Dual Language Education Programs:
Current State Policies and Practices
U.S. Department of Education
Office of English Language Acquisition
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-04-CO-
0025/0018 with American Institutes for Research. Melissa Escalante served as the contracting
officer’s representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or
policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of
Education of any product, commodity, service, enterprise, policy, or practice mentioned in this
publication is intended or should be inferred. For the reader’s convenience, this publication
contains information about and from outside organizations, including hyperlinks and URLs.
Inclusion of such information does not constitute an endorsement by the Department, nor does it
indicate compliance with applicable federal laws.
U.S. Department of Education
Arne Duncan
Secretary
Office of English Language Acquisition
Libia S. Gil
Assistant Deputy Secretary
December 2015
This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted.
Although permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be U.S.
Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, Dual Language Education
Programs: Current State Policies and Practices, Washington, D.C., 2015.
This report is available on the Department’s website at
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/resources.html
Availability of Alternate Formats
Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to
the Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via e-
mail at om_eeos@ed.gov.
Content Contact:
Melissa Escalante
202-401-1407
melissa.escalante@ed.gov
Notice of Language Assistance
Notice of Language Assistance: If you have difficulty understanding English, you may, free of
charge, request language assistance services for this Department information by calling 1-800-
USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-877-8339), or email us at:
Ed.Language.Assistanc[email protected].
Aviso a personas con dominio limitado del idioma inglés: Si usted tiene alguna dificultad en
entender el idioma inglés, puede, sin costo alguno, solicitar asistencia lingüística con respecto a
esta información llamando al 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-877-8339), o
envíe un mensaje de correo electrónico a: [email protected].
給英語能力有限人士的通知: 如果您不懂英語， 或者使用英语有困难，您可以要求獲得
向大眾提供的語言協助服務，幫助您理解教育部資訊。這些語言協助服務均可免費提供。
如果您需要有關口譯或筆譯服務的詳細資訊，請致電1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327)
(聽語障人士專線：1-800-877-8339),或電郵: Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov.
Thông báo dành cho những người có khả năng Anh ngữ hạn chế: Nếu quý vị gặp khó khăn
trong việc hiểu Anh ngữ thì quý vị có thể yêu cầu các dịch vụ hỗ trợ ngôn ngữ cho các tin tức
của Bộ dành cho công chúng. Các dịch vụ hỗ trợ ngôn ngữ này đều miễn phí. Nếu quý vị muốn
biết thêm chi tiết về các dịch vụ phiên dịch hay thông dịch, xin vui lòng gọi số 1-800-USA-
LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-877-8339), hoặc email:
Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov.
영어 미숙자를 위한 공고: 영어를 이해하는 데 어려움이 있으신 경우, 교육부 정보
센터에 일반인 대상 언어 지원 서비스를 요청하실 수 있습니다. 이러한 언어 지원
서비스는 무료로 제공됩니다. 통역이나 번역 서비스에 대해 자세한 정보가 필요하신
경우, 전화번호 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) 또는 청각 장애인용 전화번호 1-800-
Paunawa sa mga Taong Limitado ang Kaalaman sa English: Kung nahihirapan kayong
makaintindi ng English, maaari kayong humingi ng tulong ukol dito sa inpormasyon ng
Kagawaran mula sa nagbibigay ng serbisyo na pagtulong kaugnay ng wika. Ang serbisyo na
pagtulong kaugnay ng wika ay libre. Kung kailangan ninyo ng dagdag na impormasyon tungkol
sa mga serbisyo kaugnay ng pagpapaliwanag o pagsasalin, mangyari lamang tumawag sa 1-800-
USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-877-8339), o mag-email sa:
Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov.
Уведомление для лиц с ограниченным знанием английского языка: Если вы
испытываете трудности в понимании английского языка, вы можете попросить, чтобы вам
предоставили перевод информации, которую Министерство Образования доводит до
всеобщего сведения. Этот перевод предоставляется бесплатно. Если вы хотите получить
более подробную информацию об услугах устного и письменного перевода, звоните по
телефону 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (служба для слабослышащих: 1-800-877-
8339), или отправьте сообщение по адресу: Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov.
