Every morning, more than 1 million newly arrived immigrant youth go to school in classrooms across the country, alongside their peers of diverse backgrounds. These students bring unique knowledge of the world and enormous economic,¹ cultural,² social,³ educational,⁴ and linguistic⁵ assets that enrich their classrooms, communities, and the country.

Despite attacks on immigrants and immigrant youth at the federal level, local leaders across the nation—in Blue and Red districts alike—recognize the incredible contributions newcomer students make in our education system. Teachers, district officials, and policymakers in all fifty states and Washington, D.C. are on the frontlines of protecting, supporting, and educating newcomer students, and they have developed unique programs to uplift these students and meet their academic and social-emotional needs so that they can grow into thriving, civically and communally engaged adults.

However, the U.S. immigrant education landscape encompasses vast inconsistencies. From district to district, newly arrived immigrant youth of all backgrounds are enrolled and identified in different ways, and often under varying terms and guidelines. These guidelines can determine which students qualify for targeted programs that aim to meet their needs, and whether a school or district receives funding to support those programs. When these programs differ across district lines within a state, this group of often highly mobile marginalized students may not qualify for comparable services when they move, and their new schools may not receive the resources they need to properly serve them. State education agencies have the unique opportunity to address these inconsistencies to best support all students, including newcomers.

The Century Foundation and Next100 conducted a comprehensive, first-of-its-kind fifty-state scan to better understand state policies shaping the educational experiences of newcomer youth. Our analysis reveals that states, on the whole, are failing to adequately support newcomer students. Despite some pockets of exemplary practices, no state agency has implemented exemplary policies across all three assessed categories: terms and identification, data collection, and state funding. No state agency received higher than a C+ grade, based on our scoring rubric, and the vast majority—over 80 percent, or forty-two state agencies—received a D+ or below, while five earned a failing grade.

Key findings include the following:

• Only 4 states received a C or C+: Minnesota, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington.
• 42 states scored between a C- and D-.
• 5 states received an F: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Montana, and West Virginia.

Without support or guidance from a collapsing federal education agency, states now stand on the front lines of educational change and must defend and uphold civil rights for marginalized students, disperse funding effectively and equitably, and coordinate with neighboring states to deliver an equitable, high-quality education for all students, regardless of their race, socioeconomic status, country of origin, or home language.⁶ Our study reveals that there’s still a long way to go to deliver on that promise for newcomer youth: now is the time for states to take action. We offer clear recommendations fit for this moment and beyond.

What Are Newcomers?

Before getting to the results, let’s break down our rubric and our demographic terms, beginning with the term “newcomer” itself. Importantly, it is not simply another word for “immigrant.”

Generally speaking, newcomer students are any students who are new to the U.S. school system. The Century Foundation’s National Newcomer Network defines newcomers as a linguistically and culturally diverse group that includes, but is not limited to:

• refugees,
• asylees,
• unaccompanied minors,
• migratory children,
• students with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE), and more.⁷

The following will further describe this unique, and uniquely diverse, student group.

Varying Levels of English Proficiency

Newcomers in the United States speak hundreds of languages and have varying levels of English proficiency, which is to say that not all are identified as English learners (ELs).⁸ As a result, they add a rich, diverse heritage of multilingualism and culture to the classroom, imparting unique knowledge that strengthens the learning environment for all students.

Varying Immigration Statuses

Newcomers also hold varying immigration statuses. While some may arrive undocumented, others may be asylees, refugees, or others with permanent or temporary legal status. Per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Plyler v. Doe (1982),⁹ all students, regardless of citizenship status, are entitled to a free public education in the United States, regardless of where they enroll. Critically, schools cannot collect immigration status information and should not conflate newcomers and undocumented students. Supporting newcomer students and understanding their educational experiences neither singles out students by status nor does it violate their rights. On the contrary, these are necessary steps to deliver on the promise of education for all.

Varying Levels and Types of Educational Experience

Finally, newcomers arrive with a wide range of pre-migration experiences and diverse educational histories: some arrive with interrupted education from low-resourced contexts, while others arrive with continuous education from highly resourced systems.¹⁰ Meanwhile, many newcomers have experiences that fall somewhere in between. Interruptions and discrepancies may not necessarily have occurred outside the United States, either: housing instability or periods of informal home schooling can also disrupt a student’s education and create needs that merit targeted support.

Schools in the United States are tasked with unlocking the potential of newcomer students by creating a rigorous and engaging educational environment that meets their academic, social-emotional, and essential needs. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that newcomer students are often underserved,¹¹ perform lower on content area and language assessments,¹² and graduate at lower rates compared to students who have been classified as English learners for six or more years.¹³ It is clear that our educational systems need to be improved to better support newcomer students as they enter U.S. schools.

Policy Context

As New America,¹⁴ Migration Policy Institute (MPI),¹⁵ and others have pointed out, a number of laws and policies establish newcomers’ right to a high-quality and free public education. Importantly, they are grounded in the right to equal educational opportunities under the Fourteenth Amendment’s¹⁶ Equal Protection Clause. Foundational Supreme Court decisions built on the Equal Protection Clause and established that immigrant students and those qualified as ELs receive the services they need to meaningfully participate in their education, regardless of their home language (Lau v. Nichols, 1974),¹⁷ created guidelines to determine whether those district programs were adequate (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1981),¹⁸ and ensured that undocumented students were afforded a free public education (Plyler v. Doe, 1982).¹⁹ Finally, two federal laws cemented these rights in statute. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin,²⁰ and the 1974 Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA)²¹ establishes that public schools and state educational agencies (SEAs) are responsible for ensuring ELs are able to participate fully and equally in their education.

Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), overseen by the U.S. Department of Education, is responsible for ensuring that ELs and immigrants receive an adequate education.²² While not all newcomers are necessarily English learners or immigrants, Title III, through a subgrant program, is nevertheless the channel through which local educational agencies (LEAs) are able to receive federal support specifically for them. And newcomers are no small part of the country’s overall student body. According to the Biennial Report to Congress on Title III Implementation (2020–2022), students who arrived within the last three years, were born outside the United States (and territories), and are between the ages of 3 and 21 surpassed one million in total in school year 2021–22.²³ Of those students, only about one in two immigrant students were enrolled in districts that received targeted federal funds through the Title III immigrant student subgrant to support their needs upon arriving. And while the number of recently arrived students has hovered around one million for several years now,²⁴ those numbers have grown in new and varied places.²⁵

The federal government has offered modest support, such as non-binding guidance²⁶ for newcomer enrollment practices and toolkits filled with resources for educators working with these students.²⁷ However, there remains a shortfall in explicit funding earmarked to implement more robust programs and supports for these newcomers. This is especially true beyond Title III, which is itself inadequate to meet the needs of ELs,²⁸ much less newcomers.²⁹ Neither is there a meaningful, systemic regulatory mechanism for holding schools and districts accountable for serving newcomers well, in part because federal policymakers have not established a formal method for defining and tracking newcomers across districts and states beyond aggregate data collected for federal Title III eligibility purposes.

