by Maria R. Coady, Ph.D., North Carolina State University
For more than three decades, I have worked in and with rural schools across the United States, teaching, researching, and advocating for Multilingual Learner (ML) students. During that time, I have watched rural communities grow increasingly linguistically and culturally diverse, even as their resources have remained limited. Educating ML students has become more complex and more technical, requiring teachers and leaders to master not only language pedagogy but also state and federal accountability systems. Yet it has also become more political. Federal policies have often determined what programs exist, how they are funded, and who receives support.
The 2025 dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) represents a profound shift in how the federal government views its responsibility toward ML students. This change is not a matter of administrative restructuring; it is a dismantling of an essential support system for millions of multilingual learners. For rural schools, which already face persistent funding inequities, the consequences are especially severe.
History of Federal Programs for MLs
The Office of English Language Acquisition traces its origins to the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 and Title VII funding. Initially established as the Office of Bilingual Education, its mission was to support bilingual teacher preparation, research, and dissemination. Over time, the office’s name and focus evolved, especially under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which reframed the conversation from bilingual education to English language acquisition.
Despite shifting federal priorities, OELA remained a key source of support for ML education. It funded teacher preparation grants, oversaw implementation of Title III programs, and disseminated best practices through the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. More importantly, it served as a voice within the federal government ensuring that the educational rights of MLs were not neglected.
That voice has now been silenced. In March 2025, the Department of Education announced a 50 percent Reduction in Force (RIF), which included OELA. Within months, the office was reduced to a single staff member. Federal funds previously allocated for summer programs, professional development, and technical assistance were frozen. By July, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” eliminated or consolidated most targeted federal education programs. The result was that Title III, which had provided nearly $900 million for Multilingual Learner programs, was cut to zero. Funding for the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP), once $220 million, was also eliminated.
The rationale provided was that states and local districts were best positioned to decide how to meet the needs of their students without “unnecessary administrative burdens.” In practice, this has meant a withdrawal of federal responsibility without a corresponding increase in state capacity or funding.
Why Rural Schools Are Especially Vulnerable
Federal cuts rarely distribute harm evenly. Rural schools are especially exposed because their budgets depend heavily on local property taxes, which average only 36 percent of total education funding. When local revenue is low, schools depend on federal and state aid to fill the gap. Eliminating federal support for MLs and rural education means that schools serving the most vulnerable students—the very communities with the fewest local resources—will experience the sharpest impact.
The loss of Title III funds affects nearly every aspect of ML education in rural areas. Many districts rely on this funding to support ESL teachers, provide language assessments, purchase instructional technology, and pay for bilingual family liaisons. In small or geographically dispersed districts, a single ESL teacher might serve multiple schools, sometimes traveling long distances between them. These positions could face elimination.
Equally damaging is the loss of the Migrant Education Program, which served mobile families working in agriculture, fishing, and dairy industries—industries foundational to many rural economies. Cuts to professional development through Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) and research through the Institute of Education Sciences further erode the infrastructure that once helped rural educators serve their students effectively.
Without oversight, accountability, or dedicated funding, schools risk falling into a patchwork of ad-hoc programs and inconsistent practices. The protections established through landmark cases such as Castañeda v. Pickard (1982), which require schools to provide appropriate language programs for ML students, remain on paper. But enforcement is now uncertain.
What Schools and Advocates Can Do
The loss of OELA and the accompanying cuts to federal programs constitute a crisis, but not a reason for paralysis. State leaders, administrators, and advocates can take decisive action to sustain services and safeguard students’ rights.
Document and communicate impact.
Administrators should quantify the immediate effects of the cuts: the number of ML students affected, staff positions lost, and programs reduced. Combine data with personal stories that illustrate the human cost—students losing access to language instruction, families unable to communicate with schools, or teachers managing unmanageable caseloads. Legislators and community members respond to clear evidence anchored in local experience.
Engage state legislators and policymakers.
State governments now bear responsibility for replacing what has been lost. School leaders should meet directly with legislators and education committees, explaining that while federal oversight has ended, legal obligations have not. Advocate for the creation of state-level funding streams specifically for Multilingual Learners and rural districts. Legislators should be encouraged to include weighted funding formulas that allocate more support to schools serving MLs and rural students. A useful example can be found in Michigan, where legislators in 2025 amended their School Aid Act to include targeted funding for English learners—officially termed as such in statute—through an amendment to the Michigan State School Aid Act (MCL 388.1641). This example demonstrates how states can codify and protect resources for multilingual students even in the absence of federal leadership.
Build local and regional coalitions.
No rural district should face this loss alone. Collaboration among neighboring districts can maximize limited resources—shared ESL specialists, joint professional development, and cooperative grant writing. Partnerships with universities, nonprofits, and state education organizations can provide technical assistance and amplify advocacy efforts. I see districts already reaching out more for Professional Development with university faculty.
Protect teacher preparation and professional learning.
The shortage of qualified ESL and bilingual educators is likely to worsen. Schools and universities should sustain existing partnerships for teacher preparation and look to philanthropic foundations or state innovation grants for new funding. Maintaining professional learning opportunities, even at a reduced scale, will be critical to prevent further erosion of program quality.
Center family and community engagement.
Schools should strengthen ties with multilingual families and communities. Establish advisory councils, conduct outreach in families’ home languages, and ensure that parents understand their children’s rights. Family voices often resonate more strongly with policymakers than administrative reports do. At the same time, keep ML families from immigrant backgrounds safe from exposure to escalated immigration enforcement.
Use media and public platforms strategically.
Public awareness shapes political will. Op-eds, local news stories, and community forums can highlight how funding cuts threaten student success and long-term economic vitality. Rural educators are trusted figures. Your testimony carries weight.
Advocate for State policy efforts.
Advocates can work with state policymakers to recognize that the federal government’s retreat has left a vacuum only they can fill. At minimum, states should:
– Establish dedicated ML and rural education funding streams with clear accountability measures.
– Require annual reporting on ML student outcomes and resource allocations.
– Protect bilingual and dual-language programs, which have a strong research base demonstrating improved academic outcomes.
– Incentivize teacher certification in ESL and bilingual education through scholarships, loan forgiveness, or salary supplements.
– Create regional service models so that small rural districts can share specialized staff and resources.
We must resist framing these cuts as inevitable or purely fiscal. The elimination of OELA and Title III is a statement of values: it suggests that multilingualism and rural equity are expendable. In contrast, we can emphasize that language is an economic and cultural asset, and that ensuring high-quality education for rural ML students strengthens—not weakens—our schools and our democracy.
—
Biography
Maria R. Coady is the Goodnight Distinguished Professor in Education and Professor of Multilingual Education at North Carolina State University. Her work focuses on rural Multilingual Learners and the educators who serve them.