Dual Language Education Programs: Current
State Policies and Practices
December 2015
Prepared for:
Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA)
Office of State Support (OSS)
U.S. Department of Education
Prepared by:
Andrea Boyle
Diane August
Lisa Tabaku
Susan Cole
Ashley Simpson-Baird
American Institutes for Research
Washington, DC 20007
Contents iv Dual Language Programming and Policies
Contents
Contents ........................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Exhibits ............................................................................................................................. vi
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... vii
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... viii
Focus of This Report .......................................................................................................... ix
Key Findings ....................................................................................................................... x
I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1
Focus of This Report ........................................................................................................... 9
Overview of Analytic Approach and Data Sources ............................................................ 9
Considerations................................................................................................................... 17
Organization of This Report ............................................................................................. 18
II. Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance ..................... 19
Types of Dual Language Programs ................................................................................... 20
Characteristics of Dual Language Education Programs ................................................... 24
Prevalence of Dual Language Education Programs.......................................................... 30
State Definitions of Dual Language Programs ................................................................. 31
State Guidance on Dual Language Program Features ...................................................... 37
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 43
III. Student Eligibility for and Placement Into Dual Language Programs ...................... 44
Identifying Students as English Learners or English Proficient Students ........................ 44
Reclassifying Students as English Proficient .................................................................... 48
State Policies on Student Placement in Dual Language Programs ................................... 50
Recruiting and Retaining Students in Dual Language Programs...................................... 51
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 54
IV. Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices ..................................... 55
English Language Proficiency Standards and Assessments ............................................. 56
Partner Language Proficiency Standards and Assessments .............................................. 60
Academic Content Standards and Assessments ................................................................ 63
ESEA Accountability Requirements ................................................................................. 68
Program Evaluation Practices ........................................................................................... 69
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 71
V. Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development ............................................... 72
Qualifications of Dual Language Program Teachers ........................................................ 73
Building the Supply of Qualified Teachers ...................................................................... 78
Professional Development for Teachers in Dual Language Programs ............................. 80
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 84
Contents v Dual Language Programming and Policies
VI. State Support for Dual Language and Bilingual Programming ................................. 85
State Policies Toward Bilingual Programming................................................................. 86
Funding for Dual Language Programs .............................................................................. 90
State Technical Assistance and Support for Dual Language Programming ..................... 95
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 96
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 97
Benefits to Students and Society....................................................................................... 97
Terminology ...................................................................................................................... 97
Program Development and Sustainability Challenges ...................................................... 98
Addressing the Challenges: State Support for Dual Language Programs ........................ 98
The Need for Further Research ......................................................................................... 99
References .................................................................................................................................. 100
Appendix A. Index of Studies With a Primary Focus on Dual Language Policies and
Programming................................................................................................................. 111
Appendix B. Overview of Extant Data Sources Relevant to the Guiding Questions .......... 124
Appendix C. Sample Data Capture Matrix for State Policy Scan ....................................... 125
List of Exhibits vi Dual Language Programming and Policies
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1.1. Study’s Guiding Questions ..........................................................................................3
Exhibit 1.2. Excerpt From Excel-Based Data Capture Form for State Website Review
Protocol Question Q21a ............................................................................................14
Exhibit 1.3. Characteristics of Case Study States ..........................................................................15
Exhibit 2.1. Overview of the Key Attributes of Dual Language Education Programs, by
Program Type ...........................................................................................................24
Exhibit 2.2. Number of States That Reported Offering Dual Language Education
Programs in a Particular Partner Language, 2012–13 ..............................................31
Exhibit 2.3. Program Terms and Characteristics Featured in States’ Definitions of Two-
Way Dual Language Programs .................................................................................33
Exhibit 2.4. Terminology and Program Characteristics Included in States’ Definitions of
One-Way Dual Language Programs Predominantly Serving Language
Minority Students .....................................................................................................36
Exhibit 2.5. Types of Guidance That States Have Issued on the Ratio of English-
Speaking Students to Partner-Language-Speaking Students in Two-Way
Dual Language Programs..........................................................................................38
Exhibit 3.1. State Policies on English Language Proficiency Assessments for
EL Identification .......................................................................................................46
Exhibit 3.2. Types of Criteria Featured in States’ Guidance on EL Exit Decisions ......................49
Exhibit 3.3. States That Offered or Were Considering Offering a State Seal of Biliteracy
in Spring 2015 ...........................................................................................................53
Exhibit 4.1. State English Language Arts Standards, English Language Proficiency
Standards, and English Language Proficiency Assessments, as of
Spring 2015 ...............................................................................................................58
Exhibit 4.2. Number of States That Reported Offering Title I Content Assessments in
Spanish, 2012–13 ......................................................................................................67
Exhibit 5.1. States That Offered Teaching Certificates in English as a Second Language
(ESL) and Bilingual Education, 2009–10 .................................................................75
Exhibit 5.2. What to Look for When Hiring Dual Language Immersion Teachers: Five
Discriminating Characteristics of Effective DLI Teachers.......................................78
Exhibit 5.3. Strategies Used by Case Study States to Build the Supply of Teachers
Qualified to Teach in Dual Language Programs ......................................................80
Exhibit 5.4. Number of States That Provide Professional Development for Dual
Language Program Teachers in Particular Formats ..................................................83
Acknowledgments vii Dual Language Programming and Policies
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank several individuals who contributed to the completion of this report.
