Federal Support for English Learners Q&A

Below is a chronological summary of the executive orders and other actions taken by the Trump Administration that directly affect English learners: 

Executive Order “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders”

On February 19, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order calling for federal agencies to reinforce the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) by restricting undocumented immigrants’ access to public benefits. While undocumented families’ ability to access public schooling is not (yet) being challenged (see below), an updated Health and Human Services (HHS) policy includes Head Start –  a federally funded early childhood education program for low-income families – on a list of programs that will no longer be exempt from the PRWORA’s eligibility criteria.

Executive Order “Designating English as the Official Language of the United States”

On March 1, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order designating English as the official language of the United States, despite not having the authority to do so, and in April rescinded Department of Justice (DOJ) Limited English Proficiency (LEP) guidance from 2002. A subsequent memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi provided new interim guidance and directed federal agencies to reduce the provision of information to people with LEP. In August, the Trump Administration rescinded joint guidance from DOJ and the Education Department directing schools to accommodate English learners. The guidance does not change obligations under civil rights law, including laws that relate to a public school’s obligation to support English language acquisition. However, the executive order and rescinded guidance suggest that the administration may stop enforcing the law. Experts have cautioned that this could affect translation and interpretation services for students and families and might lead to a shift away from dual-language instruction and multilingualism and towards English-only instruction, despite mounting evidence that the former is more effective.

Executive Order “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities”

On March 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Secretary of Education to facilitate the closure of the U.S. Department of Education and return authority over education to states and local communities. As will be discussed in greater detail below, students learning English benefit greatly from programs, services, and research projects that are funded and overseen by the Education Department. Even before this executive order was issued, the Education Department initiated a reduction in force that cut its staff in half. Nearly all the staff members in the Office of English Acquisition were laid off. Staff at the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) was reduced by 90%, and $881 million in education research grants was cancelled. By June, facing pressure from multiple lawsuits, Secretary McMahon rehired a small fraction of laid-off workers (74 of approximately 2,000) and revived about a fifth of the terminated research and statistics contracts. However, the Education Department’s commitment to those projects, beyond compliance with congressional statutes, is unclear.

Trump Administration’s FY26 Budget Request

On May 2, 2025, the Trump Administration released its FY26 budget request, including numerous policy and funding changes that will affect English learners. Most directly, the budget eliminates $890 million in funding for English learners arguing “the misnamed English Language Acquisition program…actually deemphasizes English primacy by funding NGOs and States to encourage bilingualism.”

Impoundment of Education Funding for FY25

On June 30, 2025, the Education Department informed state education agencies that it was withholding nearly $6.8 billion in federal funding for schools. States and districts expected to receive these funds — allocated through Congress’s continuing resolution to provide funding through the end of fiscal year 2025 — on June 1. Instead, the Department informed states that it was conducting a review and would not issue funds until that was completed. The “impoundment” affected five program areas, including $890 million for English Language Acquisition (Title III-A). By July 28, funds for all programs were released with little explanation.

The since-rescinded guidance from the Education Department and the Department of Justice outlined common civil rights issues for English learners (EL) that frequently result in noncompliance by states and school districts. These include: timely and reliable identification and assessment of ELs; providing educationally sound and successful language programs; EL participation in curricular and extracurricular activities; avoiding unnecessary segregation; evaluation and delivery of special education services; needs of students who opt out of language assistance; monitoring and evaluation of EL progress and appropriate exiting from language assistance programs; evaluating the effectiveness of a school district’s language assistance program; and ensuring meaningful communication with limited English proficient parents. 

Elements of Title III reflect rulings from the following legal cases: Elements of Title III reflect rulings from the following legal cases: 

• In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the Supreme Court ruled that the “Siman Act,” a 1919 Nebraska law prohibiting minority languages as both the subject and medium of instruction in schools, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
• In Lau v. Nichols (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that the San Francisco school system’s failure to provide EL instruction to approximately 1,800 students of Chinese ancestry who do not speak English, or to provide them with other adequate instructional procedures, denied them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the public educational program. The case: 1) established that identical services do not constitute equal educational opportunity, 2) formed the legal foundation requiring language assistance programs for ELs, and 3) relied solely on § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, to reverse the Court of Appeals.
• In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), a 5–4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court struck down both a state statute denying funding for the education of undocumented immigrant children in the United States and an independent school district’s attempt to charge an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each student to compensate for lost state funding. The Court found Texas policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment, as it was “directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control.” The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to “the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime.”
• Castañeda v. Pickard (1981) argued that Raymondville Independent School District (RISD) in Texas was discriminating against Mexican-American children by using a grouping system for classrooms based on criteria that were both ethnically and racially discriminating. This case established the three-part test for evaluating adequacy of language assistance programs: 1) the bilingual education program must be “based on sound educational theory;” 2) the program must be “implemented effectively with resources for personnel, instructional materials, and space;” and 3) after a trial period, the program must be proven effective in overcoming language barriers/handicaps.

