Navigating New Beginnings: A Study of State-Level Grant Funding Support for K-12 Refugee Education

Abstract

In 2022, the federal government initiated two grant programs geared to enhance education specifically for Afghan and Ukrainian populations: the Afghan Refugee School Impact and Support to Schools supplements, both part of the Refugee School Impact (RSI) program. In Missouri, the context of our research, RSI funding has been coordinated by a non-profit organization, the Missouri Office for Refugee Administration (MO-ORA). In partnership with MO-ORA, we designed a qualitative study and used content analysis to examine 39 RSI grant applications to MO-ORA from 35 different districts. We explored two key research questions: (1) what did K-12 schools in Missouri identify as priorities to support refugee students in their RSI grant applications? and (2) how did districts plan to allocate resources to meet refugee students’ and families’ perceived needs? Analyses identified that districts’ biggest priorities were to support: (1) family engagement activities, (2) English Learners’ education, and (3) student English language proficiency. Meanwhile, districts’ top three areas of funding allocation went to the pre-named categories of Student Services for Els, Professional Development for Staff, and Facilitating Partnerships.

1. Introduction

In 2021, the Taliban took over control of Afghanistan. The following year, Russia invaded Ukraine. In 2023, the largest proportion of global refugees left Syria (6.4 million), and Venezuela (6.1 million), and the largest number of internally displaced people, estimated at 9.1 million, came from Sudan (UNHCR 2024). Though the histories and geopolitical dynamics behind these migrations differ, millions around the globe have been left with little choice but to move within their own country or seek refuge in a new one due to war, violence, and struggling economies, with increasing numbers coming to the United States. Both Afghan and Ukrainian peoples, as well as refugees and asylum-seekers from countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria, Venezuela, Iraq, and Burma, have settled in the U.S. recently, as the Biden Administration has rebuilt and enhanced the country’s program since 2021 (Rush 2024; USAFacts 2022; USA for UNHCR 2023). In fiscal year 2024, the U.S. settled over 100,000 refugees, a significant increase since the cap of 15,000 in 2020 (Refugee Council USA n.d.).

No matter the number of refugees allowed, the process of becoming designated as a refugee in the U.S. has always been complex, and those who resettle in this country undergo a lengthy vetting process (Ward and Batalova 2023). Refugees may register with UNHCR and live in a refugee camp for years before starting the official resettlement and vetting process to transition to a third country (Gowayed 2022). Once started, it may take two years on average to complete the vetting process. This wait time is expected to rise (National Immigration Forum 2024). Upon gaining refugee status, individuals are entitled to benefits like the receipt of cash assistance, support services, and specialized programs (Office of Refugee Resettlement n.d.). All school-aged children are entitled to a free, public K-12 education in the U.S. regardless of status (Plyler v. Doe 1982).

The imperative to provide quality education to refugees is both an international, as well as national (Plyler v. Doe 1982), legal obligation and a critical lever for societal integration and personal development (Arar et al. 2019). In turn, refugee education policy has emerged as an important part of how states respond to newcomers (Dryden-Peterson 2015). Unfortunately, schools and educators in the U.S. are often underprepared to meet refugee and other newcomer students’ and families’ needs, including how to support their learning, engagement, and integration (Arar 2020; Crawford 2023; Koyama and Kasper 2021; Weddle et al. 2024). Schools and K-12 districts also struggle to build capacity (Brezicha and Hopkins 2016), especially those that receive newcomers continually throughout the school year (Fair 2024). At the same time, research shows that developing a shared sense of responsibility among K-12 educators, staff, and community-based organizations can help to address these challenges (Crawford 2023; Brezicha and Hopkins 2016; Rodriguez and Crawford 2023; Weddle et al. 2024). However, there remains a lack of information and research related to the role of education-interfacing agencies such as state-level education departments and offices, which oversee refugee resettlement programming. In response, this study examines how one state-level agency in Missouri strived to enhance school capacity to support refugees, and how school districts planned to make use of their support.

To facilitate and foster refugee resettlement, federal funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) flow to state-level agencies, which coordinate with and distribute funds to resettlement agencies and other organizations. In 2022, the federal government initiated two grant programs geared to enhance education specifically for Afghan and Ukrainian populations: the Afghan Refugee School Impact and Support to Schools supplements, both part of the Refugee School Impact (RSI) program. In Missouri, the context of our research, RSI funding has been coordinated by a non-profit organization, the Missouri Office for Refugee Administration (MO-ORA). In partnership with MO-ORA, we designed a qualitative study and used content analysis to examine 39 RSI grant applications to MO-ORA from 35 different districts. We explored two research questions: (1) what did K-12 schools in Missouri identify as priorities to support refugee students in their RSI grant applications? and (2) how did districts plan to allocate resources to meet refugee students’ and families’ perceived needs?

The overarching aim of our grant application analysis was to learn how and in what ways districts focused their efforts to provide a meaningful education for refugee children and families using state funding. In other words, this work examined how school districts, through the funding priorities they set, perceived refugees’ educational needs and how they planned to address how refugee newcomers learn, share knowledge, and participate in the life of schools. We frame this work through our literature review then turn to an in-depth description of methods and presentation of our findings.

2. Literature Review

Access to quality education is critical to refugees’ societal integration and personal development. However, research demonstrates myriad gaps in refugee and newcomer students’ access to the same educational opportunities as their peers. In this literature review, we first provide context and critiques for how individuals in the U.S. who have experienced displacement are labeled. Then, we turn to the research base to review what educational opportunities, experiences, and challenges refugee-background students face when entering the U.S. school system. Relatedly, we review the literature around the supports, practices, and strategies within and external to school that matter for student integration, noting where there are gaps in school and educator preparedness to work with students who have been displaced.