Researchers who provided useful assistance for this report include Donna Christian of the Center
for Applied Linguistics and Teddi Predaris, Diane Staehr Fenner, Becky Miskell, and Maria
Konkel of DSF Consulting. The authors also appreciate the thoughtful reviewer comments from
Kerstin Carlson Le Floch of AIR. We also would like to thank the state officials who took time
out of their busy schedules to participate in interviews for this study.
Although we are grateful for the assistance and support of all of the above individuals, any errors
in judgment or fact are, of course, the responsibility of the authors.
Executive Summary viii Dual Language Programming and Policies
Executive Summary
This report presents an analysis of relevant research and extant data related to dual language
education policies and practices. Dual language education programs are a type of bilingual
education
1
program in which students are taught literacy and academic content in English and a
partner language. Dual language programs aim to help students develop high levels of language
proficiency and literacy in both program languages, attain high levels of academic achievement,
and develop an appreciation and understanding of multiple cultures. Recent research suggests
that the approach provides more opportunities for English learners (ELs) to reach higher levels of
academic achievement than other types of programs (Valentino & Reardon, 2015; Gómez, 2013;
Lindholm-Leary & Block, 2010; Marian, Shook, & Schroeder, 2013).
Dual language programs vary in structure, implementation, and enrolled student populations. The
main models include:
• Two-way dual language programs (also known as two-way immersion programs), in
which ELs who are fluent in the partner language and English-speaking peers are
integrated to receive instruction in both English and the partner language.
• One-way dual language programs, in which students from predominantly one language
group receive instruction in both English and a partner language. One-way dual language
programs may serve predominantly ELs (also known as developmental or maintenance
bilingual programs); predominantly English-speaking students (also known as one-
way/world language
2
immersion programs); or predominantly students with a family
background or cultural connection to the partner language (also known as heritage or
native language programs).
Dual language education promises to give students access to key 21st century skills—namely
bilingualism, biliteracy, and global awareness—and because of the expected benefits for ELs, an
increasing number of schools are adopting this model. Dual language programs operate in a
variety of policy contexts in schools around the country, which implement the model in diverse
ways. Given the professed benefits and growing use of dual language education programs, it is
important to understand the current status of dual language education in states and schools
around the country to inform policymaking at the federal, state, and local levels.
1
For the purposes of this report, we use the term “bilingual education” to refer to education programs that feature
instruction in both English and a partner language. Such programs include (1) dual language education programs
that have the goal of developing students’ proficiency in the partner language and (2) transitional bilingual education
programs that use the partner language as a scaffold for promoting English proficiency and academic achievement.
2
Sometimes referred to as “foreign language.”
Executive Summary ix Dual Language Programming and Policies
Focus of This Report
The study examines policies and practices related to dual language education programs as of
spring 2015. It draws on multiple data sources, including reviews of studies and research
summaries on dual language programs published within the last 10 years (since 2004), national
extant data sets, state education agency (SEA) websites for all 50 states and the District of
Columbia, and information gathered from interviews with officials in six case study states. The
six case study states were selected for geographic diversity and to include states with policies
that promote the use of dual language programs (Delaware, North Carolina, and Utah); states
with policies that promote the use of bilingual education programs more broadly (Illinois and
New Mexico);
3
and states with large EL populations and policies that constrain the use of
bilingual education programs (Massachusetts).