Title VII, the Bilingual Education Act (BEA), was passed in 1968 as an amendment to the landmark 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The precursor to today’s Title III, Title VII marked the federal government’s first formal recognition of the unique educational needs of students with limited English proficiency (LEP). Through competitive grants, it supported bilingual instruction, culturally relevant materials, and professional development for teachers. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Title VII remained the primary federal vehicle for English learner services. The 1994 Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) reauthorized Title VII and emphasized aligning bilingual programs with academic standards and preparing students to meet the same expectations as their English-speaking peers. 

In 2001, NCLB restructured much of federal education policy, creating a pivotal shift in how the federal government supported English learners. Title VII was eliminated, and its functions were absorbed into a newly reconstituted Title III (previously focused on supporting supplemental education centers and services, such as libraries, instructional media, adult education, and rural services). This “new” Title III marked a fundamental change in both funding and accountability. Rather than distributing funds via competitive grants, NCLB allocated Title III funds through state-level formulas based on EL populations. States then distributed sub-grants to local education agencies (LEAs). 

The 2015 ESSA preserved the basic structure of NCLB-era Title III but made several critical refinements. Most notably, accountability for English-language proficiency was moved into Title I, ESSA’s main accountability system, requiring states to include English learners’ progress toward English proficiency as a formal indicator. Title III under ESSA continued to provide states with funds to support supplemental services, professional development, and family engagement initiatives targeting English learners and recently arrived immigrants. The flexibility of Title III funding was expanded, encouraging coordination with Title I and other federal programs to support whole-child, whole-school strategies. Whereas NCLB imposed restrictive guidelines, ESSA empowered districts to tailor their programs based on local needs.  

Programs Supporting English learners 

Local educational agencies (LEA) receiving Title III funds must implement three core activities: 

1. Language Instruction Educational Programs (LIEP) provide effective programs that increase English language proficiency and student academic achievement. Programs must be “effective” and meet the needs of all ELs, including those with disabilities (e.g., funding a program administrator for supplemental extended day or extended year program, stipends for EL teachers to upgrade an established EL curriculum). 
2. Professional Development provides effective professional development to classroom teachers, principals, administrators, and other school personnel working with ELs (e.g., instructional coaches, stipends for teachers to attend professional development to benefit EL language acquisition).
3. Parent, Family, and Community Engagement implements effective outreach including holding regular meetings, sending notices of opportunities, and conducting parent engagement activities (e.g., parent or family liaison working with staff, students, families, and community partners).

Local Educational Agencies may also use funds for additional activities, such as: 

• Upgrading program objectives and instructional strategies; 
• Acquiring curricula, instructional materials, and educational technology;
• Providing tutorials, intensified instruction, and academic/career technical education;
• Developing preschool, elementary, or secondary school programs; 
• Providing community participation programs and family literacy services.

Programs Supporting Immigrant Children and Youth 

Title III funds can be used to support schools and districts that have experienced a significant influx of immigrant students. Funding can support programs, such as:  

• Family literacy services, parent outreach, and training to support parents’ active participation in their children’s education; 
• Support for personnel, including paraprofessionals, to provide services to immigrants;
• Provision of tutorials, mentoring, and academic or career counseling for immigrants; 
• Acquisition of curricular materials, educational software, and technologies for use in a program carried out with these funds; 
• Basic instructional services directly attributable to the presence of immigrants (supplies, transportation, etc.); 
• Other instructional services designed to support immigrant achievement (e.g., civics education, introduction to U.S. educational system); 
• Comprehensive community services in coordination with community-based organizations. 

The Office of Management and Budget guidance on federal grant compliance contains specific provisions on supplement-not-supplant requirements. Under these requirements, Title III funds cannot be used to fulfill obligations under: 

• Civil rights laws (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, see more below); 
• State or local laws requiring EL services; 
• Services provided in prior years with non-federal funds. 

Supplanting is assumed if LEAs use Title III funds to provide services required under state/local laws or other federal laws or previously funded with non-Title III funds (“prior year” assumption). 

The A-C-R-E framework for compliance ensures that Title III funds are used effectively to support ELs while maintaining fiscal accountability and coordination with broader educational requirements:  

• All Students: What services are provided to all students? 
• Civil Rights: What must the LEA do to meet civil rights requirements? 
• Regulations: What services are required by other federal, state, and local laws? 
• Existed Previously: What services were previously provided with non-Title III funds? 

