Helping students identified as English learners to acquire the English language often requires funding on top of general education spending to cover the cost of additional instructional resources, teachers, aides, and other supports.
But experts say the amount needed to meet these students鈥� needs can vary by thousands of additional dollars per student depending on factors such as language-proficiency levels, whether those students have had a limited or interrupted education, and what staffing capacity schools may already have on hand.
At a March webinar hosted by the American Institutes for Research, a research and evaluation firm, experts spoke of why states should evaluate their education funding models to ensure state funding for English learners is cost-based and that the distribution of such funds is aligned with differences in students鈥� needs.
鈥淭here鈥檚 no one-size-fits-all funding model for English-language students,鈥� said Tammy Kolbe, a managing researcher at AIR, who specializes in education finance and resource allocation.
The key issues Kolbe recommends states consider when evaluating their English-learner funding models include:
- Whether current models differentiate by proficiency level;
- The extent to which formula weights are grounded in the value of required instructional resources;
- Where funding and instructional costs might be misaligned; and
- What data or analysis policymakers need to recalibrate English-learner funding.
Experts say English-learner funding should be cost-based
The Title III program is the main dedicated federal funding stream for English learners. Dollars go to states and from there to districts to supplement spending for English learners. The funds are based on a formula count of the number of English learners (most of whom are U.S. born citizens) and immigrant students who are within the district.
But as the national English-learner population has grown, the total dollars allocated to the Title III program has failed to keep pace, diminishing its value over time, said Rebecca Bergey, a principal researcher at AIR who specializes on English learners.
States also play a key funding role, Bergey said.
Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia and services.
But these state-level funding models vary, and in most states English learners generate the same amount of funding regardless of students鈥� language-proficiency levels, Kolbe said.
Lower-proficiency students typically require more instructional time, smaller instructional grouping, specialized staffing, and additional family engagement supports. Students at higher proficiency levels require more targeted language support and transitional monitoring, she said.
Scale matters as well. Smaller districts and schools that have smaller numbers of English learners face higher average costs per student in serving English learners.
Core principles to fair and effective English-learner funding, Kolbe said, require that support be based on the actual cost to serve these students and that distribution needs align with students鈥� needs.
鈥淚f funding is largely flat, and instructional costs vary significantly by proficiency, then funding and costs are not going to be fully aligned,鈥� she added. 鈥淲hen funding doesn鈥檛 reflect variation in need, or variation in costs, states risk inefficiency and reduce transparency in EL service delivery and both of those conditions result in state funding systems that aren鈥檛 very effective, and they鈥檙e not very fair.鈥�
The nuances of students鈥� language-proficiency levels matter when it comes to spending, as Kolbe found in a she led in 2024, not affiliated with AIR.
In the study, Kolbe found that a student with a level one proficiency level (as defined by WIDA standards for English learners used by more than 40 states) would need about $31,000 per school year in addition to general education spending.
A student at level five or six, however, would only need about $1,700 per school year in additional funds.
States can benefit from cost studies focused on ELs
Most states already differentiate funding for students with disabilities and states provide supplemental funding for students experiencing poverty, Kolbe said.
States鈥� existing cost studies for their education funding formulas typically don鈥檛 focus on English-learner students.
Such studies can offer state leaders key insights not just on what funding models make sense for English learners in each state鈥檚 context, but also on how English-learner services are working.
Thanks to Kolbe鈥檚 study, Stephanie Vogel, a differentiated instruction and multilingual program specialist with the Vermont education agency, said she learned about the challenges associated with serving rising numbers of students who remain English learners for more than six years, and serving students with limited or interrupted formal education.
Kolbe emphasized that every state is different and any cost studies need to address state-specific contexts.
In Texas, for instance, funding allotment for an English learner (or emergent bilingual student) is higher if that student is enrolled in a dual-language program. That increased amount in funding also applies to non-English learners enrolled in dual-language programs, said Julie Lara, the director of multilingual programs at the nonprofit Ensemble Learning and a former state director for emergent bilingual programming at the Texas Education Agency.
Such a funding model incentivizes districts in Texas to invest in dual-language programming, which research has found to be the best learning model for multilingual students, Lara said.
In Illinois, districts receive funds through a bilingual education funding stream determined by the number of English learners and the estimated cost factors of educating them, such as the need to hire bilingual specialists and family liaisons, said Samuel Aguirre, the chief consortium and policy officer for WIDA, an English-learner testing group which is based at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Aguirre is also a former director of multilingual services at the Illinois State Board of Education.
Districts in the state generate additional funds for these services on top of a base funding minimum, he added.
Vermont is now gearing up for a model that would, among other things, augment per-pupil funding for English learners and students with limited or interrupted formal education.