4
The first chapter of this report describes the historical and federal policy context for dual
language programming and the data collection methods used to generate this report. Chapters II
through VI then report on data collection and analysis for the following areas related to dual
language programs:
• Chapter II: Key features and components of dual language programs, including state-
issued definitions, requirements, and guidance
• Chapter III: State-level and district-level eligibility and EL reclassification criteria
• Chapter IV: Standards, assessment, and accountability policies and practices
• Chapter V: Teacher qualifications, including certification requirements and professional
development for educators
• Chapter VI: State support available for dual language programs, including funding and
technical assistance
The report concludes by briefly describing benefits associated with dual language programming;
terminology, development, and sustainability challenges; state support for addressing these
challenges; and areas for future research.
3
States with policies that promote the use of bilingual education programs include states that require districts to
implement bilingual education programs when they serve a minimum number of ELs from the same language group
(e.g., Illinois) and states that have designated funding streams to support bilingual education programs (e.g., New
Mexico).
4
States with policies that constrain the use of bilingual education include states that limit the conditions under which
districts or schools can provide some or all forms of bilingual education to ELs (typically by requiring parents of
ELs to sign a consent form or waiver to allow their participation in a bilingual education program). See Chapter VI
for more information about states that promote or constrain the use of bilingual education.
Executive Summary x Dual Language Programming and Policies
Key Findings
State Policies and Guidance on Dual Language Education
Dual language programs vary in structure and implementation. The proportions of instructional
time devoted to English and the partner language differ, but, in general, a minimum of 50 percent
of instruction takes place in the partner language through the elementary school grades.
Programs generally commence at the beginning of elementary school and continue throughout
elementary school, with some programs extending through secondary education. They can be
implemented as “whole-school” programs (in which all students in a school participate) or
“strand” programs (with one or more classes at every grade level in the dual language program,
while other classes follow a different model). Two-way programs serve both ELs and non-ELs
by integrating ELs from a common language background (e.g., Spanish, Mandarin Chinese) with
English-speaking students in the same program for academic instruction in both languages. One-
way dual language programs enroll students who are predominantly from the same language
background and receive instruction in English and their native language.
A majority of states in the United States reported that, during the 2012–13 school
year, districts in their state were implementing at least one dual language program,
with Spanish and Chinese the most commonly reported partner languages.
In their 2012–13 Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs), 39 states and the District of
Columbia indicated that districts receiving federal Title III funding implemented at least one dual
language program that year. In total, these programs featured more than 30 different partner
languages. States most frequently reported dual language programs with Spanish (35 states and
the District of Columbia), Chinese (14 states), Native American languages (12 states), and
French (seven states and the District of Columbia) as the partner languages.
States’ definitions of dual language programs reflect the inconsistent use of
multiple program terms in the dual language education field. Few states prescribe a
particular model, leaving program design decisions to the local level.
Examining states’ definitions of dual language programs is challenging because states vary
considerably in how they apply the terminology associated with these programs. Although most
states provide definitions or guidance for at least one type of dual language program, relatively
few states have explicit requirements or expectations regarding particular program features. For
example, only two states have set requirements for the ratio of English-speaking students to
partner-language-speaking students in two-way dual language programs. Seven states have
established expectations regarding the allocation of instructional time in English and the partner
language, and four states suggest specific course-taking pathways for offering dual language
programs at the secondary level. For the most part, however, states leave program design
decisions to district and school stakeholders, although some states provide information and
guidelines about program components to help inform local decision making. A few states—in
particular, Delaware, Georgia, Utah, North Carolina, and New Mexico—have articulated specific
state models or expectations for program design.
Executive Summary xi Dual Language Programming and Policies
Student Eligibility for and Placement Into Dual Language Programs
State policies and practices play a role in determining students’ eligibility for and placement into
dual language programs, including their procedures for classifying students as ELs or English
proficient. Some states give specific guidance regarding students’ placement into dual language
programs. Furthermore, states may help districts recruit and retain students in dual language
programs through outreach activities or incentives that promote bilingualism.