2.1. What Is a Refugee? Critiquing a Contested Label

There are many different processes and labels for people who seek permanent or temporary settlement in the United States; currently, some of the classifications include asylee, refugee, Cuban/Haitian entrant, Afghan and Ukrainian Humanitarian Parolee, or individuals seeking a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV). A refugee is someone the United Nations has determined is unable to or unwilling to return to their country of origin due to a legitimate fear of persecution based on their race, membership in a social group, political ideology, religion, or place of birth. Thus, not all forcibly displaced persons receive the “refugee” designation. An important distinguishing identifier for refugees is that they have a “well-founded fear of persecution” (American Immigration Council 2022). It is important to acknowledge, though, that the use of the “refugee” label is contested and carries significant implications, including along racial/ethnic and cultural lines, for individuals and groups. For example, approximately 187,000 Ukrainians have been resettled in the U.S. “with little controversy” over the past two years (Montoya-Galvez 2024). In contrast, Afghan interpreters who worked with the U.S. government against the Taliban later experienced difficulties obtaining special immigrant visas (i.e., SIV) that enabled them to leave Afghanistan for safety in the United States (Castillo 2022). Although displaced individuals may have similar experiences leading to their displacement, legal distinctions in how they are categorized can change the kinds of services and benefits they receive and what criteria must be met to receive them (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services n.d.). Further, asylum can be denied in the U.S. even when a person has met a legal, international definition of “refugee” (American Immigration Council 2024a).

While the refugee designation may provide certain legal protections and access to resources, it also imposes an identity that many may not accept or feel accurately represents their experiences and aspirations. For some, the term evokes a sense of displacement and loss, overshadowing their personal agency, capabilities, and the rich cultural assets that individuals bring to their new communities (Cornell 2023). The distinctions and the contested nature of immigrant labeling within educational policies are not merely academic concerns but have tangible impacts on students’ lived experiences. Immigrants’ contexts of reception vary, as “racial, political, economic, and social structures stratify” them (Lowenhaupt et al. 2021, p. 2; Rodriguez and Macias 2023), which creates differences in how they are incorporated in society. Specific to schools, the way students are categorized can influence the educational resources and support they receive, the expectations placed upon them, and their integration into the school community. For example, the refugee label may grant access to specific educational programs designed to address trauma and facilitate language acquisition (Cornell 2023). In contrast, students might face barriers to accessing similar support due to their legal status. Educators are not to inquire about their status, and therefore may not make connections between students’ needs and the effects of uncertainty around being in legal limbo (Crawford and Arnold 2017).

Koyama and Chang’s (2018) work has provided insights into the distinctions made between refugees and undocumented immigrants, framing refugees as “at risk” and undocumented immigrants as “a risk”. This dichotomy reflects broader societal and political narratives that influence educational policy and practice, creating a false contest that pits immigrant-background persons against each other and perpetuating stereotypes around and constructions of “immigrant deservingness” (Crawford and Hairston 2022; Patel 2015). Refugees are often perceived through a lens of vulnerability and humanitarian need, necessitating support and integration efforts. It should be noted that the meaning of “integration” can be understood in different ways, and there is no uniform definition. It can include levels of refugees’ civic and social participation in society or employment and income levels (Fix et al. 2017). Integration in schooling contexts, both inside and outside the U.S., may refer to students’ and families’ sense of belonging and participation in a school community (McIntyre 2024). Broadly, however, the intent of integration programs is to see that refugees are to have the “same level and quality of services as nationals” and facilitate their building of social connections in the host community (UNHCR 2024). We recognize that the current policy context around immigration in the U.S., particularly regarding educational policies for refugee and undocumented students, presents a complex landscape marked by socially constructed—and reinforced—distinctions and contested labels. For example, the districts in our study were eligible to apply for grant funding specifically designated for displaced Afghan and Ukrainian students only. The same funding was not made available to support other students who also had been assigned the refugee and asylum-seeking label. In the section below, we discuss how all students, regardless of the labels assigned to them, have a right to K-12 public schooling. Yet, critical gaps remain in how schools serve refugees and newcomers across backgrounds.

2.2. Refugees’ Rights to an Education and Addressing Gaps in Educational Access

Key international agreements, such as the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, have established a foundational right to education for refugee children, specifically that signatory states must provide refugees the same access to education as nationals (Dryden-Peterson 2015). Despite these legal frameworks, the implementation at national, state, local, and schooling levels can vary significantly. Disparate access to education across the globe for displaced persons is often influenced by one’s legal status, with children facing different educational paths based on their position within the migration process rather than their educational needs (UNHCR 2019). In essence, though refugee students’ access to K-12 education within various host countries is enshrined in international law, the reality often falls short of these legal protections, resulting in a gap between policy and practice (Dryden-Peterson 2016). Globally, refugee access to education remains a significant barrier; over seven million refugee children are out of school due to legal, financial, and logistical constraints (UNHCR USA 2024). Educational quality is also an issue, often compromised by overcrowded classrooms, inadequate resources, and poorly trained teachers (Dryden-Peterson 2015). Further, refugees’ tertiary access remains highly limited, with only 7% accessing higher education compared to 42% of non-refugees as of 2019 (UNHCR 2024).

2.3. Refugee Student Experiences in K-12 Education in the United States

The U.S. offers legal protections for children’s right to an education from primary through secondary school, and no child in the U.S. may be denied a K-12 education (Plyler v. Doe (1982)). Supreme Court cases, such as Plyler v. Doe (1982), Lau v. Nichols (1974), and Castañeda v. Pickard (1981), have led to guidance about providing meaningful education for students who speak a language other than English, and equal access to educational content material. Specific to refugee students, the United States Refugee Act of 1980 (1980), Public Law 96-212 stipulates that the U.S. Secretary of Education consistently reports on “[increasing] access to programs” under their jurisdiction. Despite such legal guidance, however, logistical and culturally based knowledge gaps related to U.S. schooling norms and processes can remain, and schools may be unaware of or underprepared to address these hurdles (Crawford 2023; Koyama and Kasper 2021).

The barriers to refugees’ full participation in U.S.-based schools are multifaceted, and they encompass obstacles to educational access and quality as well as addressing issues related to students’ psychosocial well-being. Refugee students can experience psychosocial challenges in their educational journeys that include trauma experienced during and prior to resettlement, cultural dislocation, and language barriers (Antony-Newman and Niyozov 2023; Arar et al. 2019; Cornell 2023). They may also experience xenophobia and discrimination (Schorchit 2017). Many refugee students have also experienced interrupted education or have yet to experience it at all (Custodio and O’Loughlin 2017; Hos 2020; Koyama and Kasper 2021). Some districts, though no evidence supports this is a widespread issue, have been sued for specifically denying refugee students from enrolling in school (ACLU Pennsylvania 2017; Mueller 2015). Compounding difficulties, educators may lack policy awareness or misinterpret the laws and policies designed to support immigrant-background students’ education (Antony-Newman and Niyozov 2023; Crawford 2017; Rodriguez and Monreal 2017). Such challenges highlight the disconnect between policy intentions for inclusive education for all and the practical capacity of educational institutions to deliver on promises of equal educational opportunities. Such challenges draw attention to a need for holistic approaches to refugee education that addresses academic, social, and emotional needs.

