K-12 educators in the United States are still federally required to support English learners’ acquisition of the English language, regardless of any official national language designation.
That’s the main takeaway from researchers and former U.S. Department of Education directors in response to the executive order signed by President Donald Trump on March 1, which designates English as the official language of the country.
“A nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society, and the United States is strengthened by a citizenry that can freely exchange ideas in one shared language,” the executive order reads.
While experts who spoke with Education Week said the executive order won’t immediately affect English-learner programs, they said it could present long-term challenges and opportunities for meeting multilingual students’ needs.
According to experts, two key aspects of English-learner support that could be affected are: schools’ translation and interpretation services for students and families; and whether states and educators shift toward more English-only instruction, or invest in research-backed multilingual programs, such as dual-language immersion, which incorporates instruction in both English and another language throughout the school day.
“There is no legal reason for any program to change their approach to teaching bilingual [education] or dual-language [programs]. There’s no legal authority to suddenly permit various education officials to stop translating enrollment information, or interpreting meetings, … but it might still happen,” said Conor Williams, a senior fellow who researches multilingual education at the Century Foundation, a progressive think tank.
“I don’t think anybody is arguing against learning English, whether it’s for children of immigrants, adult immigrants, [or] whether it’s for second- or third-generation children in the United States. The question is, do we want monolingualism or English-plus?”
New federal guidance could affect translation services
The new executive order revokes an old directive signed by former President Bill Clinton, which provided guidance for federal agencies and recipients of federal financial assistance on translation and interpretation services.
While Trump’s order calls on the attorney general to provide updated guidance, some education leaders and researchers are concerned about what that guidance will say.
TESOL, or the Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages international association, said in a statement the new executive order “creates barriers to full and equal participation in public services, including education, for the millions of multilingual learners of English living in the United States.”
“Designating English as the official language of the United States will not promote unity, empower multilingual learners of English, or promote a cohesive and efficient society,” the statement read.
Williams raises concerns that the new guidance could limit when translation or interpretation services are required—for example, restricting them to urgent situations—or even require that a certain percentage of school time be dedicated to English-only instruction.
Another possible impact of the updated guidance could be that the Education Department’s office for civil rights may stop investigating cases where schools failed to provide appropriate translation or interpretation services to families, said Julie Sugarman, associate director for K-12 research at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.
However, Sugarman noted that even before this change, there were indications that the office for civil rights under a second Trump administration might not prioritize such cases, and there were already many cases of schools failing to meet families’ language access needs.
Montserrat Garibay, the most recent former director of the Education Department’s office of English language acquisition under President Joe Biden, pointed out that the new U.S. Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, has emphasized the importance of parental involvement in education decisions. That goal, Garibay said, may depend on access to translation services.
“She wants to make sure that all parents are engaged, and I think it’s great, but part of that is going to be to emphasize that parents receive information in their native language, because they are going to be choosing programs based on their understanding of those programs,” Garibay said.
State, school leaders face a ‘wake-up call’
When it comes to instructional programs for students acquiring the English language, experts remind educators that two key federal laws remain unchanged—even with an official national language.
In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lau v. Nichols that schools must provide English-language acquisition support to students not fluent in English, the language of instruction, to ensure access to an equal education.
“The driving force for states with language learners is Lau, no matter the structure of the Department of Education or even a mandate like this [new executive order],” said Kathleen Leos, former director of the federal office of English language acquisition under former President George W. Bush. “What states must fulfill are the requirements and the mandates under that decision.”
However, the Lau decision does not require any specific type of language support for English learners, Leos said.
The 1981Castañeda v. Pickard federal court decision established criteria to evaluate the adequacy of a district’s English-learner program, including whether it is based on research-based practices.
While Trump’s executive order does not explicitly require schools to rely on specific programming to get all students fluent in English, experts say it opens the door for schools to reflect on how they approach language learning.
Both Leos and Garibay said decades of research show the most effective way to teach English to English learners is by incorporating their home language in instruction.
Yet such approaches are not the norm in the country. Dual-language immersion programs remain limited, and no national standards exist for them, Leos said. (For this reason, the federal office of English language acquisition published playbooks last year detailing best practices in building up and sustaining dual-language immersion programs.)
While some state leaders could theoretically invest in English-only instruction to align with the new executive order, Leos sees it as an opportunity to invest in multilingual education—both to meet Supreme Court mandates and use current research that says the best way for English learners to reach high academic achievement is by learning in two languages.
“If you look around the country, regardless of what happens, this is where we all have a lot of work to do,” Leos said. “It is a wake-up call.”
Williams said his research into dual-language and bilingual education programs found bipartisan state-level support for such models, with conservative states like Texas and Utah leading the way in terms of financial investment in these programs.
Additionally, all 50 states now offer high school students the opportunity to obtain a seal of biliteracy on diplomas, recognizing their multilingualism.
Garibay hopes that federal funding for English learners, and research into effective English learner programs will continue to grow under the new administration.
But she also spoke of state and local leaders’ task of providing quality education for multilingual students.
“I think this is a great opportunity to remind people about the importance of research and how our students’ brains are developed, and make the case that we need to invest in research-based programs,” she said.
