Americans Want Language Education. Why Are Language Programs in Crisis?

America has a language paradox.

A recent Pew Research Center survey of 3,507 adults found that 78% of Americans believe it is at least somewhat important for children growing up in the United States to learn a language other than English. Yet only 43% of public schools offer world language classes, including just 20% of elementary schools. At the high school level, access rises to 82%, but by then many students have already missed the sustained early learning needed to build meaningful proficiency (nces.ed.gov).

If public support for language education is so strong, why are so many language programs struggling to survive?

The answer may lie in a disconnect between what Americans believe about language learning and how the education system positions, funds, and measures its value.

Interested in credentialing language skills? Request more information.

Language Learning Strengthens Academic Readiness

Evidence suggests that students benefit academically from language education, with gains that do not come at the expense of achievement in other subjects. (Watzinger-Tharp et al., 2016; Steele at al., 2017; Morales, 2025)

Well-designed studies have demonstrated that students can learn academic content in two languages while performing as well as, and in some cases better than, peers in monolingual programs.

A 2025 peer-reviewed study examined enrollment lotteries across ten dual language immersion (DLI) programs. Among native English-speaking students in grades one through four, those offered access to DLI posted stronger outcomes. As the study reports, students who were offered access to DLI scored higher in reading and math by 0.12 and 0.14 standard deviations, respectively, a statistical measure indicating modest but meaningful academic gains (Morales, 2025). The researchers found that these gains emerged as early as first grade.

An earlier study reached a similar conclusion. Students in DLI programs demonstrated positive reading effects in fifth and eighth grades, amounting to 13% to 22% of a standard deviation. A standard deviation shows how far a result differs from the average; in this case, the difference translated to approximately seven to nine months of additional learning (Steele et al., 2017).

Research from Utah also found that third graders in DLI receiving math instruction in another language performed at the same level as comparable non-immersion students on English-language math tests. By fourth grade, the immersion students in that study showed greater math growth than matched peers outside immersion programs (Watzinger-Tharp et al., 2016).

Of course, not every language program will produce identical results, and program quality, instructional time, continuity, staffing, learner differences, and implementation all affect outcomes. But the research does challenge a persistent assumption that schools must choose between language learning and academic achievement. In fact, strong language programs can support both.

The Problem Is Not Public Interest

The Pew findings reveal broad public support for language learning. The problem is not that Americans lack interest; it is that this support has not translated into consistent access, funding, and institutional priority for language programs.

Parents, employers, and communities increasingly recognize that the ability to communicate across languages and cultures has real-world value. In an economy shaped by globalization, migration, international trade, healthcare access, national security concerns, and increasingly diverse local communities, language skills are no longer simply a cultural enrichment opportunity. They are a practical advantage.

This gap is visible in how education priorities are set.

While STEM programs, career and technical education pathways, and industry credentialing initiatives often receive strong visibility and investment, language programs frequently remain categorized as electives or enrichment opportunities rather than essential components of a future-ready education.

A System Under Pressure

Districts across the country continue to report shortages of qualified language educators. Numerous states struggle to recruit and retain teachers in high-demand languages. Smaller districts often find it difficult to sustain programs when enrollment fluctuates. At the higher education level, language departments have faced consolidation or elimination as institutions respond to budget pressures.

These challenges create a cycle:

• Fewer teachers mean fewer program offerings.
• Fewer offerings mean reduced student access.
• Lower enrollment is then used to justify additional cuts.
• Students lose opportunities to develop multilingual skills.
• The profession becomes less attractive to future educators.

This cycle widens the gap between public support for language learning and students’ actual access to sustained programs. Language education is left in a defensive posture, continually required to prove its worth rather than recognized as a strategic investment.

Language Is Essential to College, Career, and STEM Readiness

The policy discussion must move beyond describing language education primarily as cultural enrichment. Although cultural understanding remains valuable, that framing understates the contribution language learning makes to college, career, and STEM readiness.

Across fields, technical knowledge must be paired with the ability to communicate and collaborate. Engineers explain solutions to colleagues, customers, and communities. Healthcare professionals build trust and communicate accurately with diverse patients. Scientists collaborate across institutions and borders. Employers need professionals who can interpret context, adapt their communication, understand different perspectives, and solve problems with others.

Language learning requires students to practice precisely these abilities. They negotiate meaning. They listen for intent. They adjust their message for different audiences. They become more comfortable with ambiguity and more attentive to cultural context.

These are not secondary benefits. They are future-ready competencies.

Literacy and language are also inseparable from strong STEM learning. A U.S. Department of Defense-supported STEM toolkit for multilingual learners emphasizes building background knowledge, explicitly developing vocabulary, and creating structured opportunities for speaking, listening, reading, and writing within STEM instruction. The underlying point is that technical understanding depends, in part, on students’ ability to process and communicate ideas.

Instead of treating STEM and language programs as competitors for time and funding, districts should recognize them as complementary parts of a complete education.

Making the College and Career Value Visible

The disconnect persists in part because language programs are often promoted by describing their subject matter rather than demonstrating the capabilities they develop and the outcomes they enable.

Too often, language education is described in terms of cultural appreciation, travel experiences, or academic enrichment. While these outcomes are valuable, they may not fully resonate with policymakers, administrators, parents, or students increasingly focused on workforce readiness and return on investment.

The reality is that language learning develops many of the same competencies that are critical for college and career readiness:

• Communication
• Collaboration
• Adaptability
• Critical thinking
• Problem-solving
• Intercultural competence
• Relationship building

Notably, recent labor market data analyzed by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that graduates with degrees in world languages had one of the lowest unemployment rates among college majors at 1.6% in 2024. Although a single employment measure does not capture the full value of language education, it challenges the assumption that language study is disconnected from career outcomes.