In short, schools are left on their own to meet these needs. This is why state policies defining, tracking, and funding newcomer student programs are so consequential to ensuring students have a similar, comprehensive, and high-quality educational experience in all districts across the state.

Research Questions and Structure

This Newcomer State Report Card and accompanying report aim to address the following questions:

• How do state policies define newcomer students?
• What information do they collect about their newcomer students to better understand their experiences in school?
• What state-level funding mechanisms exist for newcomer students beyond federal Title III grants?
• Are there differences in how states allocate resources and structure programs for newcomers?
• What gaps or inconsistencies exist in state-level newcomer policies?

After an extensive, years-long research process to collect data from all fifty states across three key metrics—terminology used, information and data about newcomers collected, and funding—we then created a scoring rubric and assigned each state education agency and the District of Columbia a grade for how well they supported newcomer students. The rubric (see Table 2) rated each state education agency (SEA) from 0 to 4, with 4 being exceptional. We present our findings below, and throughout the report, we highlight the best state policy practices that earned top scores in our rubric, which serve as benchmarks against which other states were assessed. (A full summary of our methodology is available in the Appendix, including a discussion of scoring and how states can improve in each criterion).

Findings: How Well Do States Currently Support Newcomer Students?

The Newcomer State Report Card reveals that all U.S. states are underperforming when it comes to supporting newcomer students. Only a handful of states scored above a “C” grade, with Minnesota receiving the highest mark (C+). Other states that received a “C” include Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington. This indicates that these states have made stronger efforts in defining who newcomer students are, particularly by:

• collecting and using data to inform identification and program design;
• integrating this data into funding formulas and statewide public reporting; and
• allocating additional state-level funding for newcomers to supplement federal funds.

On the other hand, many states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Montana, and West Virginia, earned an “F,” underscoring their failure to commit state-level resources to newcomer students. Alabama and Delaware received the lowest scores, each averaging 0.33 across the three categories in our rubric. The remaining states fell within the D- to C- range, with the overwhelming majority clustered around D-, D, and D+. The discussion that follows provides a deeper analysis of the assessed categories, including the terminology and identification of newcomer students, data collection practices, and state-level funding dedicated to supporting newcomers. Each subsection starts with an explanation of the best practices against which we scored states, and then provides a summary of the state scores.

Terminology and Identification of Newcomers

The federal definition of immigrant students, as codified in Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), is students who are aged 3 through 21, were not born in any U.S. state or territory, and have not attended any U.S. school for more than three full years.³⁰ While this definition serves specific federal funding purposes, it is limited in scope and does not account for the full range of needs and experiences among newcomer students. States have both the opportunity and the responsibility to develop a more robust definition of newcomer students that goes beyond funding eligibility to guide meaningful support, data collection, and accountability for this population of students.

In addition to using the Title III definition of “immigrant children and youth” for federal funding and accountability purposes, state agencies should incorporate more specific terminology, such as “newcomers,” “recently arrived English Learners,” and “recent arrivers.” Terms should be clearly defined and consistent across all SEA sites and materials, inclusive of different experiences, and appropriately time-bound to clearly determine eligibility while accounting for the time it takes students to adjust to their new learning environments. To that end, in order to allow students ample time to become proficient in English and adjust to their new educational environments in the first critical years in U.S. schools, states should allow them to be eligible for targeted services for up to three or four years.

We found that, unfortunately, states are highly inconsistent in defining newcomer status—if they even provide a definition at all. Some states use the term “newcomer” as a specific designation, while others rely exclusively on the federal definition of immigrant children and youth under Title III. This definition was established for funding and accountability purposes, and it remains the only term used to define newly arrived immigrant youth for state-level policy decisions by more than thirty-three SEAs.

We found that, unfortunately, states are highly inconsistent in defining newcomer status—if they even provide a definition at all.

States such as California, Massachusetts, and Mississippi go further by adopting broader or more tailored definitions. California’s Department of Education, for instance, defines “newcomer” as an umbrella term that encompasses recent immigrants, refugees, unaccompanied minors, undocumented students, and others who face unique academic and socio-emotional challenges because of their recent arrival.³¹ Massachusetts describes “newcomers” as recently arrived students from other countries who must navigate new cultural and linguistic contexts.³² Mississippi also defines “newcomer” students to include groups such as asylees, refugees, SLIFE, unaccompanied youth, and newly arrived students with adequate prior schooling.³³ By recognizing the diversity within the newcomer population, including subgroups with unique needs, Mississippi takes an important step toward inclusive and responsive support.

Other states, however, use the term without providing a definition, or omit it altogether from their public-facing materials. Nine SEAs either had no definition listed on their page, or it was assumed that the state uses the Title III definition of “immigrant children and youth,” based on other information available on the SEA website: no clear definition was provided or source cited to confirm this, so we cannot know for sure. Alabama³⁴ and Delaware³⁵ are examples of the former, in that neither list a definition on their websites. By contrast, states such as Arkansas,³⁶ Georgia,³⁷ Indiana,³⁸ New Mexico,³⁹ Tennessee,⁴⁰ West Virginia,⁴¹ and the District of Columbia⁴² appear to rely on the Title III definition, though this is not always explicitly stated.

Even when SEAs reference the Title III definition (twenty-six of which do so), the absence of a specific newcomer category suggests that these states may rely on this designation for newly arrived students only for the purpose of federal funding and accountability. This is a lost opportunity to provide state-level supports tailored to students who are navigating U.S. schools for the first time.

Another important consideration for states is whether to tie the newcomer definition to a specific time frame. For example, Minnesota defines newcomer students as those who have been enrolled in a U.S. school for twelve months or less.⁴³ Maine takes a more flexible approach, recognizing students as newcomers for up to two years after arrival in the United States, regardless of when they enroll.⁴⁴ Several others align with the federal time frame of three years in U.S. schools. However, these timelines vary across the country: some SEAs do not reference a time-bound framework at all, while those that do often use different benchmarks. Establishing a time-bound component within the newcomer definition allows states to clearly determine eligibility, collect data on their experiences, and dedicate adequate funding to support targeted educational programming for these students.