Education Department program staff use the Title III data submitted through EDFacts and the Consolidated State Performance Reports to assess the effectiveness of states in helping English learners attain English language proficiency and develop high levels of academic achievement. The most recent biennial report included five substantive sections: SEA funding and support activities for English learners, the English learner population, instructional program and educators for English learners, language assessment and accountability, and content-area assessment and accountability. 

U.S. Department of Education’s Office of State Support 

The Education Department’s Office of State Support (OSS) conducted quarterly progress checks and reviews to ensure that state education agencies were improving instructional quality for all students and making progress towards increased student achievement. It appears that the OSS no longer exists, with the former director now leading the School Support and Accountability Office.  

A review of accessible progress monitoring reports for 12 states, spanning FY 2018 to FY 2023, provides a summary of the fiscal and program monitoring indicators and actions that were required for Title III, Part A.  

Supplement Not Supplant Requirement

ESEA requires Title III funds be used to supplement the level of federal, state, and local public school funds that would have been made available to English learners. The Education Department identified action steps for eight states (Florida, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington) regarding supplement-not-supplant provisions. Action steps focused on clarifying SEA guidance or strengthening SEA monitoring of LEA uses of Title III to ensure funds were used on supplemental activities rather than mandated activities or activities provided to all students. 

Language Instruction: Standardized Statewide Entrance and Exit Procedures

SEAs are required to establish and implement standardized entrance and exit procedures for English learners and monitor LEAs to ensure compliance. The Education Department identified action steps for nine states (Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Tennessee) regarding entrance and exit procedures. Common issues were inconsistencies in guidance, offering discretion in entrance and exit procedures rather than a standardized process, and potential over- or under-identification of ELs.  

Parental Notification  

The Department identified action steps for five states (Tennessee, Ohio, New Mexico, Florida, Maine) regarding parental notification. Issues related to parental notification within the required timeframe, complying with written notification guidelines, and informing parents of the right to opt their child out of Language Instruction Educational Programs or to choose another program or method of instruction, if available. 

Monitoring Required and Authorized Subgrantee Activities  

The Department identified action steps for three states (Florida, Maine, Tennessee) and a recommendation for another state (New Jersey) regarding monitoring required and authorized subgrantee activities. These ranged from requiring a plan to implement a post-award fiscal monitoring process and ensuring compliance with federal statutes and regulations (Florida), to clarifying LEA eligibility for subgrants (New Jersey, Maine) and clarifying guidance on the non-eligibility of former ELs for Title III funds (Tennessee). 

Monitoring Activities by Agencies Experiencing Significant Increases in Immigrant Children and Youth  

The Department identified action steps for three states (Nebraska, New Mexico, Maine) regarding monitoring activities by agencies experiencing significant increases in immigrant children and youth. The action steps required states to align their eligibility for Title III funds and their definitions of “immigrant children and youth” with federal policy. 

Language Instruction for English Learners and Immigrant Students  

SEAs must provide an effective Language Instruction Educational Program (LIEP) and effective professional development and implement other effective activities and strategies that enhance/supplement LIEPs (which must include parent, family, and community engagement activities). While no issues were raised around professional development, the Department identified action steps for New Mexico regarding language instruction, and for Tennessee regarding parent, family, and community engagement.  

Government Accountability Office  

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, non-partisan federal agency that “provides Congress and federal agencies with objective, non-partisan, fact-based information to help the government save money and work more efficiently.”  

The GAO’s ongoing monitoring of Title III reveals persistent challenges in ensuring programs effectively serve English learners by improving both English proficiency and academic achievement. Reports emphasize that effective Title III programs should be based on the unique needs of English learners and responsive to student performance data; grounded in rigorous research on proven effective instructional approaches; subject to performance monitoring to make improvements to program implementation and effectiveness; and accompanied by robust implementation plans with measurable goals and clear timelines. 

GAO reports focus on proper Title III fund usage, emphasizing that Title III funds cannot be used to fulfill basic civil rights obligations under Title VI and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act. The reports note that funds cannot be used for core language instruction that LEAs are already required to provide by law, and that states must monitor LEAs and provide technical assistance when Title III strategies are not effective. 

Office of English Language Acquisition 

The goal of OELA is to provide support and resources for states, school districts, and families so that English learners are served effectively. After the March 2025 dismissal of Education Department employees, the office that was formerly operating with about a dozen staff members was left with only one. OELA was subsequently absorbed into the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE).  