What does this all mean? Language education is not just learning another language. It develops essential competencies, such as communication, adaptability, critical thinking, and intercultural competence, which students need to apply knowledge, collaborate across differences, and succeed in college, STEM fields, and the workforce.

Read more: Why Language Is STEM

Moving from Course Completion to Capabilities

Proficiency credentials make language-learning outcomes visible and can help programs secure stronger institutional support.

Students may complete several years of language study without a clear understanding of what they can actually do with the language. Employers and colleges rarely see evidence of communicative ability; they see a transcript listing course titles.

This is where credentialing becomes important.

Across education, students increasingly earn credentials that certify technical skills in areas such as information technology, healthcare, and manufacturing. Language education should be no different.

Proficiency credentials help shift the conversation from:

“What courses did you take?”

to

“What can you actually do?”

That distinction is increasingly important for students, families, employers, and policymakers.

Therefore, valid and reliable proficiency-based assessments, such as ACTFL® assessments, help schools move from documenting seat time to demonstrating ability.

Assessments do not replace teachers, curriculum, or sustained instruction. They make the results of that work visible. In turn, that visibility can strengthen instruction, support teacher advocacy, help administrators evaluate program impact, and give families a clearer understanding of what students are gaining.

What States and Districts Should Do Now

To align educational practice with public priorities, state and district leaders should take five concrete actions:

1. Make language part of every future-ready strategy. Include multilingual communication and intercultural competence in Portrait of a Graduate frameworks, college and career readiness systems, STEM initiatives, and CTE pathways.
2. Expand access earlier and sustain it longer. Build articulated elementary-through-high-school pathways, including high-quality dual language immersion where local demand, staffing, and program capacity support it.
3. Invest in the teacher pipeline. Develop scholarships, residency models, grow-your-own programs, mentoring, professional learning, and cross-institution partnerships focused specifically on recruiting and retaining language educators.
4. Protect advanced and less-commonly taught language programs. Do not allow a temporary vacancy or year-to-year enrollment fluctuation to dismantle a pathway that takes years to rebuild.
5. Measure and credential what students can do. Use standards-aligned proficiency targets and appropriate external assessments to demonstrate growth, support instruction, strengthen program accountability, and give students credible evidence of their abilities.

Where ACTFL Assessments Fit

ACTFL assessments can play a critical role in helping schools translate public support for language learning into sustainable program value.

Assessment tools such as the AAPPL provide an external measure of students’ performance toward proficiency, helping educators demonstrate outcomes that extend beyond seat time and course completion. Rather than relying on grades alone, schools can show what learners can actually do with language in real-world communicative contexts.

This benefits multiple stakeholders:

• Students gain portable, reputationally sound evidence of skills.
• Teachers gain data to support instruction and demonstrate growth.
• Administrators gain measurable outcomes that support program advocacy.
• Communities and employers gain confidence that language study is producing workforce-relevant competencies.

Most importantly, proficiency-based assessments help reposition language education as an educational investment rather than an elective expense.

Public Opinion Has Given Education Leaders a Mandate

Most Americans already believe children should learn another language. The unresolved question is whether our education systems will support language programs vigorously enough to attract students, retain teachers, sustain early pathways, and produce meaningful proficiency.

A future-ready graduate needs technical knowledge. But technical knowledge alone is not enough.

Students must also know how to listen, interpret, explain, collaborate, adapt, and build trust across differences, especially in the age of AI. Language education develops those capabilities while strengthening literacy, broadening perspective, and creating a measurable skill students can carry into college and the workforce.

If we are serious about STEM, workforce readiness, and preparing well-rounded graduates, language education cannot remain at the margins.

There is no truly future-ready education without it.

Start credentialing your students’ language skills with LTI today. Request more information.

References

Burke, B. M., & Ceo-DiFrancesco, D. (2022). Recruitment and retention of world language teacher education majors: Perspectives of teacher candidates and alumni to remedy a global shortage. Foreign Language Annals, 55(2), 333–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12613

Federal Reserve Bank of New York. (2026). The Labor Market for Recent College Graduates. https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#–:explore:outcomes-by-major

Language Magazine. (2026) 4 in 5 Americans Believe World Language Learning is Important. https://languagemagazine.com/2026/09/02/4-in-5-americans-believe-world-language-learning-is-important/

McInerney, K. & Mills, N. (2023). Bridging Language and Learning: Empowering Multilingual Learners in STEM. Department of Defense. https://dodstem-assets.dodstem.us/files/DSEC_Literacy%20in%20STEM_MLLs_Toolkit_FINAL.pdf

Morales, C. (2025) Dual Language Immersion Programs and Student Achievement in Early Elementary Grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 616–623. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/01623737241228829

National Center for Education Statistics. (2025). School Pulse Panel: Surveying high-priority, education-related topics. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/spp/results.asp

Smerkovich, M. & Gubbala, S. (2026). What do Americans think about language learning in U.S. schools? Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/08/03/what-do-americans-think-about-language-learning-in-us-schools/

Steele, J. L., Slater, R. O., Zamarro, G., Miller, T., Li, J., Burkhauser, S., & Bacon, M. (2017). Effects of dual-language immersion programs on student achievement: Evidence from lottery data. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 282S306S. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED577026.pdf

Watzinger-Tharp, J., Swenson, K., & Mayne, Z. (2018). Academic achievement of students in dual language immersion. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(8), 913–928. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1214675. https://l2trec.utah.edu/research/IJBEBWatzinger-Tharp2016.pdf