Policies supporting K-12 English Learner students (ELs) are under threat following a series of federal actions. In the spring, an executive order designated 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 support states in educating ELs, before releasing the funds nearly a month later. In August, ED withdrew a 10-year-old Dear Colleague letter offering legal guidance on accommodating ELs to comply with federal civil rights laws, signaling reduced federal scrutiny on state and district actions. The most recent budget proposal for the 2026-27 fiscal year proposes to eliminate Title III funds entirely. These actions collectively leave the status of EL students and educators uncertain.
This article assesses the current status of ELs in America’s public schools, describes the policy and funding landscape, and highlights the challenges posed by the lack of comprehensive data on ELs. The paucity of data and the inability to compare EL programming and spending across state lines may exacerbate EL students’ vulnerability in this era of shifting policies.
EL students have a legal right to a free, public education on the same terms as their English-proficient peers, established through legal precedents such as Mendez v. Westminster (1946), Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Lau v. Nichols (1974), and Plyler v. Doe (1982). These rights extend to students regardless of their race/ethnicity, English proficiency levels, or immigration status. However, recent policy actions at both the state and federal levels threaten these longstanding decisions, potentially impacting both EL students and the schools serving them.
ELs make up around 10% of public school students, approximately five million students nationwide. A disproportionate share of EL students are in the lower grades, with about 15% of kindergarten students classified as ELs in fall 2021. As EL students develop English proficiency, they typically transition out of EL status, leading to a gradual decline in the share of ELs 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, although this association is inaccurate. Estimates suggest there were 620,000 undocumented K-12 students in 2021, constituting less than 12% of all ELs.
Academically, ELs lag behind their peers on key educational outcomes. For example, the 2024 NAEP 4th grade results showed that ELs scored 25 points lower than non-ELs in math and 35 points lower in reading. These gaps are comparable to the Black-white achievement gaps. A 2018 study indicated that ELs made steady progress on the NAEP during the No Child Left Behind Era (2003 to 2015), though their progress was not readily visible due to the constant churn of students considered ELs. However, a recent multi-state study concluded that EL students, like many other disadvantaged students, lost learning during the pandemic and have not yet returned to pre-pandemic performance levels.
Federal funding for EL students is primarily provided through Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which allocates funds to support ELs. The distribution of Title III funds across states is determined by ED, based on each state’s share of EL students and recent immigrant students. These funds are required to supplement existing state allocations and support functions that benefit ELs, such 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 following the Great Recession, the number of EL students 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. Allocation amounts have increased in recent years but have not kept pace with inflation and EL enrollment growth. Based on current funding levels ($890 million) and the number of ELs (5.26 million in 2021-22), Title III funds now amount to $169 per EL student. This amount could soon fall to $0 if proposed cuts are realized.
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 benefit 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.
States disburse Title III funds and allocate additional state aid for EL students according to their own policies. Recent reports document the complexities of states’ varied approaches to supporting EL students. Most states use a student-based funding model, where ELs are given funds calculated as an additional weight beyond a baseline funding level. 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 from a low-income household.
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 plus additional funds for ancillary items like instructional materials and technology. 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.
The amount of money allocated to EL students cannot be directly calculated for most states. Calculations rely on student-level data, which is often protected. Although 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. 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.
Despite tracing the general contours of the EL funding and policy landscape, several blind spots prevent a comprehensive evaluation. Sometimes there are good reasons for the lack of data, such as students’ immigration status. However, reasons for omission are not readily apparent at other times, such as EL-focused spending. 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.
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. However, 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 education researchers from readily evaluating how recent shifts in federal policy are impacting ELs. Based on visible data, removing federal guidance on EL education and reducing enforcement of civil rights laws may prove more consequential for ELs than reductions in Title III funds. Using Vermont’s cost estimates as a suggestive guide for providing EL education, it’s clear that Title III funds of $169 per EL student offer, at best, a minor contribution to states’ total EL spending. 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.
