Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
Nothing characterizes the Trump administration so much as its certainty that government efforts to make things better never work. Whatever the public problem, the administration is certain that its solution involves … doing less to try and solve it.
For instance, as a candidate in 2024, President Donald Trump called himself an “environmentalist,” and promised “really clean water” and “really clean air” if he were reelected. Upon returning to the White House, he restarted the work he began during his first term, radically reducing resources and regulations devoted to protecting the nation’s air and water quality.
The administration is trying the same tack with education, where it’s has been zealous in its efforts to improve U.S. schools by doing less. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon has dismantled her department and fired thousands of civil servants with expertise on protecting students’ civil rights, advancing cutting-edge education research, administering financial aid programs in higher education and more. Just like last year’s, its 2027 budget proposal requests major cuts to a wide range of federal grants, including programs that supported McMahon’s priority of improving early literacy.
Senate Committee Presses Linda McMahon on Cuts to College Prep, Rural Schools
In April, McMahon reinforced this pattern by closing her department’s Office of English Language Acquisition. As Chalkbeat’s Erica Meltzer wrote: “The Office of English Language Acquisition already was decimated in early rounds of layoffs. Last August, the department quietly rescinded guidance that many states and school districts rely on to protect the rights of immigrant students.”
While the Trump administration has loudly expressed concerns about immigrants learning English and fully acclimating to the United States, this latest move is simply the most recent of a long series of actions slashing supports for immigrants integrating into American society. Its choice to close the Office of English Language Acquisition is best understood, then, as another textbook case of the administration vowing to address a problem by trying less hard to solve it.
The office has existed in various forms since 1979 — it has been in its recent iteration since No Child Left Behind’s passage in 2002. During that (almost) quarter century, it has run a regular grants competition called the National Professional Development program. The grants — nearly $1 billion — support training for teachers to ensure that they are prepared to meet the diverse needs of the nearly 5.3 million English learners in U.S. classrooms.
Trump Targeting Services for Multilingual Learners Leaves Gaps in Schools
For several periods during that time — including for the past several years — the office also oversaw the Department of Education’s core English learners investments, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act’s Title III formula grants. This program’s annual budget is usually between $700 million and $900 million, and it funds English language instructional programs for English learners in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.
Notably, the administration tried to unilaterally withhold already appropriated Title III funds last summer — but later released them after concern and pressure from state leaders in conservative states. It proposed zeroing out these programs in its budget proposal last year, but Congress ignored the request and funded Title III at $890 million. It proposed the same defunding again this year.
These repeated assaults on linguistically diverse kids are inseparable, of course, from Republicans’ comprehensive attacks on immigrants and their families. That’s because, while most English learners are native-born U.S. citizens, many have immigrant parents, grandparents or other family members. Republicans in Congress — and some state legislatures — are trying to deny some children of immigrants access to public education. Worse yet, Republicans’ spiraling mass deportation campaign appears to be terrorizing English-learning kids into staying home from school in some communities.
In the Push to End Plyler, a Blurring of the Truth About English Learners
Though the administration hasn’t been able to end national investments in supporting students’ English learning, it is making these investments less effective by scattering the Office of English Language Acquisition’s functions across the federal government..
On paper, the closure shouldn’t affect the levels of federal English learner funding or the programs that the office once managed. Unfortunately, it’s hard to imagine other offices in the short-staffed Education Department being able to instantly pick them up and administer them as efficiently. Indeed, because of the Trump administration’s other education bureaucracy shuffles, Title III grants will now move to the Department of Labor, which is taking over the functions of the Department of Education’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
This will not work. Students will not learn English faster if Title III funds are reduced or eliminated. They will not be helped by casting national grants supporting students’ English learning across the Education Department and to other parts of the federal bureaucracy. That’s because analysis of the Title III program shows that school districts use these funds for eminently sensible things, like family and community engagement, teacher training and rethinking their language instruction programs.
Data on the efficacy of the federal government’s English learner programs are limited. It’s difficult to isolate the impacts of large federal policies and reforms on particular subgroups of students. Still, there is evidence that English learners benefitted from federal policies shaping their educational opportunities since 2002. One study found that linguistically diverse kids made significantly more academic growth in the first decade after No Child Left Behind than monolingual, English-dominant children.
Data further suggest that former English learners who have mastered English have higher proficiency rates in math and literacy than current English learners. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, former English learners have higher math and literacy proficiency rates than the overall averages for all students — that is, former English learners are also outscoring their English-dominant peers.
But let’s be honest: It feels hopeless to trot out pedestrian things like research and evidence to show that this is a bad idea. You can’t solve an educational challenge by eliminating the organizations trying to attend to it, just like you can’t tone your muscles and lose weight by canceling your gym membership and throwing out your home exercise equipment.
This is not a serious strategy and it’s pointless to pretend otherwise. The only thing to do is to insist, loudly, that our current leaders are wrong — and to undo their mistake as soon as they are no longer in power.
The views expressed here are Conor P. Williams’s alone, and do not reflect those of his employer or any other affiliated organizations.
Did you use this article in your work?
We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how
