The immigrant student population in the United States of America is a dynamic force, shaping both the nation’s educational landscape and its broader societal fabric. Alongside them, millions of children with immigrant parents also attend schools, underscoring the profound role immigrant families play in the nation's future.  Immigrant children are referred to as unaccompanied youth and the children of immigrants are referred to as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). These students are not only protected by significant federal legislation, such as the Plyler v. Doe decision, which ensures their right to an education, but also benefit from various policies designed to foster educational equity, such as Title III funding and language acquisition resources. However, despite these protective measures, challenges persist in the effective implementation of these policies, with disparities in funding allocation, access to resources, and the timeliness of data collection. This essay explores both the successes and the shortcomings of current policies, proposing necessary improvements to better serve the growing and diverse immigrant student population in the U.S.

As of 2023, there are approximately 4.7 million foreign-born individuals enrolled in pre-kindergarten and post secondary education programs; these students represent approximately 6% of the total student population. Additive to the 4.7 million students, approximately 20 million students are enrolled to foreign-born parents (Higher Ed Immigration Portal) [5]. Consequently, many immigrant students and families contribute significantly to the United States. Immigrant residents have a total spending power of $1.3 trillion and make up a population of 46 million people (Higher Ed Immigration Portal) [5]. Immigrant students make up a large portion of the United States population and impact the country significantly. 

Furthermore, immigrant students retain many rights under United States law. Plyler v. Doe, a 2014 landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, nullified a statute denying funding for undocumented immigrant students’ education. Essentially, a student or parent’s origin and documented status is irrelevant to a student’s access to education. Consequently, “Under Federal Law, State and local intelligence agencies are required to provide children with equal access to public education at the elementary and secondary level” (U.S Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice) [6]. Additionally, Title IV of the United States’ 1964 Civil Rights Act “prohibits the discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, among other factors, by public elementary and secondary schools” (U.S Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice) [6]. Title VI “prohibits discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, or national origin” (U.S Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice) [6]. As the United States Supreme Court mentioned in their decision for Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), “it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he [or she] is denied the opportunity of an education.” Id. at 493 (U.S. Department of Justice) [4]. 

Immigrant students make up a large portion of the United States population, significantly contribute to the inner workings of the U.S, and are protected under federal law to receive equitable education. Consequently, it is policy-makers’ responsibility to ensure that the translation and cultural services for immigrant students are as equitable as possible.

Despite protection given by the United States government, there are severe discrepancies in other policies in terms of national application, ostracization of immigrant and refugee students, and funding unproportional to the amount of students who require services. 

One of the most landmark policies for immigrant students is Title III in the Federal Grant funding. This aims to improve education by providing services for English language learners. Of course, schools are always permitted to use other federal funds for immigrant students, but these funds are specifically designated for English language learners. In 2023, Title III grants were approximately $890 Million. The grants work as follows: 80% of the federal allocations are based on the state’s share of English learners and the remaining 20% are based on the state’s share of students who are recent immigrants. Then, the funds are distributed to local school districts; the minimum each district can receive is $10,000 (Education Week) [7]. Mandatory state requirements, such as testing students to see if they are English language learners, or English-as-a-second-language teachers salaries, are not included in the Title III funding. Therefore, these grants are typically used for providing professional development programs, adding supplemental instruction programs for students, and family or community engagement.  Though an immensely effective program, there are issues with the grant funding. Scholars found that many schools enter students, especially immigrant students, mid-year (Education Week) [7]. Since the allocation of the Title III funding is given out on a yearly basis, there is not enough funding given to schools to support the newly-arrived students. Additionally, the amount of funding given is based on census data, which is only updated every 10 years. Oftentimes, immigrant and English language learner populations arrive in waves, so using past data is ineffectual. 

Another landmark policy to support immigrant students’ language and translational services is the federally-written toolkit by the United States’ Department of Education’s Office of English Language Acquisition to help school districts serve English language learners. The purpose of the toolkit is to provide school districts and other educational institutions to understand how to meet their obligations to English learner students. The toolkit includes how to identify English language learner students, how to provide students with a language assistance program, how to staff and support an ELL program, how to access meaningful extracurricular programs, how to create an inclusive environment, how to address ELL students with disabilities, how to serve English learners who opt-out of the ELL program, how to evaluate the effectiveness of an ELL program, and how to ensure meaningful communication with ELL families (U.S. Department of Education) [3]. However, critiques of this toolkit include its accessibility and its specifics. Many language learner families are not aware of the toolkit’s existence; therefore, the toolkit is not used as much as it should be. Additionally, the toolkit is generic to the United States of America. If states and school districts adopt a more specific toolkit, it could be much more effective.