Data Collection on Newcomers

Collecting and reporting data on newcomers is important because it allows SEAs to identify and understand the unique needs of this student population, design more responsive programs, and allocate resources more equitably.

In addition to data collected for the purposes of federal Title III eligibility and accountability, state agencies should establish a clear, statewide definition of “newcomer” (or another similar term) and collect data on key variables such as:

• years in the United States (for federal Title III and state programming eligibility),
• English proficiency (to determine eligibility for EL support services),
• home language,
• prior schooling,
• educational outcomes throughout their time in the district, and
• behavioral metrics throughout their time in the district.

Beyond identification and program design, this data should be put in a format that can be used to inform funding formulas and statewide public reporting (e.g., dashboards or summary reports), supporting transparency and targeted resource allocation across the state in the process. The SEA should regularly publish this data, suppressing some measures as appropriate—particularly to protect student privacy.

Finally—and importantly—any data collection practices and publication materials must not conflate eligibility for newcomer programming with citizenship status. According to federal law⁴⁵ and guidance from the U.S. Department of Education,⁴⁶ citizenship status has no bearing on eligibility for programming, nor does it impact a student’s ability to enroll and thrive in schools. As such, schools should not collect information about a student’s citizenship status or immigration status.

In practice, states differ widely in the scope and transparency of their data collection on newcomer students. Seventeen SEAs do not collect data on newcomer students at all, or it is unclear whether any relevant data, including data for federal funding and accountability purposes, is collected. Twenty-two SEAs collect data to determine eligibility and maintain compliance for receiving Title III funds for EL or immigrant students from the federal government. Eight SEAs collect data that may include newcomer students, but in the absence of a clear definition, identification relies on rough proxies, and the data are not systematically used to guide resource allocation or targeted supports. Only four SEAs have a clear, statewide definition of “newcomer” and consistently collect data, along with subgroup information like SLIFE, refugee status, and others, to inform eligibility, programs, and student groups. These four states are Oregon, Kentucky, Washington, and North Dakota.

Only four SEAs have a clear, statewide definition of “newcomer” and consistently collect data, along with subgroup information like SLIFE, refugee status, and others, to inform eligibility, programs, and student groups.

Oregon requires all districts (regardless of Title III participation) to submit Recent Arrivers data and uses this information for federal reporting and to allocate the Title III funds.⁴⁷ Kentucky collects disaggregated immigrant student data annually through their state-wide student information system.⁴⁸ The state disaggregates EL data by subgroup, including qualifying immigrant students, and provides public access to these data via a centralized dashboard. These practices enable both state and local stakeholders to assess demographic changes and tailor support accordingly. Washington requires districts to track all eligible ELs in their student information systems and report key data elements (such as birth country and initial U.S. school enrollment date) that allow for the identification of Title III immigrant students.⁴⁹ North Dakota, on the other hand, publicly reports disaggregated EL data by year, including counts and percentages of immigrant, refugee, migrant, and SLIFE ELs, and breaks this data down by district, home language, and ethnicity.⁵⁰ This is exemplary because it allows for a clearer understanding of the diverse needs within the EL population, supports targeted interventions for populations like newcomer and SLIFE ELs, and promotes transparency and accountability across school districts.

Some states make efforts to determine eligibility and maintain compliance for federal funds for EL or immigrant students. However, it is unclear whether the data are disaggregated across other demographic, academic, and behavioral measures. For example, through key external partnerships, California tracks enrollment by LEA and country of origin and publishes this data on a partner site, but it is not published or referenced on the California Department of Education website.⁵¹ While external partnerships often expand the work an agency can do, it is critical that those findings are posted to the state agency’s website directly, so that stakeholders can access those key findings and use them for programming. Indiana also publishes data on its immigrant students. However, their data collection is limited solely to determining eligibility and maintaining compliance for federal Title III funds.⁵²

Moreover, many states offer minimal transparency regarding data on newcomers. In Alabama, for example, no public data on newcomer students is available, and links on the Title III page of Alabama’s website frequently produce errors.⁵³ Delaware similarly lacks public reporting on newcomers and provides only limited Title III documentation.⁵⁴ While some internal data collection is likely occurring in these states, the absence of accessible reporting inhibits public understanding and oversight.

While some internal data collection is likely occurring in these states, the absence of accessible reporting inhibits public understanding and oversight.

State-Level Funding for Newcomer Programs

Specific funding to support the needs of newcomer students is important because this student population often requires a range of specialized services that go beyond the scope of general education or English learner services. Relying solely on the funding set aside for English learners is insufficient because not all English learners are newcomers; and even if they were, Title III funding is limited in both amount and scope, and fails to enable educators to address the broader emotional and academic transitions newcomers face upon entering U.S. schools.

State education agencies should develop a robust, transparent, and sustained funding structure for newcomer students to supplement federal Title III dollars and other formula funding, given that these sources may aid but do not explicitly target their unique needs. There should be a dedicated line item or categorical funding for newcomers in the state budget, with funding levels based on detailed data such as years in the United States, prior schooling, and language needs. The funding should promote equity and sustainable, long-term support for students in their first few critical years in the state’s public schools, with transparent reporting on its use and impact.

Our scan found that state funding mechanisms for newcomer students are absent or inadequate nearly across the board. Two SEAs do not provide any state-level funding for English learner or immigrant students beyond federal Title III allocations. Forty-four SEAs do not have state-level funding specifically designated for newcomer students; rather, funding is included within broader English learner allocations. Five SEAs offer limited, targeted funding streams for newcomer students, such as small competitive grants, pilot programs, or special initiatives for which districts can apply.

Colorado stands out as an exception, offering targeted funding through both legislative action and state programs.⁵⁵ In 2023, House Bill 24-1389 appropriated $24 million from the state education fund to support school districts enrolling new arrival students after the Fall pupil count. In addition, the state’s English Language Proficiency Act (ELPA) allocated over $31 million to support English language development programs, which include but are not limited to newcomers. Massachusetts also provides another example of targeted support.⁵⁶ The state’s FY25 Multilingual Newcomer and Homeless Support Grant offers funding to districts experiencing surges in newcomer and homeless student enrollment, and supports translation services, emergency supplies, and culturally responsive instruction.