When fully operational, OELA promoted English proficiency and biliteracy by informing national policy decisions, administering discretionary grants for EL teacher preparation programs, investing in research and evaluation studies to improve EL student outcomes, and disseminating information about educational research, practices, and policies for ELs through the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA). 

OELA has published various resources to help state education agencies and other personnel manage Title III projects and grants. It is also responsible for the biennial report to Congress on the implementation of Title III. Recently, OELA published a Newcomer Tool Kit (2023) to assist educators working with recent immigrants, including asylees and refugees, and an English learner Family Toolkit (2023) to help families navigate the public school system and ensure their rights are being met. Older resources include an English Learner Tool Kit (2015) and a research review of Dual Language programs (2015). NCELA also published numerous two-page fact sheets on various topics for English learners, such as career and technical education, dual language learners in early care, homelessness, and demographic trends.  

OELA staff provided significant administrative support, technical assistance, and guidance to ensure that states and local educational agencies were complying with the requirements of formula and discretionary grants. With this staff terminated, school administrators and other grant recipients no longer have access to the experts who provided crucial and substantive information that supported their work. 

Institute of Education Sciences 

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is the independent research, statistics, and evaluation arm of the U.S. Department of Education. IES has published over 150 reports, data files, fact sheets, infographics, FAQs, blog posts, and events specifically for English learners just since 2020. IES performs five main activities:  

1. Funding education sciences  

Through the National Center for Education Research (NCER) and the National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER), IES provides funding opportunities for projects that develop and rigorously test new approaches for improving education outcomes. Steep cuts in IES staff and cancelled contracts mean that ongoing studies related to English learners may never be completed and new grants may not be awarded.  

2. Evaluating federal programs  

IES currently lists 11 evaluation contracts that support English learners, though the state of these contracts is uncertain. For example, the IES website lists as cancelled in February 2025 a $10 million contract for the study of English learner classification policies, despite the study being underway since September 2021. A six-year, $4 million contract to conduct a national evaluation of Title III implementation was cancelled with less than one year of the contract remaining.  

3. Supporting evidence-based policies and practices  

In addition to the funding opportunities described above, IES supports the use of data and research in education decision-making through the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) and Regional Educational Labs (RELs). The WWC lists 68 publications for English learners from the last decade, categorizing results based on whether they exhibit strong, moderate, or promising evidence or have uncertain effects. There are 10 RELs that collaborate with state departments of education, school districts, and classroom leaders to address pressing problems in education policy and practice. In the last decade, RELs have published over 200 products relating to English learners. In February 2025, the Education Department cancelled 10 REL contracts totaling over $336 million because they were identified as “wasteful and ideologically driven” with plans to enter into new contracts to satisfy statutory requirements. In August, a federal judge ruled that the terminations were illegal and ordered them reinstated. 

4. Collecting and reporting education statistics 

Through the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), IES collects, analyzes, and reports data on the condition of U.S. education. In addition to annual demographic reporting on the counts of English learners (Common Core of Data), NCES also conducts numerous surveys and assessments relevant to the English learner population, including the National Teacher and Principal Survey, the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). In June 2025, the Education Department missed a statutory deadline, for the first time, for issuing the annual statistical report on the condition of education. The Department subsequently published a sparse report indicating that it would update indicators on a rolling basis. Former staffers blamed the delay on DOGE’s cancellation of contracts and the massive layoffs at NCES. 

5. Scientific peer review  

To comply with the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA), all research, statistics, and evaluation reports produced by IES must undergo peer review before publication, coordinated by the Office of Science. Reports that include new analyses of data, systematic reviews, or syntheses of research are sent to external reviewers. Reports using limited descriptive data analyses or already published findings are reviewed internally. The Office of Science is also responsible for the rigorous peer review of grant applications submitted to IES.  

Office of Civil Rights 

The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws in schools and other entities that receive funding from the Education Department. OCR responds to complaints of discrimination, conducts compliance reviews to target resources on problems that appear to be widespread, and provides technical assistance to help institutions voluntarily comply with civil rights laws. OCR is responsible for enforcing English learner’s rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). OCR also administers the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), a mandatory, biennial collection of district and school level data that is used to enforce civil rights statutes. Notably, most CRDC data are disaggregated by English learner status. 

In March, about half of OCR’s 550 employees were laid off and five of the twelve regional offices were abolished, making it “virtually impossible” for the office to resolve complaints and conduct investigations. Multiple ongoing lawsuits are challenging the firings. Court filings submitted in August by the Education Department included a months-long plan to rehire about 250 of the OCR staff fired in March. 

Detailed research briefs from our rapid review coming soon.