulting in per-EL spending amounts that declined from $264 in 2007-08 to $194 in 2017-18 (CPI inflation adjusted to current dollars). Allocation amounts have increased in recent years, though they have not kept pace with the combination of inflation and EL enrollment growth. Based on current funding levels ($890 million) and the number of ELs (5.26 million in 2021-22, the most recent year of national data), Title III funds now amount to $169 per EL student. The amount could soon fall to $0 if Trump’s proposed cuts are realized.

Some other federal programs also disproportionately impact EL students, even if they do not specifically target them. For example, Title I funds that provide financial support to schools serving high shares of students in poverty end up benefiting many EL students. The Migrant Education Program (Title III Part C) and Refugee School Impact Program (administered through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) are also in this category.

A complex tapestry of state-level funding and policies

States disburse Title III funds and allocate additional state aid for EL students according to their own state policies (though Mississippi and Montana do not allocate additional state aid for ELs). Recent reports by EdBuild and Learning Policy Institute document the complexities of states’ varied approaches to supporting EL students:

1. Most states use a student-based funding model, where ELs are given funds calculated as an additional weight beyond a baseline funding level assumed for all students. Weights can vary from a few percentage points of the baseline in Utah to multiples of the baseline in Vermont. Weights often vary within states, too, according to students’ specific English proficiency level or history, the school-level concentration of ELs, and whether they are also from a low-income household.
2. The next most common approach states use is a resource-based model, where funds are provided in accordance with the expected resources needed to support student instruction. Resource-based models lean heavily on prescribed ratios of students to supporting staff (e.g., teachers and administrators) plus additional funds for ancillary items like instructional materials and technology.
3. Finally, there are states that employ other funding models. A handful of states use a hybrid model that includes elements of both the student- and resource-based approaches. Two other states (Vermont and Wisconsin) provide EL funding in unique ways that do not closely resemble either of these models.

Notably, the amount of money allocated to EL students cannot be directly calculated for most states. For one, the calculations rely on student-level (protected) data. Also, though ED collects EL-focused spending in the Common Core of Data, many states decline to publicly report these numbers. These data gaps obscure the costs to educate EL students and limit comparisons across states.

Many operational and definitional aspects of EL education also vary across states. The points of difference include who qualifies as an EL student and under what classification, what programs or services are available to ELs, which benchmarks are used for testing out of EL status, and what accountability measures are set up to know if schools are meeting EL students’ needs. ELs may also have other overlapping needs, like a learning disability, which can further complicate EL students’ progress and the resources needed to help them succeed. For example, a study in Washington state showed ELs with special needs took over a year longer to reach English proficiency than comparable peers.  

Blind spots in EL education

Though we can trace the general contours of the EL funding and policy landscape, our examination surfaced several blind spots that prevented us from probing further. Sometimes there are good reasons for the lack of data (e.g., students’ immigration status), though reasons for omission were not readily apparent at other times (e.g., EL-focused spending). And due to the state-level variability of EL policies, making apples-to-apples comparisons across state lines is nearly impossible. The combined effect of these blind spots is to make EL education difficult to describe, let alone, evaluate on a national level.

For example, even a seemingly simple question—what is the cost of providing adequate instruction to EL students?—leads to a frustrating, inconclusive result for most states. Several states have conducted their own cost studies on the resources required to support ELs’ instruction, often finding that costs can vary dramatically across the EL population due to a variety of individual- or school-level factors. For example, a 2024 cost study in Vermont produced annual per-student cost estimates ranging from $1,754 to $30,579 depending on these various factors (a student’s English proficiency is flagged as the major cost driver). Yet, the incomparability of each state’s approach to identifying, supporting, and evaluating EL students’ progress renders these estimates largely meaningless outside of Vermont.

Ultimately, these blind spots prevent us and other education researchers from readily evaluating how the recent shifts in federal policy are impacting ELs. And, based on what is visible, removing the federal guidance on EL education and reducing enforcement of civil rights laws may prove more consequential for ELs than reductions in Title III funds. Taking Vermont’s cost estimates above as a suggestive guide for providing EL education, it’s clear that Title III funds to the tune of $169 per EL student offer (at best) a minor contribution to states’ total EL spending. And without federal enforcement of EL policies, states may find shortchanging EL students as a convenient place to cut back on costs.

The rapid shifts in federal policies impacting ELs over recent months leave this already vulnerable group even more at risk of disinvestment or further changes at the federal level. The veil obscuring state actions from public view reinforces the risk to EL students and educators.