By contrast, most states, including California, Florida, Georgia, and Iowa, rely on weighted funding formulas for English learners without distinguishing between newcomers and long-term ELs. California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) provides supplemental and concentration grants for high-need students, including ELs, but does not include a separate category for newcomers.⁵⁷ Additionally, LCFF includes insufficient oversight to ensure that weighted funds are indeed spent on the designated groups that generate the additional funding. Similarly, Florida’s Education Finance Program increases per-student funding for students enrolled in English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) curricula by 20.8 percent, but makes no differentiation based on time in the United States.⁵⁸ In Georgia, the Quality Basic Education formula assigns a weight of 2.5880 to students who qualify for ESOL programs, resulting in increased funding for districts.⁵⁹ While there are no specific provisions for newcomers, they may still benefit indirectly through broader ESOL program support.

Some states, such as Alabama, Alaska, and Hawai’i, offer no additional funding at all beyond federal Title III subgrants. Alabama’s education funding is based on a resource allocation model that does not account for specific student needs, and while discussions have taken place about transitioning to a weighted funding model, no such changes have been implemented.⁶⁰ Hawai’i⁶¹ and Alaska⁶² similarly allocate funds based on general enrollment or broad categorical needs, but without targeted support for immigrant or recently arrived students.

These findings reveal major inconsistencies in how states define, identify, and support newcomer students. While a few states have made some progress through clear definitions, detailed data collection on this student population, and targeted funding, the majority offer limited or no guidance for LEAs, minimal or no data transparency, and little state investment beyond Title III funds. The next section outlines key recommendations for SEAs on how to better support newcomer students, especially in light of an evolving national landscape that will increasingly require states to do more.

Recommendations for State Leaders

The findings in this report reveal that despite modest innovation in a handful of states, no state education agency meets the research-backed criteria to ensure newcomer students have a similar, comprehensive, and high-quality educational experience in all districts within a state. States vary widely in their approaches to newcomer student support, with some implementing truly unique, specific, and robust programming driven by clear criteria for who is eligible, dedicated funding for those programs, and intentional data collection that enables adjustment and improvement where necessary. On the other hand, and far more commonly, other states rely solely on the practices that are required for federal Title III eligibility. Further, we found that few states explicitly distinguish between English learners and newcomers in state-level materials and guidance, which puts the onus on local leaders to design and implement targeted interventions to meet the unique needs of the newcomer population beyond language instruction.

Historically, without timely, directed feedback or enforcement mechanisms from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), many SEAs have been reluctant to implement or monitor robust systems of compliance and accountability. The variability in how students are identified, served, and funded further exacerbates the educational inequities facing this highly mobile and often vulnerable population.

Throughout our findings, we highlighted promising practices to lay out a clear roadmap for what states could and should be doing to support newcomer students. Here, we reiterate those priorities and offer the following recommendations for state leaders:

Terminology and Identification of Newcomer Students

• Develop a statewide definition of “newcomer” or another similar term, such as “recently arrived English learners” or “recent arrivers,” that is clear and consistent across all SEA sites and materials, inclusive, and appropriately time-bound.
• Establish eligibility for targeted newcomer services for up to three or four years in order to allow students ample time to become proficient in English and adjust to their new educational environments during their first critical years in U.S. schools.

Data Collection on Newcomers

• Collect and disaggregate data on key variables such as years in the United States, English proficiency, home language, and prior schooling—as well as educational outcomes and behavioral metrics throughout their time in the district—to better understand newcomers’ experiences and inform programs and supports.
• Publish these data regularly, suppressing some measures as appropriate—particularly to protect student privacy.* Format data appropriately to inform funding formulas and statewide public reporting (e.g., dashboards or summary reports), so as to support transparency and targeted resource allocation across the state.

* Important note: Schools should not collect information about a student’s citizenship status or immigration status. Data collection practices and publication materials must take great care not to conflate eligibility for newcomer programming with citizenship status.

State-Level Funding for Newcomer Support

• Develop a robust, transparent, and sustained funding structure for newcomer students to supplement federal Title III dollars and other formula funding that may aid but does not explicitly target their unique needs. The funding should promote equity and sustainable, long-term support for students in their first few critical years in the state’s public schools, and perform routine and transparent reporting on its use and impact.

Why Now Is the Time for States to Take Action

It is a difficult time to work at the intersection of immigration and public education. Threats to funding for programs that support historically marginalized students⁶³ and unprecedented changes in immigration policy threaten all newly arrived immigrant students and families with inhumane practices.⁶⁴ Admittedly, it’s a difficult time to lead any state agency, no less an education agency.

For some state leaders, this may make it a difficult moment to be bold. Perhaps their risk assessment results in quiet efforts to meet these students’ needs without advertising loudly on their state websites.⁶⁵ This might have already been the case prior to this federal administration, as well, perhaps helping to explain some of the low scores we did not anticipate prior to completing this study.

However, in the face of such pressures, there is hope. While some state agencies have succumbed to Trump’s anti-DEI pressure, leaders in several states,⁶⁶ including New York,⁶⁷ Pennsylvania,⁶⁸ Illinois,⁶⁹ New Jersey,⁷⁰ Colorado,⁷¹ and Michigan,⁷² have taken stands against the Trump administration’s effort to strangle DEI programs, many of which benefit newly arrived youth. Further, states like California⁷³ and New York⁷⁴ have reaffirmed their commitment to immigrant students, issuing guidance for districts to protect their rights and bolster student and family-facing programs.

Newcomer students must be prepared to graduate career- and college-ready alongside their peers. They are an asset to their communities, to society, and the economy, and they are a vital part of shaping our collective future—one that embraces diversity, multilingualism, and global interdependence. States are on the front lines. If they have political backing from their constituents and communities, they may be the bulwark that is needed to protect all marginalized students, including newcomers, in this moment and beyond.

Our findings reveal there is a long way to go to meet newcomer students’ needs in America’s public school classrooms. However, thoughtful, courageous, and intentional efforts by state education leaders, both short- and long-term, can help safeguard students’ right to a quality education under any government. It all starts with defining who our programs serve, understanding their experiences, and allocating resources accordingly.

Editor’s note: The report was updated on August 26, 2025 to acknowledge New America’s research.