2.4. Educational Opportunities for Refugees: Innovative and Successful Strategies

In response to the myriad challenges referenced above, educators, community organizations, and others have developed and implemented innovative practices and strategies to better facilitate refugee students’ integration across contexts. Strategies that seek to foster a sense of identity and belonging among refugee students and provide academic and emotional support include creating newcomer programs (Hos 2020; Lang 2019), adopting inclusive curricula that incorporate refugee experiences and cultures (Bajaj and Bartlett 2017; Roxas 2011), and having educators teach for global competence (Ramos et al. 2021). Other successful practices include partnering with community-based organizations (Arar and Oplatka 2022; Crawford 2023), establishing mentorship programs (Koyama and Kasper 2021), and enhancing refugee family engagement in schools (Judson et al. 2024). These examples demonstrate the potential for innovative and refugee community-focused educational practices to facilitate integration and enhance refugees’ learning experiences.

As noted earlier, newcomer programs are especially important to support the academic and social integration of refugee students into the education system (Hos 2020; Lang 2019; Sugarman 2017). These programs purposefully integrate language instruction, academic support, and socialization into the school environment. Some include wrap-around support for students and their families (e.g., using trauma-informed approaches) and family–community engagement opportunities, thereby establishing strong, trusting student–adult relationships (Bajaj and Suresh 2018). Successful newcomer programs and schools importantly embed language instruction within content areas to ensure students’ access to rigorous academic content, develop students’ literacy, and foster “safe spaces” simultaneously (Lang 2019). Ideally, they should follow a comprehensive model for culturally-relevant educational leadership and policies that support refugee education, including: (1) community-based leadership; (2) integrated support systems for refugee students; (3) dedicated settings for newly-arrived refugee students; and (4) policies for mandatory attendance, transportation, support for English Learners (ELs), and flexibility in assessment measures (Arar 2020; see also Dryden-Peterson et al. 2019).

Leadership for refugee education is critical. Schools with high-refugee populations need leaders who are culturally proficient and empathetic (Arar et al. 2024), active and supportive, and who focus on both students and their families to prevent their further marginalization and as a path to better facilitate students’ acculturation processes. In one school serving refugee students, principal-led efforts helped to establish parental participation in school councils; this initiative was crucial in fostering a sense of belonging and leadership among immigrant parents and showcased the principal’s deep understanding of the vulnerabilities experienced by immigrant families (Rah 2007).

Researchers have also highlighted the impact of community-based leadership to integrate refugee individuals and families in communities and schools (Arar and Oplatka 2022; Crawford 2023; Roxas 2011), including organizations that refugees lead (Judson et al. 2024), as ways to ensure that refugees’ educational rights are respected and meaningful. From the schooling side, district-supported mentors and liaisons can also help bridge gaps between refugee families and schools. Koyama and Kasper (2021) elucidated how mentors, employed by a school district in Arizona, significantly improved communication between schools and refugee families, thereby increasing the academic achievement of refugee students. Refugee families perceived mentors as knowledgeable and trustworthy in school-related matters. Mentors and liaisons take on crucial tasks like explaining the U.S. education system, making home visits, and addressing parental concerns (Crawford 2023; Koyama and Kasper 2021). In one study, a K-12 school liaison based in a refugee-serving community organization helped remove key obstacles to refugee students’ educational access to school (e.g., shepherding parents through school enrollment processes), tapped her relationships and networks within the community to enhance school-related information for refugee families and better connect them to resources and school personnel, and educated teachers and school staff about the refugee communities (Crawford 2023). This research demonstrated the importance of leaders, liaisons, and other community partners who advocate for refugee students’ needs and who demonstrate an understanding of the complex dynamics involved in refugee education (Breiseth et al. 2015; Cooper 2014). In essence, community-involved and community-based leadership extends beyond implementing educational programming to include creating a sense of belonging and community for refugee students and their families. It requires a commitment to understanding the cultural, socioemotional, and physical needs of refugee populations and actively working to integrate these individuals into the educational and broader community.

Schools that also engage refugee families in school are vital to student success. Programs that involve families in the educational process, providing them with the necessary information and support to participate effectively in their children’s education, have shown promise (Cooper 2014). Research shows that refugees and other newcomer students have high educational aspirations (Hos 2020) and that family support for children, regardless of parental educational attainment, matters to student well-being and school success (Soutello et al. 2016). However, there are multiple challenges with refugee family engagement, including a lack of school policies for effective family-school communication, as well as language barriers (Soutello et al. 2016). A study from Lowenhaupt (2014) that surveyed how school practices across Wisconsin shape immigrant family engagement found that, despite school efforts to ensure Spanish-speaking families had access to interpretation and translation; there was inadequate to enhance immigrant families’ engagement in school. Family engagement best practice includes school staff fostering trusting relationships with parents and having parents share their ideas, needs, what they perceive as problems or issues, and opportunities to create activities and programs that matter to and impact their families (Ferlazzo and Hammond 2009).

2.5. A Challenging and Ever-Changing Context

In looking across the subdisciplines of research pertaining to education for refugee-background students, as reviewed above, there are clear gaps in refugee students and families’ access to equal educational opportunities and participation in schools. Yet, K-12 educators, community organizations, researchers, and other stakeholders are working to shift narratives about refugees and to change the social, economic, and educational policies that inhibit their integration and success in society (Crawford 2023; Dorner et al. 2017; Rodriguez 2018). One strategy being used to build schools’ capacity is through federal grant funding that state-level, refugee-serving agencies administer and distribute to schools—the focus of this research.