All 46 states and the District of Columbia with publicly available information about
their EL identification process require or recommend that districts administer a
home language survey to identify students with a language background other than
English, followed by an English proficiency assessment to determine whether such
students are ELs. However, the specific criteria for EL classification vary across
(and, in some cases, within) states.
A home language survey is administered when students first enroll in order to collect information
about the use of a language other than English in their homes. If the survey indicates that a
student has a home language background in a language other than English, the student undergoes
an assessment to determine his or her level of English proficiency. Twenty-eight states and the
District of Columbia (all members of the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment, or
WIDA, Consortium) require that districts use a WIDA-developed screening test for EL
identification, but states vary in the cut scores they have established for determining whether a
student is English proficient. Ten states allow districts to select the English language proficiency
(ELP) assessment they use for EL identification purposes, but most of those states (seven) limit
this selection to a state-approved list. Ten states allow other factors to be considered in the EL
identification process, such as content assessment scores, teacher referrals, interviews with
family members, and prior academic records. Four states require or encourage districts to assess
students’ native language proficiency as part of their EL identification and placement process.
For reclassifying ELs as English proficient, among the 40 states and District of
Columbia with publicly available information, 20 states and the District of Columbia
require EL reclassification decisions to be based solely on students’ performance
on the state ELP assessment. The remaining 20 states allow districts to consider
additional criteria when making such decisions.
In dual language programs, unlike other types of language instruction educational programs for
ELs, students remain in the program even after they are reclassified as English proficient.
However, students’ change in EL status may nonetheless have important implications for the
programs. For example, students who exit EL status are no longer required (under federal law) to
participate in the state’s annual ELP assessment. In addition, many state and district data systems
lack the capacity to track former ELs once their two-year monitoring period has ended, which
means that the state or district may not be able to follow former ELs’ long-term growth as part of
dual language program evaluation efforts. Students’ change in EL status also can affect the
amount of funding available to support dual language programs.
Executive Summary xii Dual Language Programming and Policies
Five states provide guidance on student eligibility for dual language programs: Two
states require dual language programs to be open to students with varying
backgrounds and ability levels; three states provide information on enrolling
students after Grade 1 or 2; and two states require parents of ELs to submit annual
written consent for their child to participate.
In most states, decisions regarding ELs’ placement into particular types of instructional programs
rest with the local districts (unlike identification and reclassification), including participation in
dual language programs. As a result of other state policies on bilingual programs in general,
Arizona and California mandate that parents of ELs sign annual waivers consenting to their
child’s placement in a dual language program.
State efforts to help recruit and retain students in dual language programs include
providing outreach materials and support to inform parents and students about dual
language programs (six states), offering a state Seal of Biliteracy to recognize high
school graduates who attain proficiency in two languages (11 states and the District
of Columbia), and creating opportunities for students to earn university course
credit in high school (two states).
Delaware, for example, has developed parent outreach documents and slide presentations in both
English and Spanish that provide an overview of the key features and benefits of dual language
programs. Incentives that encourage students and families to participate in dual language
programs include the availability of a Seal of Biliteracy (in California, this is a gold insignia on
the diploma, which is awarded to high school graduates who demonstrate that they have attained
a high level of proficiency in English and at least one other language), and the possibility of
earning college world language course credits in high school.
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices
Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires that states adopt ELP
standards and ELP assessments to measure student progress in acquiring proficiency in English.
States also may choose to establish partner language proficiency standards and/or assessments to
guide and measure acquisition of the partner language. The presence of standards and
assessments in both English and the partner language underscores the value of learning both
languages and emphasizes the goal of additive bilingualism in dual language programs.
As of spring 2015, most states use ELP standards developed by one of two
multistate consortia: the WIDA English Language Development Standards (36 states
and the District of Columbia) or the ELPA21 English Language Proficiency
Standards (nine states).
Executive Summary xiii Dual Language Programming and Policies
As states have transitioned to college- and career-ready content standards such as the Common
Core, they have had to ensure that they have ELP standards in place that correspond to the
language demands of those content standards. The intent of the WIDA Consortium’s 2012
amplification of its 2007 ELP standards was to ensure that the standards address the language
demands presented by the Common Core,
5
Next Generation Science Standards, and other
college- and career-ready content standards. The more recently established English Language
Proficiency Assessment for the 21st Century (ELPA21) consortium similarly developed ELP
standards that address the language demands students need to meet college- and career-ready
standards in English language arts, mathematics, and science. The seven states that are not part
of WIDA or ELPA21 use their own state-developed ELP standards.