Appendix 1: Methodology

In fall 2022, we began a comprehensive scan of all fifty-state education agencies (SEAs) plus Washington, D.C., to understand which terms states used to identify newcomers and what kind of information they collected about these students. We reviewed state education agency websites, particularly their Title III grants page or their English learner/multilingual learner page, to find information about the terms they use, the definitions assigned to those terms, and the data they collect using those definitions. We only credited information that was publicly available on their state websites, whether or not that information was understood to be collected for federal accountability purposes. We concluded our initial newcomer data and definitions fifty-state scan in spring 2023 and shared those findings with partners in closed-door meetings and presentations.

In the fall of 2024, we repeated our newcomer state scan, updating information from the first pass and using multiple methods to determine whether funding mechanisms for newcomers existed beyond federal Title III funding in each state. First, we explored state education agency websites, starting with Title III pages, to check for relevant information or links to other sections discussing funding. We also used search functions on these websites with keywords such as “ELL,” “funding,” “English learner,” “multilingual learner,” “immigrant,” and “immigrant students,” among others. Additionally, we conducted Google searches, reviewed state legislation websites for relevant laws, and examined state education agency funding formulas and budgets. Any findings were logged and documented with source links in a spreadsheet. For gaps in information or unclear details that we wanted to fact-check, we contacted state Title III coordinators, a relevant office representative, or the state’s education commissioner or chancellor. If we received no response, we sent reminder emails and sent several follow-ups to ensure we could get the most accurate information possible. Despite these efforts, we never heard back from Alabama, Nevada, New Jersey, Tennessee, or Wisconsin, and our emails to Virginia state employees were repeatedly blocked from delivery.

Finally, once we completed the data collection, we established a rubric on a scale from 0 to 4 for each of our three assessed categories: terms, data, and funding (see Table 2). A score of 0 was reserved for states with no public information about immigrant students, and which also did not supply this information in response to our email requests, making it unclear whether their state-level practices aligned at a minimum with federal requirements to support this population. We established a minimum-effort category of 1 or 2 points that aligned with federal requirements in Title III. Then, to receive a 3 or 4, a state had to demonstrate effort to localize their policies, reflecting thoughtful and clear implementation to better understand newcomer student experiences and allocate robust, transparent, and sustained funding to meet their needs within an appropriate time frame in their first years in U.S. schools. Finally, we calculated the mean score across each assessed category and assigned a grade for each score. See Appendix 2 for a progressive breakdown of each scoring criterion.

Our Newcomer State Report Card and this accompanying report reflect years of research, stakeholder engagement, and thoughtful analysis to encourage state education agencies to assess their role in facilitating local programming that does right by newcomer students.

Appendix 2: How We Scored the Report Card

This appendix offers a guided breakdown of our scoring rubric for each of the three criteria: terminology, data collection, and funding. Each criterion is benchmarked using a four-rung ladder, with a 4 being the highest score and a 0 being the lowest. Below, we illustrate how an SEA that wishes to improve in a given criterion can rise on the rubric from a 0 to a 4.

Criterion 1: Terminology

When it comes to funding and resources, the terminology that policymakers use have major implications for both school and individual eligibility. This criterion assesses how accurately and inclusively a state’s policies identify its newcomer students.

Rung 0: There is no definition listed on the SEA website.

In other words, a total absence of explicit engagement with the issue. A state received a 0 if no attention whatsoever was given to disambiguating newcomers from the student population as a whole.

Rung 1: It is assumed that the state uses the Title III definition of “immigrant children and youth,” based on information available on the SEA website; however, there is no clear definition provided or source cited on the SEA website to confirm this.

A 1 was awarded if the state’s policies at least seemed aware of the need to define newcomers, and indicated a reliance on the federal Title III definition for immigrant students. If the state clearly declared a commitment to that federal definition, then it would rise to a 2.

Rung 2: The state uses the Title III definition of “immigrant children and youth,” providing a clear explanation and citing the federal government’s definition directly on the SEA website. This information is explicitly stated on the webpage itself, rather than being included in a separate document or link.

As discussed above however, the Title III definition, while better than nothing, is far from adequate to the task of effectively identifying newcomers. In order to earn a 3, a state would need to strike out on its own with something more ambitious and inclusive.

Rung 3: The state incorporates local terminology on the SEA website—such as “newcomers,” “recently arrived English Learners,” and “recent arrivers”—which has some impact on educational programming.

The difference here is that at least some attention has been paid to the fact that while many newcomer characteristics overlap, the population is far from a monolith. Disambiguation above and beyond “immigrant” may be fairly general, but it still allows the state to target resources to specific newcomer needs. In order to reach the highest mark, a state needs to get down to brass tacks.

Rung 4: The state goes beyond to meet localized needs by incorporating more specific terminology to describe this population, such as those mentioned in a rubric score of 3. However, the definition is also inclusive and appropriately time-bound.

There are myriad ways in which a state could achieve this level of specificity; the important thing is that the terminology has the breadth and flexibility to not only capture newcomers from the outset, but to also follow them as they grow and their needs change along the road to integration. See the analysis of results in the findings section of this report for further discussion.

Criterion 2: Data Collection

Effective support for newcomer students requires not only identifying who they are, but also understanding their experiences, needs, and outcomes over time. This criterion evaluates how robustly an SEA collects and uses data on newcomer students and relevant subgroups. Clear, consistent data allows states to design responsive programs, target funding, and promote transparency.

Rung 0: The SEA does not collect data on newcomer students, or it is unclear whether any relevant data, including data for federal funding and accountability purposes, is collected. There is no mention of newcomer data on the SEA’s website, nor any indication that such data is used to inform program decisions.

In other words, there appears to be no visible infrastructure for identifying or tracking newcomer students. A 0 was awarded if the SEA made no public reference to newcomer-specific data—whether for compliance, planning, or program design—and showed no evidence of using such data to inform decisions.

Rung 1: The SEA collects data to determine eligibility and maintain compliance for receiving Title III funds for EL or immigrant students from the federal government. However, it is unclear whether the data is disaggregated across other demographic, academic, and behavioral measures.

A 1 was awarded if the state appeared to collect newcomer-related data primarily for federal compliance, without showing evidence of deeper engagement. These states may track students in broad categories, such as ELs or immigrants, but there is no indication that the data is disaggregated or used to assess outcomes or tailor supports. If a state showed signs of building beyond compliance, it would rise to a 2.