Notably, while this research was conducted in 2022–2023, when U.S. refugee resettlement was on a path to hit the highest numbers ever, at the time of writing, the U.S. anticipates a change in the presidential administration to one that previously reduced the refugee admissions ceiling to a 40-year historic low (American Immigration Council 2021). The availability of resources that will be available to resettlement agencies in Missouri and elsewhere is uncertain, as is what displaced populations they will serve (Center for Migration Studies 2024). The core functions of resettlement agencies in Missouri and across the U.S. are unlikely to change as federal immigration policies fluctuate and as political dynamics shift, but there may be constriction. Further, the ways that refugees are viewed and treated at the national, state, and local levels may change. The impacts will be felt in schools and by school communities. Federal grant funding distributed to coordinating agencies, like the funds that MO-ORA makes available to schools, may also change, challenging school districts and K-12 educators to consider what designing equitable policies, programs, and practices for refugee students and families will entail under a restrictive immigration policy context.

3. Methods and Methodology

This paper is situated in Missouri and pays attention to grant applications that Missouri K-12 school districts submitted to the Missouri Office of Refugee Administration (MO-ORA), a non-profit agency, in 2022 to initiate programs, practices, and hire personnel to better support newcomer arrivals from Afghanistan and Ukraine. Below, we provide brief context for immigration to the state. Then, we focus more specifically on refugee settlement in Missouri before turning attention to the grants that MO-ORA distributes to school districts and the use of content analysis methods used to assess what areas school districts prioritized in serving newcomer students and families. After this, we describe the data collection and analysis process used to answer our research questions, which were focused on documenting: (1) K-12 schools’ priorities for refugee education, and (2) their plans for allocating resources to meet refugees’ perceived needs.

3.1. Context for Immigration and Refugee Resettlement in Missouri

As of 2022, there were 252,575 foreign-born individuals in Missouri, about 4% of the state’s population (Migration Policy Institute 2024). The majority were from Mexico (15%), with others coming from China (8%), India (7%), Vietnam (5%), and Bosnia and Herzegovina (4%) (American Immigration Council 2024b). From late 2023 through January 2024, the top ten countries of origin for new arrivals to Missouri included the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Guatemala, Mali, and Colombia. Approximately 27% of arrivals in this timeframe were of traditional U.S. school age, between 5 and 17 years old (Missouri Office of Refugee Administration 2024). New arrivals settle in many communities throughout Missouri, including in rural areas, but the majority of new arrivals usually settle in St. Louis, Kansas City, Columbia, Springfield, Joplin, and St. Joseph. Only a small, though vibrant, portion of newcomers are identified as refugees; between 2016 and 2023, 7600 arrived in Missouri, with 1563 arriving through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) resettlement process (Missouri Office of Refugee Administration 2024).

3.2. MO-ORA and the Research–Practice Partnership

Emily R. Crawford and Lisa Dorner, two white scholars from University of Missouri who have worked in different countries and in partnership with schools and educational agencies on immigrant education for decades, developed a professional acquaintance with the refugee programs manager from the Missouri Office of Refugee Administration (MO-ORA) in 2022. Juan José Reyes and Oksana Kozlova, both doctoral students from Honduras and Russia, respectively, joined the research–practice partnership in 2023. MO-ORA is a private, non-profit organization connected to a major refugee resettlement agency in the state (moora.org/about-moora, accessed on 30 September 2024). It supports refugee programming (e.g., youth mentoring, employment and counseling services, and other support) by coordinating and dispersing federal funding to nine resettlement agencies in Missouri (e.g., Jewish Vocational Services, Catholic Charities) and to school districts. These agencies and districts, in turn, coordinate services for refugees.

Together, we engaged in conversations with MO-ORA’s programs manager about refugee education in Missouri and MO-ORA’s efforts to help school districts develop capacity to better serve newcomers. The programs manager expressed interest in using research-supported practices in this endeavor, especially as MO-ORA had recently started distributing federal funding to Missouri school districts. We decided to start by analyzing districts’ grant applications to learn what they identified as key areas of need for refugee education, in the hope this study could help MO-ORA enhance their current work and develop new programming where needed. Next, we describe the types of grants available to K-12 school districts.

3.3. Funding to Support Schooling for New Arrivals: The Refugee School Impact Program

From 2022 to 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) offered three different grants under their Refugee School Impact program to help school districts across the United States. At the time of this study, MO-ORA coordinated the: (1) Afghan Refugee School Impact (ARSI), (2) Support to Schools (S2S), and (3) Ukrainian Refugee School Impact (URSI). Each grant came with stipulations related to the populations that the funding could serve. The ASRI and S2S grants were to be used exclusively for students from Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the USRI was intended primarily for Ukrainian students, but it could also be used for other refugee-background students, depending on the presence of Ukrainian students in a school (Cockrum 2024).

In terms of the grant funding MO-ORA administered to Missouri schools, at the time of this study, districts could apply for numerous grants, as long as they enrolled the population related to the grant: Afghan and/or Ukrainian students. The refugee school programs manager at MO-ORA alerted Missouri K-12 districts to the funding, and then districts submitted their grant applications to the manager, who then reviewed them, ensured compliance with funding stipulations and guidelines, and subsequently provided approvals. Each Refugee Impact Grant had different completion dates for when school districts needed to have spent the money they had requested ranging from September 2021 to September 2024.

3.4. Research Methods

Using content analysis (Schreier 2012) as our methodology, the research team sought to answer two research questions: (1) What did K-12 schools in Missouri identify as priorities in grant applications designed to support educating refugee students? (2) How did districts allocate resources to meet refugee students’ and families’ perceived needs? Our data set included 39 Refugee School Impact grant applications from 35 school districts, with the following distribution by geography: 11 rural (28%), 14 suburban (369%), and 14 urban (36%) (see Appendix A). Regarding the grant type, 27 were for the Afghan Impact grant (69%), and 12 for the Ukrainian Impact grant (31%); the Support to Schools grant did not exist at the time of this study. Four of the urban districts—St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield, and Columbia—are the largest refugee-receiving school districts in the state.

3.4.1. Data Organization and Analytical Process

The researchers organized grant applications into a database, documenting the following: (1) district name; (2) location; (3) number of refugee families and students the district expected from Afghanistan/Ukraine; (4) total number of designated ELs in the district; (5) overall funding requested; (6) proposed activities and alignment with goals; and (7) stakeholders involved. We also noted if pages were missing in the application forms.

