Emergent bilinguals (EB) are widely recognized as one of the fastest-growing student populations in the nation’s K-12 schools. Between 2011 and 2024, the number of English learners grew by approximately 20 percent, increasing from about 4.6 million to more than 5.5 million students (National Center for Education Statistics). Today, they represent roughly one in every nine public-school students in the United States. With such significant numbers comes significant responsibility: to listen to, to include, and to educate this diverse and high-potential population, even when doing so requires schools to adapt long-standing instructional practices and reconsider how they define and measure student success.
For many EB students, that success has traditionally been measured through reclassification or a demonstration of sufficient English proficiency to exit specialized language-support services (Texas Education Agency). English proficiency is undeniably essential. But its importance should not diminish the value of continuing to develop students’ home languages does not mean that developing students’ home language isn’t either. That is precisely what schools risk when they prioritize rapid reclassification over sustained bilingual development. Students’ home language development is commonly overlooked in schools and seen as temporary bridges to English instruction.
This tension has become increasingly urgent as federal policy has shifted toward English primacy. In March 2025, President Trump designated English as the nation’s official language and revoked a previous executive order promoting language access for those with limited English proficiency. Months later, Department of Justice guidance directed federal agencies to minimize “non-essential” multilingual services and redirect resources toward English-language education and assimilation. At a time when the nation’s classrooms are becoming increasingly multilingual, schools therefore face renewed pressure to determine whether English acquisition alone should define academic and linguistic success (U.S. Department of Education).
Dual-language immersion (DLI) offers an alternative. Rather than using students’ home languages as mere temporary resources in learning English, DLI programs teach academic content in both English and the partner language, with the long-term goal of bilingualism and biliteracy. Because students continue developing two languages simultaneously, progress on English acquisition may appear more gradual at first. Yet research shows that by fifth grade, bilingual students outperform monolingual peers in standardized academic measures in English (Collier and Wayne). These findings strongly suggest that schools should not prioritize mere English proficiency in multilingual education. Instead, schools should begin looking more towards sustained bilingualism as long-term educational outcomes worth pursuing, even when developing them requires more time.
The Rule of 20
Because EB populations and bilingual-education policies vary widely across states, Texas provides a useful case study for examining how this shift could operate in practice. In Texas, EB students make up nearly 25% of the public-school student population. Under the state’s “Rule of 20,” a district that enrolls 20 or more EB students in the same grade who share a language classification must provide a bilingual education program in the elementary grades (Texas Education Agency). Yet, once schools meet this threshold, they have options. Districts may choose among four state-approved models: transitional bilingual education with an early or late exit, one-way dual-language immersion, or two-way dual-language immersion.
Although all four models use students’ home languages to support learning, the fundamental difference lies in their ultimate goals. Transitional programs gradually reduce instruction in the home language as students “transition” toward English-dominant classrooms. In contrast, dual-language programs teach curriculum in both English and a partner language, ultimately aiming to cultivate lasting bilingualism (Texas Education Agency). With this discretion, Texas public schools guarantee access to some form of bilingual education once the Rule of 20 is met, but it does not establish when districts should prioritize bilingualism developed through dual-language instruction over transitional pathways centered on eventual English-dominant instruction.
However, this gap is critical. The bilingual model a district selects can shape the trajectory of a student’s academic achievement and language development throughout elementary school. Both English-only and short-term transitional bilingual programs have been found to close only about half the achievement gap between English learners and native English-speaking students. DLI programs put students on an entirely different trajectory. Across rural, urban, and suburban districts; affluent, middle-income, and low-income communities; and varied racial, socioeconomic, and linguistic backgrounds, the research and findings have been remarkably consistent. Both native English-speaking students and EB students enrolled in dual-language programs generally perform at levels that are often higher than their peers in English-only programs on standardized measures of academic achievement and English proficiency (Lindholm-Leary). Not only that, but dual-language students also gain an additional outcome that English-only and transitional models fail to sustain: the ability to become bilingual and biliterate. And although it does not increase raw intelligence, the cognitive advantages of bilingualism are countless. Bilingual individuals often develop stronger executive functioning, including working memory, flexible thinking, and self-control, as well as a strengthened ability to focus and filter out irrelevant information (St. Augustine College).
The sheer consistency and breadth of these findings are hard to overlook. The question, then, is not whether dual-language education offers meaningful benefits, but how a district can make these programs accessible to all EB students.
Dual-Language Immersion Program Gaps
Often, the largest threat to dual-language is sustainability. Texas recognizes this and has established numerous requirements intended to preserve DLI quality and continuity. These requirements include maintaining a written language-allocation plan providing at least 50% of content instruction in the partner language and providing authentic instructional resources in both languages. However, these protections have not ensured that access to dual-language education keeps pace with the state’s evergrowing EB population. Between 2015-16 and 2025-26, the number of EB students enrolled in one-way or two-way DLI increased from approximately 252,000 to 287,000. During the same period, however, Texas’s total EB population grew by nearly 32 percent, causing the proportion served through DLI to decline from about 25.6% to 22.2% (Texas Education Agency). Moreover, Texas does not publicly report a statewide cohort-retention rate showing how many students who enter DLI remain through the elementary grades. Without such data, the state cannot fully determine whether programs that begin with sufficient enrollment remain viable as their original cohorts advance.