Starting with Title III funding and the federally-provided toolkit to immigrant and English language learner families, there are several improvements to policy to be made nationwide. As aforementioned, Title III grant funding is not always proportional to the amount of Englishlearners learners within a state or school district because of the entrance of mid-year students and dependence on old census data. Therefore, the Title III funding program must improve the way it receives data. Instead of relying on census data, I propose a new system of data-keeping: school districts must actively report the new number of ELL students they have on a rolling basis. States will collect this data from school districts; once they reach a quota, they will become eligible for increased funding by the Title III grant. Stakeholders involved with this would be the Office of Language Acquisition, school districts, and states’ Department of Education. To fund this, states would simply redirect the funding they use to attain Census data to collect data on a rolling basis instead. By implementing data collection of the number of ELL students on a rolling basis,  Title III funding would once more fulfill the needs of ELL students in the United States. 

Additionally, the federal toolkit for English language learner students and their families is a remarkable resource. However, many families are not aware of the existence of the toolkit; even if they are aware, many families have recalled the toolkit to be too generic to fit the families’ needs. To alleviate these issues, individual states must implement and actively update their own language access toolkit. Having already done this, Washington State found great success with this program. In Washington House Bill 1153, the state-mandated language access toolkit is described as follows, “Develop, periodically update, and publish a language access toolkit that includes the following resources…” (4. 1. D). Stakeholders in implementing a state-level toolkit would include school districts, states’ Board of Education, State Government, and families of English language learners. By narrowing the toolkit down to include state and regional levels, the resources become increasingly specific to families in the area; therefore, families will have increased access and will be better helped by the resources listed. Federal policy should be improved to mandate the federal-level toolkit to be implemented in every state. 

In conclusion, while significant strides have been made to ensure that immigrant students receive equitable access to education, there remain critical gaps in policy implementation that must be addressed. The Title III funding system, though essential, is hindered by outdated data and the challenges of mid-year student enrollment, leaving many schools underfunded for their growing immigrant populations. Additionally, while the federal toolkit for English language learners offers valuable guidance, its general nature and limited awareness among families undermine its full potential. To rectify these issues, more responsive data collection and state-specific toolkits are needed to ensure that immigrant students are supported in ways that are timely, relevant, and accessible. By strengthening these policies, the United States can better fulfill its promise of educational equity for all students, regardless of their national origin or immigration status. Ultimately, as the immigrant population continues to grow and shape the nation's future, it is crucial that policymakers prioritize the needs of immigrant students, recognizing that their success is integral to the success of the nation as a whole.

Work Cited

1. "Certification of Enrollment Engrosses Second Substitute House Bill 1153." 8 Mar. 2022.
2. "Educational Resources for Immigrants, Refugees, Asylees and Other New Americans." Ed, Department of Education, 30 Oct. 2023, www.ed.gov/teaching-and-administration/supporting-students/educational-resources-for-immigrants-refugees-asylees-and-other-new-americans. Accessed 11 Nov. 2024.
3. "English Learner Tool Kit (OELA)." Ed, United States Department of Education, 24 Jan. 2018, www.ed.gov/teaching-and-administration/supporting-students/english-learner-tool-kit-oela. Accessed 11 Nov. 2024.
4. "FACT SHEET: Educational Services for Immigrant Children and Those Recently Arrived to the United States." Ed, United States Department of Education, www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/policy/rights/guid/unaccompanied-children.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov. 2024.
5. "Immigrant and International Students in Higher Education." Higher Ed Immigration Portal, www.higheredimmigrationportal.org/national/national-data/. Accessed 11 Nov. 2024.
6. Lhamon, Catherine E., et al. "Dear Colleague Letter: School Enrollment Procedures." Ed, United States Department of Education, 18 May 2014, www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201405.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov. 2024.
7. Najarro, Ilena. "Title III Funding for English Learners, Explained." Education Week, 26 Apr. 2024, www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/title-iii-funding-for-english-learners-explained/2024/04. Accessed 11 Nov. 2024.