The grant applications included ten categories for districts to mark funding requests in a budget table. These categories were (1) regular instruction; (2) supplemental instruction; (3) adult education programs; (4) non-instructional support services; (5) professional development; (6) support services–school administration; (7) transportation and maintenance; (8) early childhood instruction; (9) homeless and other disadvantaged student activities services; and (10) parental involvement. These categories corresponded to nine activities; in this section of the application, school districts had to describe the specific activities they proposed within these nine activity types, as listed in

Table 1. Refugee Impact grant application form sections for analysis.

Section	Description
District	District names have been coded and assigned a letter in alphabetical order.
Size	School district size, coded as “R”—Rural, “S”—Suburban, “U”—Urban
Grant	Type of grant, coded as 1: Afghanistan and 2: Ukraine
Total	Overall total amount of money requested
ELs	Number of designated English Learners
Refugees	Number of students with an immigrant status of refugees
Act1	Activity 1: Student services for ELs
Act2	Activity 2: Family–school navigation
Act3	Activity 3: Professional development for staff
Act4	Activity 4: Facilitating partnerships
Act5	Activity 5: New program initiatives
Act6	Activity 6: Facilitating childcare access
Act7	Activity 7: Early childhood education
Act8	Activity 8: Parent integration
Act9	Activity 9: Parent-child activities

. To determine where funds were spent, Juan José Reyes calculated for average spending across each of the categories. Finally, the applications also included sections for districts to list their grant strategies and also their district goals or objectives. The goals and objectives section was supposed to map back onto the district’s comprehensive school plan, a strategic plan that the state requires of school districts. Table 1 includes a description of the main components of the grant application forms, and

Table A1. Descriptors.

District	Size	Grant	Total	EL	Refugees	Act1	Act2	Act3	Act4	Act5	Act6	Act7	Act8	Act9
A	S	1	30,357	230	27	0	30,357	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
B	S	1	31,481	335	24	0	5000	3890	0	0	0	0	0	0
C	R	1	23,611	20	21	23,611	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
D1	U	1	700,000	1255	104	640,000	200	0	10,000	5000	0	44,800	0	0
D2	U	1	89,946	1255	80	83,200	6246	500	0	0	0	0	0	0
E1	S	1	6746	256	6	3747	2000	1000	0	0	0	0	0	0
E2	S	2	5706	256	6	3000	2000	706	0	0	0	0	0	0
F	R	1	21,362	12	16	19,362	500	1500	0	0	0	0	0	0
G	S	1	7870	406	7	1000	0	0	5500		1370	0	0	0
H	U	1	11,243	200	10	11,243	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
I	R	1	80,462	293	56	53,369	1500	7000	593	20,000	0	0	0	0
J1	U	1	504,005	2898	78	136,550	440	130,000	108,650	39,120	0	89,245	0	0
J2	U	1	147,286	2898	121	0	56,874	19,351	0	0	0	0	0	0
K	U	1	5622	27	5	3081	0	0	0	2541	0	0	0	0
L	U	1	33,730	356	40	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
M1	S	1	5622	257	15	5622	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
M2	S	2	9510	257	15	2381	0	7129	0	0	0	0	0	0
N	S	1	2249	330	2	2249	1649	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
O	S	1	2249	34	2	0	749	500	0	0	0	0	0	0
P1	S	1	33,730	1118	30	23,445.73	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
P2	S	2	9510	1118	9	5932.21	3577.79	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Q	R	1	19,113	185	17	2000	2000	2000	0	0	0	0	250	500
R	R	1	16,865	648	25	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
S	R	1	5622	0	0	500	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
T	R	2	21,873	222	23	10,397	5468	5468	0	0	0	0	0	0
U	U	1	22,486	1440	21	4000	4000	18,486	0	0	0	0	0	0
V	R	2	25,677	193	27	3000	0	21,393	0	0	0	0	0	0
W	S	2	19,971	1140	19	5986	5984	8000	0	0	0	0	0	0
X	R	2	1000	27	1	1000	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Y	S	2	3084	77	2	0	0	3084	0	0	0	0	0	0
Z	U	2	11,412	48	12	3142	0	8000	0	0	0	0	0	0
AA	S	2	6657	658	15	2922	0	0	0	3375	0	0	0	0
BB	R	2	2853	0	3	2853	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
CC	R	2	51,354	427	57	6000	29,422	10,436	0	5496	0	0	0	0
DD	U	1	44,973	1154	40	11,243.25	11,243.25	11,243.25	0	0	0	0	0	0
EE1	U	1	261,523	1807	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
EE2	U	1	239,480	1807	213	139,500	13,980	81,000	0	5000	0	0	0	0
EE3	U	1	700,000	1807	177	405,000	10,000	0	275,000	0	0	10,000	0	0
EE4	U	1	116,559	1807	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Grant 1 = Afghan-focused grant; Grant 2 = Ukrainian-focused grant; Size = Geographic position. R = Rural; S = suburban; U = Urban; Total = Total amount requested; there are discrepancies in the total amounts listed and funding allocated for activities due to missing pages or forms that were not filled out with consistency; EL = Designated English Learners. District numbers have been rounded; Refugees = Number of refugees named on the grant application; Act 1 = Activity 1: Student services for Els; Act 2 = Activity 2: Family-school navigation; Act 3 = Activity 3: Professional development for staff; Act 4 = Activity 4: Facilitating partnerships; Act 5 = Activity 5: New program initiatives; Act 6 = Activity 6: Facilitating childcare access; Act 7 = Activity 7: Early Childhood Education; Act 8 = Activity 8: Parent Integration; Act 9 = Activity 9: Parent-child Activities.

contains a complete descriptive chart with the amounts requested by each district per activity (see Appendix A for Table A1).

3.4.2. Content Analysis

First, Emily R. Crawford and Lisa Dorner independently reviewed three grant applications and engaged in open coding (Saldaña 2016) to generate initial impressions. After this, Emily R. Crawford and Lisa Dorner met to discuss their independent reviews, and then each analyzed half of the remaining grants using a defined set of codes, like “capacity-building via hiring” and “building support at home to parents/families support schools”. As they completed this work, the researchers met bi-weekly to share emerging themes across the applications, and they discussed where their analyses converged or diverged. For example, the researchers noted some misalignment between the district’s proposed activities and their plans to carry out the activities. Further, the researchers noted varying levels of detail that districts provided and the kind of information districts shared.