As of spring 2015, ELP assessments in use include WIDA ACCESS for ELLs® (34
states and the District of Columbia); English Language Development Assessment
(ELDA; three states); and state-specific ELP assessments (13 states).
Under Title III, states must use ELP assessment results to hold Title III-funded districts
accountable for achieving state-determined Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives
(AMAOs), which include performance goals for the number/percentage of ELs making progress
toward learning English and attaining proficiency in English. In setting those goals, states must
define expectations for the amount of growth ELs should demonstrate on the ELP assessment
from one year to the next, as well as the cut score(s) ELs must achieve on the ELP assessment to
be considered proficient in English.
Of the 33 states with publicly available information, 15 states and the District of
Columbia define expectations for students’ progress in learning English as an
increase in their overall score or a move from one level or band to the next on the
state ELP assessment. Attainment of proficiency in English is defined by 29 states
and the District of Columbia in terms of achieving a particular overall composite
score on the state ELP assessment; 15 states require specific domain scores in
addition to an overall composite score level.
Although many states define progress in learning English as an increase in the score on the state
ELP assessment, the size of the increase needed to demonstrate progress (as measured in point
values) varies considerably across states. For example, among states that use the WIDA
ACCESS for ELP assessment, states’ annual growth expectations range from 0.2 points to 1
point. Another 14 states define their annual growth expectations in terms of moving from one
English proficiency level or performance band to the next on the state ELP assessment. A similar
observation holds for definitions of attaining proficiency in English. Many states require an
overall composite score on the state ELP assessment to qualify a student as having attained
5
The development of college- and career-ready academic content standards, such as the Common Core State
Standards, was led by state school chiefs and governors beginning in 2008. The state-led effort included governors
and state commissioners of education from 48 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia. Standards
development was informed by the best state standards already in existence and the experience of teachers, school
administrators, content experts, state leaders, and the public. In addition to the development of standards, the
implementation of standards—including how the standards are taught, the curriculum developed as aligned to those
standards, and the materials used to support teachers as they help students reach the standards—is led entirely at the
state and local levels.
Executive Summary xiv Dual Language Programming and Policies
English proficiency. However, these minimum scores vary, even across states that use the same
assessment. Moreover, 15 of the states with publicly available information use a “conjunctive
minimum” approach to measure students’ attainment of English proficiency, whereby students
must achieve a specific overall composite score combined with minimum scores in particular
domains (i.e., listening, speaking, reading, writing).
Most states (42 states and the District of Columbia) have adopted world language
proficiency standards; at least three of these states have used these standards to
set grade-level partner language proficiency expectations for students in dual
language programs. Five states require dual language programs to regularly assess
students’ partner language skills.
Although not required under federal law, states may adopt or recommend language proficiency
standards and assessments for students’ acquisition of languages other than English. This applies
to English speakers’ second language and ELs’ native language in two-way and one-way dual
language programs. In 2011, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
(ACTFL) found through a survey of state officials and reviews of SEA websites that 42 states
had adopted world language proficiency standards (Phillips & Abbott, 2011). Of the 14 states
and the District of Columbia that provided information about their world language proficiency
standards on their websites in spring 2015, three states (North Carolina, Ohio, and Utah) have
used the ACTFL proficiency scales to set grade-level or grade-span language proficiency targets
specific to K–12 dual language programs. Illinois uses Spanish language development standards
developed by WIDA to guide Spanish language instruction and assessment for dual language and
other bilingual education programs.
Among the 16 states with information about partner language proficiency assessment policies on
their SEA website, five states (Delaware, Kentucky, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah) require
state-funded dual language programs to assess students’ progress toward developing partner
language proficiency at least annually. The remaining 11 states with such information on their
websites do not require districts or dual language programs to implement a particular assessment,
but they do recommend or provide access to partner language assessment tools.
As of spring 2015, five states have posted information on their websites about
statewide partner language arts standards.