Rung 2: The SEA collects data that may capture some newcomer students. However, there is no clear or consistent definition of “newcomer” or a similar term, so identification typically relies on rough proxies, such as birth country, home language, or years in the U.S. While the state appears to be making efforts to understand the educational experiences of recently arrived students more broadly, this data is not systematically used to allocate resources or inform student supports.

As with terminology, vague or proxy-based identification falls short of ensuring newcomer students are seen clearly. States in this category recognize the importance of data, but have not yet established a coherent definition or structure for consistent, strategic use. To move up to a 3, a state would need to develop a clear definition and begin collecting more comprehensive data:

Rung 3: The SEA has a clear, statewide definition of “newcomer” (or another similar term) and collects data on key variables such as years in the U.S., English proficiency, home language, and prior schooling, as well as educational outcomes and behavioral metrics throughout their time in the district. Data is consistently collected on subgroups like SLIFE, refugee status, and others to better understand their experiences and inform programs and supports.

The difference here is that the SEA has moved beyond basic compliance to establish a more intentional data system. By pairing a consistent definition with key indicators and subgroup tracking, the state is better positioned to design targeted programs that reflect student needs. In order to earn a 4, however, the data must also be used to inform funding decisions and statewide public reporting.

Rung 4: To earn a 4, a state must build on this foundation by demonstrating not only strong data collection but also meaningful data use. Beyond identification and program design, the data must be structured in a way that informs funding formulas and statewide public reporting—such as dashboards or summary reports—supporting transparency and targeted resource allocation. The SEA regularly publishes this data, suppressing certain measures as appropriate.

There are many ways a state might reach this level of data use; what matters most is the combination of clarity, consistency, and transparency. A robust data system does not stop at internal planning—it enables fair resource allocation, public insight, and continuous improvement, following newcomer students not just at the point of entry, but throughout their education journey.

Criterion 3: Funding

Supporting newcomer students effectively requires more than inclusive terminology and strong data—it also requires sustained resources to turn those commitments into action. This criterion assesses whether a state provides targeted, recurring funding for newcomer students and whether that funding is embedded within the state’s overall education finance structure.

Rung 0: The SEA does not provide any state-level funding for English Learners or immigrant students beyond Title III allocations.

In other words, the state relies entirely on federal dollars to support this student population. A 0 was awarded when there was no indication of state-level investment—either in the base formula or in targeted programs—specifically for English Learners, immigrants, or newcomer students.

Rung 1: There is no state-level funding specifically designated for newcomer students. Instead, funding is included within broader English Learner allocations, with no targeted resources. The state does not maintain a distinct newcomer category, and there is little evidence of intentional targeting.

A 1 was awarded when newcomer students were functionally invisible in state funding systems. While districts may receive funds for English Learners more broadly, there is no separate allocation, weighting, or mention of newcomers as a priority population. If a state made some effort to reach newcomer students through specialized grants or programs, it would rise to a 2.

Rung 2: The state offers limited, targeted funding streams for newcomer students, such as small competitive grants, pilot programs, or special initiatives that districts can apply for. This funding is outside the main state funding formula and may not reach all districts serving newcomers.

This level reflects some intentionality—newcomer students are acknowledged as needing additional support—but the structure is narrow and often unreliable. Funding is typically limited in scope, competitive rather than formula-driven, and not guaranteed year to year. To earn a 3, a state would need to embed this support more permanently and equitably.

Rung 3: This state explicitly includes newcomers in its funding formula or provides recurring, dedicated funding for newcomer students. Newcomers are identified in state law as a distinct population for funding purposes, with allocations that are formula-driven, recurring, and available to all districts that meet the established criteria.

The key difference here is that newcomer funding is no longer temporary or competitive—it is built into the broader state finance system and distributed based on need. States at this level have taken steps to define newcomers for funding purposes and to ensure consistent support across districts. To reach the highest score, however, a state must go even further in aligning funding with student characteristics and increasing transparency.

Rung 4: The state has a robust, transparent, and sustained funding structure for newcomer students. There is a dedicated line item or categorical funding for newcomers in the state budget, with funding levels based on detailed data such as years in the U.S., prior schooling, and language needs. The funding is designed to promote long-term support and equity, with transparent reporting on its use and impact.

In addition to offering recurring support through a dedicated budget stream, these states use data to differentiate funding based on student needs and publicly report how those funds are spent. The result is a funding system that is not only equitable and sustainable but also visible and responsive.