Second, Juan José Reyes read over the grant applications, documenting the span of district requests into a spreadsheet as well as placing them within their geographic contexts (e.g., geographic type, size of district, etc.). He simultaneously took a holistic look at each application and noted general thoughts, insights, and questions the applications raised for him. The research team then met to compare, synthesize, and summarize findings after discussing impressions of the overall applications. The team noted what districts identified as their biggest areas of need, according to their largest funding request; if or how district needs varied from their previous applications (if available); and any rising areas of need (see Appendix A).

4. Limitations

Several limitations to this study are worth highlighting. First of all, the number of applications received and analyzed did not include all of the districts in the state serving refugee newcomers, so while the findings help us to build theory about the process and needs across the state, they are not generalizable without further study. The sample also comprised two different communities, Afghans and Ukrainians. Information as to the length of their journey to the U.S. was not provided. District applications did estimate the number of families and students they anticipated serving. These circumstances leading to these two communities’ displacement share some similarities but also differ widely, as do their cultures, histories, their reception in the U.S., and their potential needs upon arriving (Washington Post 2022). The sample size of the grant applications referencing the Ukrainian population in Missouri did not allow for comparisons in this study, but future research could provide in-depth comparisons of these groups’ experiences in the U.S. while accounting for their specific contexts.

Another potential limitation of this work is it is solely focused on Missouri. Other states also obtain access to Refugee School Impact grants, and districts throughout the country may identify different or potentially similar funding priorities to meet newcomers’ needs. Relatedly, the funding is geared exclusively toward helping schools assist Afghan and Ukrainian newcomers, though districts may also be serving refugees from elsewhere in the world. It is beyond the scope of this study to learn if and how the funding for the Afghan and Ukrainian students had a potential ripple effect on districts’ ability to serve other refugee-background students and families, as well as other students designated as English Learners.

The final limitation relates to the data available. In performing the content analysis of the applications, as noted earlier, there was significant variability in the level of detail school districts offered as to how they would utilize the funding. For example, some districts included long descriptions that detailed their funding needs, followed by specific plans for how the funding would address an identified need. Other districts provided thin, basic descriptions. However, this variety in detail did not seem to inhibit whether or not a district received funding. We also noted that the four largest urban districts applied for two grants apiece, which were considerably larger than the other districts. In addition, some pages were missing from some of the applications, and on occasion, the total amount of funding that a district requested on a table on the front page did not match the funding allotted to some activities later in the application. The research team also learned that some districts that received funding were either unable to use the funding they were given (e.g., Afghan students moved out of the district, thus grant qualifications were not met), or potentially chose not to use the funding (Cockrum 2023); nonetheless, because it is informative for how educators perceive newcomers’ needs, we still included their applications in this analysis.

5. Findings

This study sought to understand how and in what ways districts concentrate their efforts to provide a meaningful education for refugee children and families using funding from a state-level agency. Out of the ten categories in the application that districts could mark to indicate a funding request, Missouri K-12 school districts identified eight areas, described below, where they wanted support. However, out of these eight, they predominantly identified three key priorities to support the education of refugee students. Their biggest priorities were to support: (1) family engagement activities, (2) EL education, and (3) student English language proficiency. After sharing the content analysis, we argue that these grant applications demonstrate how districts framed refugees’ educational needs, which can potentially constrain how refugee youth were subsequently able to learn, share knowledge, and participate in the life of their new schools.

5.1. Missouri District Priorities in Supporting Refugee Students

The most common priority for Missouri school districts was prioritizing family engagement while some of the least common areas were building newcomer spaces. Districts’ goals were broad, with applications requesting funds in eight different areas: (1) family engagement (74% of applications); (2) English Learner education in general (74%); (3) students’ English language proficiency (20%); (4) students’ socio-emotional development (6%); (5) students’ native language development (3%); (6) student engagement (3%); (7) newcomer school space (3%); and (8) staff knowledge/capacity (3%). Because some districts applied for funds in multiple areas, these percentages do not add up to 100%; note that 3% indicates just one application focused on this area. Further, many districts (66%) applied for two or three different areas. The details in the activities section for how districts proposed to allocate their money was instrumental to understand and summarize districts’ top priorities. However, some misalignment was present among districts’ stated goals, priorities, and their proposed activities, as described in the sections that follow.

Within refugee family engagement activities, districts were most likely to request funding to support needs for translation or interpretation (31%), as well as for specific family events, like orientations or family registration nights (31%). District O, a small suburban district, noted it aimed to “increase participation in school functions representative of our population” and “increase … family attendances at district events such as home visits, open house[s], curriculum nights, etc.” [sic]. An urban district, District Z, stated it planned to “connect the school to families and community through shared experiences”. Other funds were requested to purchase materials/supplies (19%), support adult education (e.g., family English classes) (12%), and hire staff (e.g., family liaisons) (12%). For example, District G, a suburban school district that received USD 7870 from MO-ORA to serve seven Afghan newcomers, anticipated using funding to offer ESL classes for newcomers and provide after-school tutoring, among other activities. District CC, a rural Missouri community with an established Ukrainian population, has received a number of Ukrainian newcomers since the outbreak of the Ukrainian–Russia war. District CC expected to serve 57 new Ukrainian students and to use a portion of their USD 51,354 in funding to purchase books and resources that explicitly supported Ukraine students with English acquisition. District S, a suburban community that expected to serve 15 Ukrainian students, indicated in its application that it would use all of its USD 6657 in funding to hire a former teacher to support the newcomer students in math, and purchase iPads to help them in their classes.

Within the family engagement category, it was less common for districts to request monies to implement home visits, procure transportation, or indicate building or sustaining partnerships with community agencies. District D1 is a predominantly urban district whose boundaries also encompass suburban and rural communities, expected to enroll 83 students from Afghanistan from approximately 27 families. This district paid attention to holistic approaches to supporting newcomers by building personnel capacity, building home–school connections, and garnering community agency support for families. This district wrote they desired funds to “… support professional development for teachers who work with this population of students and to host parent-involvement events for families. We will partner with local agencies that support refugees and the Afghan parolees in particular”.