One of the clearest safeguards is to begin each entry grade with at least two DLI classrooms. The Center for Applied Linguistics warns that student attrition is inevitable, and students who leave, especially in the later elementary years, are difficult to replace. New entrants, especially after the first grade, may lack the partner-language literacy needed to keep pace with grade-level instruction, and many programs therefore restrict late entry unless students can demonstrate sufficient proficiency in both languages. As a result, programs that begin with only one classroom in the early grades can shrink substantially by upper elementary school, leaving districts with the uncomfortable decision to either combine grade levels or maintain unusually small classes, both of which can create financial and logistical challenges (Howard and Christian).
Policy Recommendation
In Texas, where pre-K through fourth-grade classes are generally limited to 22 students, two full entry-grade classrooms would contain about 44 students (Texas Education Agency). Once a district demonstrates enough enrollment to sustain roughly two entry-grade classrooms, along with the staffing and resources necessary to carry that cohort through elementary school, DLI should become the presumptive bilingual model.
This proposal would not replace the Rule of 20. Instead, the Rule of 20 would continue to determine whether a district is required to provide a bilingual classroom. The amendment would implement a second review to determine which model a district should provide, rather than allowing districts to choose among approved models without first assessing whether sustained dual-language instruction is locally viable. Districts capable of sustaining DLI would select either a one-way or two-way model depending on local student demographics. Although transitional bilingual programs would remain available, districts would be required to demonstrate that DLI is not viable before selecting them.
A district could qualify for such an exception if it lacked enough student enrollment or bilingual teachers. These exceptions should be publicly documented and reviewed annually. Temporary staffing shortages, for example, could justify delaying DLI implementation, but they should not become indefinite exemptions without evidence of continued recruitment or teacher-preparation efforts.
In shifting DLI from one option among several to the presumptive model when conditions and environment allow, Texas would preserve flexibility while ensuring that districts first consider the instructional pathway most likely to sustain long-term academic growth for EB students.
Limitations and Conclusion
One limitation of this model is language accessibility. DLI programs are concentrated on only five partner languages (Spanish, Vietnamese, Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, and French), while EB students’ home languages span much more than that. Thus, future funding should aim to expand the program materials to less commonly served languages. Still, this limitation should not prevent DLI implementation where enrollment and staffing already make it sustainable.
Texas should maintain the Rule of 20 while making Dual-Language Immersion programs the presumptive model when districts can sustain it. English proficiency remains essential, but it should not overshadow the importance and effectiveness of sustained bilingual education, especially in EB students. Where possible, Texas should mandate the model that offers students the strongest long-term academic and linguistic outcomes: Dual-Language Immersion.
By Allison Lu
References
Collier, Virginia P., and Wayne P. Thomas. “The Astounding Effectiveness of Dual Language.
Education for All.” NABE Journal of Research and Practice, vol. 2, no. 1, Winter 2004, pp. 1–20. PDF
Howard, Elizabeth R., and Donna Christian. Two-Way Immersion 101: Designing and Implementing a Two-Way Immersion Education Program at the Elementary Level. Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence, 2002. Educational Practice Report no.9. https://www.cal.org/twi/pdfs/two-way-immersion-101.pdf.
Lindholm-Leary, Kathryn. “Two-Way/Dual Language Education: Then and Now.” Multilingual Educator, 2015, pp. 13–16. https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/LindholmLeary2015_TWIDL_ThenAndNow.pdf.
National Center for Education Statistics. “English Learners in Public Schools.” Condition of Education, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, May 2024. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf/english-learners-in-public-schools.
St. Augustine College. “The Cognitive Benefits of Being Bilingual.” St. Augustine College, 30 May 2024. https://www.staugustine.edu/2024/05/30/cognitive-benefits-of-bilingualism/.
Texas Education Agency. Enrollment in Texas Public Schools, 2025–26. Division of Research and Analysis, June 2026. https://tea.texas.gov/data-reports/school-performance/accountability-research/enroll-2025-26.pdf.
Texas Education Agency. “Maximum Class Size Exceptions.” Texas Education Agency. Accessed 22 Aug. 2026. https://tea.texas.gov/school-and-district-information/waivers/state-waivers/maximum-class-size-exceptions.
Texas Education Agency. “Reclassification of Emergent Bilingual Students.” Texas Education Agency, 20 Apr. 2023. https://tea.texas.gov/taa-letters/reclassification-emergent-bilingual-students.
“Emergent Bilingual Students in Texas: Fact Sheet #2—Bilingual Education Programs.” TXEL.org, updated Nov. 2025. https://www.txel.org/media/ecxf4530/factsheet2-bilingualedprograms.pdf.
“Texas ESL Framework.” TXEL.org, Texas Education Agency. Accessed 22 Aug. 2026. https://www.txel.org/txeslf.
United States, Department of Education. English Language Acquisition: Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request. U.S. Department of Education, 2025. https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fy-2026-congressional-justification-english-language-acquisition-110146.pdf.
Leave a Reply