1. Catherine Rampell, “The surge in immigration is a $7 trillion gift to the economy,” Washington Post, February 13, 2024, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/13/immigration-economy-jobs-cbo-report/.
2. Nancy Foner, “Immigration and the transformation of American society: politics, the economy, and popular culture,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 50(1), 2024, available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2236906.
3. Michael G. Vaughan, Christopher P. Salas-Wright, Matt DeLisi, and Brandy R. Maynard, “The immigrant paradox: immigrants are less antisocial than native-born Americans,” author manuscript, July 2, 2014, available at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4078741/.
4. David Figlio, Paola Giuliano, Riccardo Marchingiglio, Umut Ozek, and Paola Sapienza, “Diversity in Schools: Immigrants and the Educational Performance of U.S.-Born Students,” Review of Economic Studies, 91(2): 972–1006, March, 2024, available at https://academic.oup.com/restud/article-abstract/91/2/972/7135701?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false.
5. Conor P. Williams, Dr. Xigrid Soto-Boykin, Jonathan Zabala, and Dr. Shantel Meek, “Why We Need to Cultivate America’s Multilingual, Multicultural Assets,” The Century Foundation, June 14, 2023, https://tcf.org/content/report/why-we-need-to-cultivate-americas-multilingual-multicultural-assets/.
6. Collin Binkley and Chris Megerian, “Trump orders a plan to dismantle the Education Department while keeping some core functions,” Associated Press, March 20, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-education-department-shutdown-b1d25a2e1bdcd24cfde8ad8b655b9843
7. National Newcomer Network home page, The Century Foundation, accessed July 15, 2025, https://tcf.org/nnn/.
8. “K-12 Education: Student, Teacher, and School Characteristics Associated with English Learners’ Academic Performance,” U.S. Government Accountability Office, published July 25, 2024, publicly released August 26, 2024, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106360.
9. Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 1982, available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/202/.
10. Stephanie Potochnick, “The Academic Adaptation of Immigrant Students with Interrupted Schooling,” American Educational Research Journal, 55(4), April 4, 2018, available at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0002831218761026.
11. Jorge Ruiz-de-Velasco and Michael Fix with Beatriz Chu Clewell, “Overlooked & Underserved: Immigrant Students in U.S. Secondary Schools,” Urban Institute, December, 2000, available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED449275.pdf.
12. Laura Hill, Julian Betts, Megan Hopkins, Magaly Lavadenz, Karen Bachofer, Joseph Hayes, Andrew Lee, Marco A. Murillo, Tara Vahdani, and Andrew C. Zau, “Academic Progress for English Learners: The Role of School Language Environment and Course Placement in Grades 6-12,” Public Policy Institute of California, January, 2019, https://www.ppic.org/publication/academic-progress-for-english-learners-the-role-of-school-language-environment-and-course-placement-in-grades-6-12/.
13. Theresa Deussen, Havala Hanson, and Biraj Bisht, “Are two commonly used early warning indicators accurate predictors of dropout for English learner students? Evidence from six districts in Washington state,” National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, and Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest, March 2017, available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573197.pdf.
14. Leslie Villegas, “How States Can Reinforce English Learners’ Civil Rights,” New America, April 23, 2025, https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/how-states-can-reinforce-english-learners-civil-rights/.
15. Julie Sugarman, “Legal Protections for K-12 English Learner and Immigrant-Background Students,” National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy, Migration Policy Institute, June, 2019, available at https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/EL-Insight_Legal-Framwork_Final.pdf.
16. “Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection and Other Rights,” U.S. Constitution, text available at https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/.
17. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 1974, text available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/414/563/.
18. Elizabeth and Katherine Castañeda, by their father and next friend, Roy C. Castañeda, et al v. Mrs. A. M. “Billy” Pickard, President, Raymondville Independent School District, Board of Trustees, et al, 781 F.2d 456, 1986, available at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/781/456/416175/.
19. Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 1982, available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/202/.
20. Christine J. Back, “The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Eleven Titles at a Glance,” U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Service, available at https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11705.
21. Vanita Gupta, “Ensuring Equal Educational Opportunities for English Learner Students,” U.S. Department of Justice archives, July 1, 2015, https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/ensuring-equal-educational-opportunities-english-learner-students.
22. English Language Acquisition State Grants; Title III, Part A, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, U.S. Department of Education, https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/formula-grants/formula-grants-special-populations/english-language-acquisition-state-grants-title-iii-part#legislation-regulations-and-guidance.
23. “The Biennial Report to Congress On the Implementation of the Title III State Formula Grant Program School Years, 2020‒2022,” U.S. Department of Education, available at https://ncela.ed.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/2020-22-oela-biennial-draft-02072025.pdf.
24. “The Biennial Report to Congress On the Implementation of the Title III State Formula Grant Program, School Years 2018–2020,” U.S. Department of Education, available at https://ncela.ed.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/OELABiennialReportSYs2018-20b-508.pdf.
25. “Facts on U.S. immigrants, 2018,” Pew Research Center, August 20, 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2020/08/20/facts-on-u-s-immigrants-county-maps/.
26. Dear Colleague Letter, jointly between Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice and Office for Civil Rights and Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, May 8, 2014, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20241230204930/https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201405.pdf.
27. Newcomer Toolkit, National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, U.S. Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://ncela.ed.gov/educator-support/toolkits/newcomer-toolkit.
28. Conor P. Williams, “Williams: A New — and Long Past Due — Roadmap for Overhauling How Schools Serve English Learners,” The 74 Million, December 8, 2021, https://www.the74million.org/article/williams-a-new-and-long-past-due-roadmap-for-overhauling-how-schools-serve-english-learners/.
29. Alejandra Vázquez Baur, “How to Ensure Title III Funds Reach Every Newcomer Student,” Next100, September 14, 2022, https://thenext100.org/how-to-ensure-title-iii-funds-reach-every-newcomer-student/.
30. Every Student Succeeds Act, Public Law 114-95, 2015, available at https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf.
31. “Newcomer Students,” California Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/ml/newcomerstudnts.asp.
32. “Resources for Supporting Immigrant and Refugee Students,” Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.doe.mass.edu/ele/resources/immigrant-refugee.html.
33. “Supporting Newcomer English Learners,” Mississippi Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/files/Offices/MDE/OAE/OEER/EL/newcomer_quick_guide_for_adminstrators_final_110722_1.pdf.
34. “English Learners,” Alabama Achieves, Alabama Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.alabamaachieves.org/english-learners/.
35. “Multilingual Learners,” Delaware Department of Education, accessed July 16, 2025, https://education.delaware.gov/legacy/home/instruction-and-assessment/standards-and-instruction/multilingual-learners/.
36. “Guidance for Providing ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) Services,” Division of Elementary and Secondary Education, Arkansas Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NsJy6TlBYBUPqqdwD-_nsOqho0Bp1c6N/edit?tab=t.0#.