Under the English Learner (EL) education category, districts most commonly indicated they needed funding to enhance professional development for teachers (54%); they intended to purchase materials or supplies like iPads (38%) or planned to hire new staff such as teachers, instructional aides, or tutors (35%). In rural mid-Missouri, District F indicated that it would serve 16 Afghan students using USD 21,362 by hiring a full-time EL teacher. In eastern Missouri, urban District EE received two rounds of funding, the first for USD 239,480 to serve 213 Afghan students, with a plan to purchase specialized materials and support to support students’ education, among other activities. For the second round of funding, District EE received USD 700,000 to support 177 Afghan students and used the funding to hire one full-time social worker, one full-time reading interventionist, and two full-time translators. M1, a suburban district, allocated USD 1283 toward professional development (PD), but did not indicate how the PD would be offered and with whom (e.g., EL teachers alone, all staff, etc.). District E1, a small suburban community, on the other hand, planned to allocate USD 2000 total toward PD, putting funds toward purchased services, materials, and supplies. With these monies, District E1 noted briefly and generally in the application it would offer “professional development for school/district staff”. Their PD aimed to meet a district goal related to addressing climate, culture, and safety in the district. To meet this goal, the district would “Examine professional development opportunities for educators to help address student welfare issues”. This district also planned to use funding to hire an instructional aide to work at one of the district’s two newcomer programs, making a decision as to which school the aide would be placed after assessing student and staffing needs. District Z, an urban district, described a plan to have “EL teachers … participate in professional development activities through the MEL [Migrant English Language Learners; sic] program at EducationPlus [sic] or through other appropriate training venues. Training should focus on connecting with students and families”.

As their third top priority, out of the 39 applications, seven (20%) specifically focused on students’ English language proficiency. These applications sought funds for materials/supplies, a newcomer curriculum, and new staff. District P1, a suburban district, anticipated “providing specialized services and support for eligible children and youth, such as English as a Second Language classes, tutoring, newcomer or transitional programs …” among other services and programming geared toward facilitating newcomers’ integration. District H, an urban school district, framed their request for funding to support Afghan students’ English language development using deficit-based language in the application, noting “EL students are underperforming compared to non-EL students” and sought to rectify the “underperformance” by “[providing] increased specialized instruction through additional tutoring support”.

Districts less commonly indicated a plan to use funds for after-school programming, small group instruction, newcomer welcome kits, or translation/interpretation. Notably, only 2 of the 39 specifically focused on student’s socio-emotional development and only one district applied for funds to support students’ native language development. However, District N requested USD 2249 to serve two Afghan students from one family by “[connecting] the family with community support for both academic and social emotional needs”. To do so, they planned to utilize social emotional screening tools and increase student access to activities related to socio-emotional development.

5.2. Allocation of Funding

While one stage of our content analysis documented what districts wrote in their applications as they described their needs, another aspect of our analysis explored the amount of funding requested per specific activity category listed in the application templates. Applicants had to describe their funding requests within 10 possible categories of funding (e.g., regular instruction, adult education programs, professional development, etc.), and they also had to place their actual funding requests in terms of nine different activities (e.g., EL student services, parent–child activities, etc.) (See Table 1). Of these activity choices, three activities had the highest average requests for funding.

The top three activities were Activity 1—Student Services for ELs (USD 41,418.88), Activity 3—Professional Development for Staff (USD 8735.54), and Activity 4—Facilitating Partnerships (USD 10,249.82). Specifically, most money was allocated for Activity 1, where districts requested funds for hiring EL teachers (C, urban); hiring counselors (D2, urban); providing additional tutoring support (District H, urban); and purchasing books and materials for EL curriculum (District K, urban). The next highest average request went to Activity 4, Facilitating Partnerships, which included the following: to purchase Chromebooks to “support parent tech literacy sessions” (District J1); to “purchase furniture, technology, materials, and supplies to support Afghan refugee students in content acquisition” (District EE3, suburban); and to facilitate “adult ESOL classes for parents” (District G, suburban). Finally, the third highest category was for Activity 3, Professional Development for Staff, where districts requested funds for “PD activities to enhance understanding and respect” (District E1, suburban); for EL teachers to “attend two workshops to understand the background of students” (District F, rural); and to “renovate and enhance the International Welcome Center” (District J1, urban). Analysis also revealed that rural school districts did not request money for Activities Six (Facilitating Childcare Access) and Seven (Early Childhood Education). This invites further exploration of the contexts in which rural school districts operate.

6. Discussion

District grant applications demonstrated a focus on promoting family engagement, building support for English Learner (EL) education, and facilitating newcomer students’ English language acquisition. In terms of the actions they proposed to take, three activities had the highest means for funding: Student Services for ELs, Professional Development for Staff, and Facilitating Partnerships. The activities section of the applications encompassed plans and events related to districts’ primary areas of focus.

In terms of family engagement efforts, requests for funding frequently included putting money toward interpretation/translation and family events related to newcomer orientation and registration. Providing linguistic support is particularly important for recent arrivals to enhance communication between school-based personnel and families (Dondero and Muller 2012). Similarly, orienting families to the U.S. schooling system and raising awareness of registration processes are also important (Crawford 2023). Research shows that for immigrant family engagement to be most meaningful, efforts should be designed with families and classroom teachers (Dorner et al. 2019), but this focus was not evident in the grant applications. However, grant applications may be an unlikely place where districts would detail their family engagement processes and plans, or the applications did not convey that districts should emphasize or expand on what they meant by family “engagement”. Even so, a core theme across the research is recognizing and building upon immigrant communities’ assets and diversity through strong educational leadership, partnerships, and professional development (Bonney et al. 2021; Weddle et al. 2024). Educators should consider family engagement as a two-way process, not only where families can gain information or support from schools and districts, but also where educators can learn more about their families’ circumstances and the assets, capacities, and strengths they bring to their new homes. This means family engagement efforts should include the educators who work most closely with families—classroom teachers—and find ways to sustain families’ cultural and linguistic heritages (Paris and Alim 2017; Rymarchyk n.d.). With classroom teachers’ support, family engagement efforts should work toward: (1) learning what families value for their children’s education and, (2) how they might like to plan and lead their children’s educational pathways and family events. Two examples include co-designing events that celebrate family or cultural traditions and storytelling workshops (Dorner et al. 2019). MO-ORA has opportunity to provide guidance to districts on the practices and strategies that districts use to enhance refugee family engagement in school.

