By Alyn Turner
The Rationale for Research
Over the past year, federal support for English Learners (ELs) has moved from uncertainty to active dismantling. The administration has gutted the Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA), proposed eliminating Title III funding, and notified Congress of plans to dissolve the standalone federal office responsible for English learner policy, grants, technical assistance, and national learning infrastructure.
Title III is a federal initiative aimed at enhancing programs and services for ELs and immigrant students. Congress preserved Title III funding for FY26, but the administration’s FY27 budget again proposes eliminating the English Language Acquisition program entirely. Completely dissolving OELA would further weaken the federal government’s specialized capacity to monitor Title III implementation, provide technical assistance, support bilingual educator development, maintain national clearinghouse functions, and help states and districts translate evidence into practice.
The dismantling of OELA and the proposed elimination of Title III are not only funding or compliance issues. They also represent a retreat from federal learning infrastructure: the systems that help states, districts, researchers, advocates, and families understand what is working for English learners, where implementation is breaking down, and how public dollars can be used more effectively.
As this federal role in education policy diminishes—due largely to the Trump administration’s commitment to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED)—there are legitimate questions about whether the government, through programs such as Title III, has achieved its goals to improve educational outcomes and expand opportunities.
Federal moves to undermine the ED also jeopardize the critical relationship between research and practice. For instance, the ED stopped the release of a significant federal study about the implementation of Title III before it was released. This cancellation, and the resulting loss of evidence-based learning, diminishes the ability of policymakers and educators to strengthen state and local academic outcomes for some of the most vulnerable and fastest-growing populations.
In this challenging context, RFA, with funding from the William T. Grant Foundation, and in partnership with the Education Law Center (ELC) and the Center for Outcomes Based Contracting, is exploring the impact of dismantling the Department of Education on these programs. Our aim is to review and understand research evidence so that citizens, advocates, and policymakers can evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of particular ED programs and identify ways to improve them amid a precarious and uncertain environment.
In this post, I will focus on our recent review of Title III.
What is Title III?
The aim of Title III is to ensure that English learners and recently arrived immigrant students attain English proficiency and achieve academic content mastery at the same levels expected of all students, by providing supplemental language instruction and support services. Title III funds are administered through a state-to-local formula grant system to states and districts based on the number of English Learners (80%) and newly arrived immigrant students (20%). School districts in each state allocate their shares for classroom-level language programs, intensive professional development, family engagement, and immigrant supports.
Three Questions Guiding Our Exploration
Through our research review of Title III, we confirmed that while the federal government plays an integral role in supporting English learners, there is limited research drawing a direct relationship between Title III funding and improved student outcomes. However, we identified a clear opportunity to use Title III funds to deliver evidence-based instructional practices.
- Are there evidence-based programs and practices that improve English proficiency and academic learning among ELs?
Yes. It is clear that improving instruction and academic proficiency for ELs is possible. While school districts often lack the resources, policies, and capacity to offer differentiated language supports and rigorous academic instruction, research demonstrates numerous evidence-based approaches that can strengthen English proficiency and academic learning when the necessary conditions are in place.
- Are Title III funds used by LEAs on evidence-based programs and practices?
Unclear. According research from the American Institutes for Research, Title III helped increase awareness and encouraged schools to focus more on the needs of ELs. In the 10 years since its enactment, the program has led to changes in standards, testing, accountability, and data systems for ELs. The authors call for refining the policy to build capacity, improve teacher quality, and increase the use of proven teaching methods to better serve the growing EL student population.
- Are funding levels adequate for achieving Title III goals?
No. Programs designed to support EL students—such as those involving language assessment, the recruitment of qualified staff, and the delivery of excellent instruction— often demand significant resources. But in stark contrast to proposals to eliminate federal funding for English learners, the research consensus is that current funding for Title III is inadequate to achieve the program’s goals.
The Takeaway and Call to Action
While the federal government plays a crucial role in supporting English learners, we could not draw a direct causal relationship from Title III funding to improved student outcomes. The absence of strong causal evidence about Title III’s direct impact should not be interpreted as evidence that the program lacks value. Rather, it points to a federal learning gap: Title III has supported attention, infrastructure, standards, assessment, and services for English learners, but the field still needs better evidence about how funds are used and if Title III achieves its goals.
As federal leadership retreats, states, advocates, philanthropy, and research partners will need to play a more intentional role in protecting English Learner supports and building usable evidence. That means documenting what Title III funds make possible, identifying where state and local implementation is strongest or weakest, and developing practical evidence tools that help decision makers improve services rather than simply eliminate funding and infrastructure for these programs.
Learn More
In conjunction with ELC and the Center for Outcomes Based Contracting, we developed a public report, along with three fact sheets that offer additional research questions and data. We also offer suggestions for further exploration, for each broader area of inquiry. In addition, we created talking points for advocates that focus on the policy context, our research findings, and messages with calls to action.
Coming Next
In my next blog post, I will discuss what we have learned from our research on IDEA.
Alyn Turner is a Senior Research Director at RFA.