37. “English Learner Language Programs,” Georgia Department of Education, October, 2022, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20230902220307/https://www.gadoe.org/School-Improvement/Federal-Programs/Documents/English%20Learner%20Programs/Data%20Collection%20Elements%20Relevant%20to%20ESOL%20and%20Title%20III%20Programs%20Oct%202022.pdf.
38. “English Learning and Migrant Education,” Indiana Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.in.gov/doe/grants/english-learning-and-migrant-education/.
39. “Title III Supplemental Funding,” New Mexico Public Education Department, accessed July 15, 2025, https://web.ped.nm.gov/bureaus/languageandculture/title-iii-supplemental-funding/.
40. “Program and School Authorization Form,” Tennessee Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/nonpublic/chtr_sch/Program_and_School_Authorization_Form.pdf.
41. “ESEA Title III,” West Virginia Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://wvde.us/student-support-wellness/esea-programs/esea-title-iii.
42. “Supports for Multilingual Learners (MLs),” District of Columbia Public Schools, accessed July 15, 2025, https://dcps.dc.gov/service/supports-multilingual-learners-mls.
43. “2024 Minnesota Statutes,” Minnesota Legislature, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/124D.59.
44. “Terminology & Definitions,” Multilingual Learners Resources, Maine Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.maine.gov/doe/learning/multilinguallearner/resources/terminology.
45. Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 1982, available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/202/.
46. “Dear Colleague Letter: Resources for Ensuring Equal Access to Education for Immigrant Students,” U.S. Department of Education, January 8, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/key-policy-letters/dear-colleague-letter-resources-ensuring-equal-access-education-immigrant-students.
47. “Recent Arrivers Data Collection FAQ,” Oregon Department of Education, accessed July 16, 2025, available as a download at https://odedistrict.oregon.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Documents/Recent%20Arrivers%20FAQ.docx.
48. “Infinite Campus: KDE Report | Title III Immigrant Quick Reference Card,” Kentucky Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.education.ky.gov/districts/tech/sis/Documents/IC_CustomRpt_TitleIII_Immigrant.pdf.
49. “Student Data and Reporting,” Washington Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://ospi.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/2023-08/12studentdatareporting1.pdf.
50. “EL Data and Reporting,” North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.nd.gov/dpi/education-programs/english-learnermulticultural-education/el-data-and-reporting.
51. “Newcomer Data,” California Newcomer Network, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.calnew.net/newcomers/data.
52. “2022-2024 Title III Immigrant Influx Allocations,” Indiana Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.in.gov/doe/files/2022-2024-Title-III-Immigrant-Influx-Allocations.pdf.
53. “English Learners,” Alabama Achieves, Alabama Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.alabamaachieves.org/english-learners/.
54. “Multilingual Learners,” Delaware Department of Education, accessed July 16, 2025, https://education.delaware.gov/legacy/home/instruction-and-assessment/standards-and-instruction/multilingual-learners/.
55. “HB24-1389: School Funding 2023-24 for New Arrival Students,” Colorado General Assembly, 2024 regular session, https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1389.
56. “FY2025: Multilingual Newcomer and Homeless Support Grant,” Grants and Other Financial Assistance Programs, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.doe.mass.edu/grants/2025/0348/#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20a%20statewide,basic%20needs%20of%20these%20students.
57. “Funding Sources to Support Newcomer Students,” California Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/ml/newcomerfunding.asp.
58. “Title III, Part A – Equitable Services,” Language Instruction for English Learners and Immigrant Students, Florida Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.fldoe.org/academics/eng-language-learners/title-iii-a/equitable-services.stml.
59. “Georgia’s Funding Formula: Quality Basic Education (QBE) 20-2-161 O.C.G.A,” Georgia Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2021/08/Georgia-Basic-Education-Formula.pdf.
60. Financial reports, Alabama Achieves, Alabama Department of Education, accessed July 15, 2025, https://www.alabamaachieves.org/reports-data/financial-reports/.
61. Hawai’i Department of Education Weighted Student Formula, accessed August 1, 2025, https://hawaiipublicschools.org/about/budget/weighted-student-formula/.
62. “Citizen’s Guide to K-12 Funding in Alaska,” Legislative Finance Division, Alaska State Legislature, November, 2020, https://www.legfin.akleg.gov/InformationalPapers/19-2CitizensGuideToK12.pdf.
63. Sarah Mervosh and Dana Goldstein, “A Legal Battle Over Trump’s Threats to Public School Funding Has Begun,” New York Times, April 17, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/17/us/dei-public-schools-trump-administration-lawsuit.html.
64. Karen Yourish, Eric Rabinowitz, Ashley Wu, Lazaro Gamio, Aishvarya Kavi, and Minho Kim, “All of the Trump Administration’s Major Moves in the First 100 Days,” immigration focus, New York Times, last updated April 30, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/us/trump-agenda-2025.html?categories=Immigration.
65. Jo Napolitano, “immigration ‘I Don’t Want Any Light Shining on Our District:’ Schools Serving Undocumented Kids Go Underground,” The 74 Million, July 1, 2025, https://www.the74million.org/article/i-dont-want-any-light-shining-on-our-district-schools-serving-undocumented-kids-go-underground/?utm_source=The%2074%20Million%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=faafbb329f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_07_27_07_47_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_077b986842-faafbb329f-177222064.
66. MJ Slaby, “Indiana plans to comply with Trump push to ban DEI from schools,” Chalkbeat, April 9, 2025, https://www.chalkbeat.org/indiana/2025/04/09/indiana-to-tell-trump-administration-there-is-no-dei-in-our-schools/.
67. Michael Elsen-Rooney, “Trump gave states 10 days to sign an anti-DEI policy. NY Education Department is refusing.” Chalkbeat, April 4, 2025, https://www.chalkbeat.org/newyork/2025/04/04/new-york-state-education-department-wont-certify-trump-administration-anti-dei-policy/?utm_source=Chalkbeat&utm_campaign=f94fae3b27-New+York+NEW+NY+Education+Department+refuses+to+si&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9091015053-f94fae3b27-1296857070&mc_cid=f94fae3b27&mc_eid=b3382c66f0.
68. Carly Sitrin, “Pennsylvania says schools already comply with civil rights laws and are not ordered to scrap DEI,” Chalkbeat, April 9, 2025, https://www.chalkbeat.org/philadelphia/2025/04/09/pennsylvania-not-ordering-schools-to-eiliminate-dei-per-trump-order/.
69. Samantha Smylie, “Illinois schools chief pushes back against Trump administration’s anti-DEI push,” Chalkbeat, April 9, 2025, https://www.chalkbeat.org/chicago/2025/04/10/illinois-tells-trump-education-department-that-it-complies-federal-civil-rights-law/.
70. Catherine Carrera, “New Jersey says no to Trump anti-DEI push, questions feds’ power to withhold school funding,” Chalkbeat, April 17, 2025, https://www.chalkbeat.org/newark/2025/04/18/new-jersey-refuses-trump-dei-demand-for-education-funding/.
71. Melanie Asmar, “Colorado won’t comply with Trump anti-DEI demand, state schools chief says,” Chalkbeat, April 10, 2025, https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2025/04/10/colorado-will-refuse-trump-anti-dei-demand-says-state-schools-chief/.
72. Hannah Dellinger, “Michigan state superintendent signals he won’t sign Trump’s anti-DEI certification,” Chalkbeat, April 10, 2025, https://www.chalkbeat.org/detroit/2025/04/10/michigan-responds-to-trump-anti-dei-demand/.
73. Tony Thurmond, “Reminder of Obligation to Protect Immigrant Families’ Rights to Access Public Education,” California Department of Education, January 21, 2025, https://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/yr25cdoletter0121.asp.
74. “Safeguarding the Rights of New York State Immigrant Students,” New York State Department of Education, January 27, 2025, https://www.nysed.gov/bilingual-ed/news/safeguarding-rights-new-york-state-immigrant-students.

Content note: This piece was originally published by the Century Foundation as part of the National Newcomer Network. As of August 2026, the National Newcomer Network has transitioned to EdTrust. This previously published content is maintained on this site for informational and historical reference.