Data analysis also showed that district requests for funding for home visits, transportation, and partnering with community agencies were less common. District 1 specified in its application in several places a plan to liaise with local community-based organizations, including a resettlement agency, to support students and families with English language classes, tutoring, and other services. Research shows that creating welcoming spaces for refugees and ensuring academic and socio-emotional growth—and integration in society—is a whole-school and community endeavor (Crawford 2023; Bonney et al. 2021). Overall, such priorities did not come through as clearly in the applications. Community-based educational programs have been shown to play a crucial role in providing psychosocial support and culturally relevant learning experiences for refugee students (Arar et al. 2019). Collaborating across communities is essential to fully support newcomers although generating a sense of shared responsibility and practices that sustain interconnectedness across the education system is difficult (Weddle et al. 2024). Partnerships and collaborative relationships that coalesce around a shared vision to meet changing needs and which provide high-quality curricula and learning opportunities contribute to successful student outcomes (Coady et al. 2023). Strong leadership and professional development that occurs across the system can also build and strengthen collaboration among families, community organizations, and educators to benefit students. Many districts included professional development opportunities for teachers working directly with Afghan and Ukrainian students. Yet, few utilized a broad range of school personnel to support newcomers, which would have enhanced the shared sense of responsibility for these populations and, in turn, fostered their integration. In sum, districts may further enhance support for integrating refugee students and families through collaborations, sustaining relationships, and engaging in community-based partnerships. More research in this area, including longitudinal approaches, can enhance understanding of what constitutes successful partnerships and practices. Research that focuses on state-level agencies like MO-ORA and how they adapt to changing political contexts that shape their work, networks, and partnering with schools is also needed.

In terms of EL education, requests for funding in the area of English Learner education showed that districts primarily put money toward professional development for teachers, instructional materials and supplies, and hiring new staff, like teachers, instructional aides, or tutors. These are crucial areas when building educational programs focused on newcomers’ English language development. Refugees who arrive in the US and are learning English for the first time or who are building their English skills face various challenges (Hos 2020; Mendenhall et al. 2017). This includes students having to learn a new language at a level for them to complete their required courses, a process that can take multiple years, while also becoming familiar with a new educational system and community (Umansky et al. 2018). While such circumstances can be challenging, refugee students and their family members bring along invaluable skills and energy related to their aspirations, languages, navigations, families, and more (Yosso 2005). Therefore, communities should prioritize getting to know their newcomers and facilitating students’ leadership and ownership of their education, simultaneously focusing on integration efforts, socio-emotional wellness, and academics.

District applications conveyed attention to students’ academic progress. However, fewer tied academic trajectories to student socio-emotional development and well-being. To further support refugees, districts can implement regular needs assessments and comprehensive educational programs that address both academic and social–emotional development for students and their families (Short 2002). Comprehensive programming may include newcomer schools, family centers, and providing alternate pathways that allow youth to obtain high school diplomas through age 21, the age limit to offer high school education to youth in Missouri. Newcomer programs that work holistically with families by having social workers on site or assisting families in accessing social and medical services also facilitate student and family well-being, which helps enhance students’ readiness to learn (Short 2002). Needs assessments can also act as a critical piece of districts’ decision-making in what types of comprehensive support will work in a given context, considering that newcomer populations continually change and that refugees—and their teachers—have diverse needs and experiences, as well as different linguistic, family, cultural, economic, and academic backgrounds.

Finally, many grant applications pointed to a need for more professional development to increase knowledge of how to meet refugee students’ and families’ needs. District applications responded to a gap in training. However, in some instances, as mentioned earlier, analysis showed a heavy reliance on EL teachers and paraprofessionals for newcomer academic growth and integration. This maps over onto research that shows high school and middle school teachers may feel less responsibility and accountability for ELs’ academic success, which can lead to further segregation of designated English Learners in schools (Penn 2021). Therefore, as districts welcome new populations, professional development should be comprehensive for teachers and staff members beyond English Learner specialists. Teachers’ sense of responsibility and accountability for newcomers may stem from how they see their identities in relation to that of newcomers, in essence delineating their responsibilities for students based on whether they view their work as a: (1) moral imperative, (2) professional responsibility, or (3) legal obligation (Penn 2021). However, legal and professional standards, as well as codes of ethics, assert that newcomer students have equal and meaningful educational access equivalent to their peers (see Castañeda v. Pickard 1981; Lau v. Nichols 1974; NEA Code of Ethics). All educators and staff can benefit from training on legal and ethical responsibilities toward refugee students and on co-constructing solutions to meet refugees’ needs (Crawford 2017; Crawford and Dorner 2019; Coady et al. 2023). PD should be planned in partnership with educators, addressing issues noted in needs assessments, have school and district-wide participation, and focus not only on English language supports and pedagogical practices but also on the legal, social, and emotional development of refugees.

7. Conclusions

Through a study of school districts’ grant applications for refugee education support and their funding priorities, we explored how districts viewed prioritizing refugees’ educational needs. Analyses identified that districts’ biggest priorities were to support: (1) family engagement activities, (2) EL education, and (3) student English language proficiency. Meanwhile, districts’ top three areas of funding allocation went to the pre-named categories of Student Services for Els, Professional Development for Staff, and Facilitating Partnerships. However, the grant applications at times were short and the level of detail varied, and some districts’ plans may have also been limited by the amount of funding they did not or could not request. In short, the applications did not necessarily tell the full story of their plans to garner new, important resources to support refugee students and families. More research is needed to understand how districts implemented their allocated funding and its impact on newcomer families. This opens an opportunity for MO-ORA and similar state-level agencies to lean on and utilize the research–practice partnership moving forward and provide districts with information on best practices for refugee integration and family engagement. It shows the import of researchers partnering with state-level, refugee-serving agencies to share their knowledge and work with state-level agencies to co-construct exemplars to share with districts across a state. Such partnerships can recognize and build upon immigrant communities’ assets and diversity to strengthen school communities and ensure that newcomers are welcomed and supported.