Dual language programs use the same academic content standards as other instructional
programs and must measure student achievement related to those standards on annual content
assessments. On their SEA websites, eight states specify that content instruction in dual language
programs must align with the state content standards in reading/language arts, mathematics, and
other content areas. Typically, monitoring whether dual language programs—and other programs
that serve ELs—are implementing the state content standards occurs as part of a state process to
ensure that districts are complying with requirements of state and/or federal funding programs.
Although five states (California, Illinois, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin) have developed
standards for language arts in the partner language to guide instruction and assessment, two
states (California and Texas) have developed Spanish language versions of state standards in
content areas other than language arts. Some state officials expressed a general concern about the
availability of instructional materials in partner languages that align with state content standards,
Executive Summary xv Dual Language Programming and Policies
particularly for languages other than Spanish. Several states have taken steps to assist dual
language programs in that area.
In 2012–13, 10 states reported allowing ELs to take at least one content assessment
in a language other than English for ESEA accountability purposes.
Content assessment in dual language programs is a complicated issue because there are two
languages of instruction. Federal and state policies on assessing ELs must be applied while those
students have EL status to ensure that ELs meet annual state performance goals on academic
content assessments. Officials from two of the six case study states mentioned challenges
associated with using content assessment data for ELs tested in English in ESEA accountability
or educator evaluation systems, particularly relating to concerns that the scores may
underestimate student learning. Moreover, case study research on the use of dual language
programs also has indicated that Title I and Title III requirements that schools demonstrate that
ELs make adequate progress and meet the same content standards required of native English-
speaking students have caused some communities to rethink implementation of dual language
programs and consider implementing an English-only approach (Wright & Choi, 2006; Gandara
& Rumberger, 2009; Warhol & Mayer, 2012; Lindholm-Leary, 2012; Menken & Solorza, 2012).
Four of the six case study states were planning or had implemented program
evaluation efforts related to dual language or bilingual education programs.
Although all states use content and ELP assessment data to monitor whether schools with dual
language programs meet the state’s performance goals under Title I and Title III, states also may
conduct more focused evaluations to assess the implementation and outcomes of dual language
programs, often submitting reports to their state legislatures. In some cases, these evaluations are
part of a regular review of programs for ELs in the state.
Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development
Teachers in dual language education are expected to possess the credentials and core
competencies needed by all teachers for their grade level and/or subject matter focus, but to be
effective in the dual language setting, they need additional knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Key
competencies include a high level of proficiency in the languages in which they teach, an
understanding of sheltered instruction
6
and second language development, and skill in supporting
second language learners in the content areas (mathematics, science, social studies, and so on).
6
Sheltered instruction refers to specialized instructional techniques that teachers use to accommodate the linguistic
needs of students who are not proficient in the language of instruction. It generally refers to instruction that is
focused on teaching academic content, although sheltered instruction also may aim to support students’ acquisition
of the language of instruction (Faulkner-Bond et al., 2012).
Executive Summary xvi Dual Language Programming and Policies
Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia issue teaching certificates in the
area of bilingual education.
According to data collected by the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality
(NCCTQ) in 2009–10, 25 states and the District of Columbia have established certification
requirements for a teaching certificate in bilingual education (NCCTQ, 2009). Examples of
requirements include competence in areas such as English; the partner language; cultural
diversity; the historical, philosophical, legal, and theoretical underpinnings of bilingual
education; second language acquisition; instructional methods; linguistics; and assessment.
One state has developed credentials specifically for teachers in dual language
programs, and another state is currently developing credentials. At least seven
states require dual language program teachers to hold a bilingual certificate or
endorsement.
According to its SEA website, Utah has developed credentials specifically for teachers in dual
language programs, and an interviewed state official from North Carolina indicated that the state
was currently developing these credentials. Utah has partnered with universities in the state to
develop world language and dual language immersion (DLI) endorsements in the language of
instruction, which teachers must acquire in addition to their state teaching certificate to teach in
both one-way and two-way dual language programs.
Most states (36 and the District of Columbia) require teachers who provide
instruction in English to ELs in Title III-funded programs to demonstrate their
English fluency through the certification or licensure process and/or an English
language assessment. Nineteen states require teachers who provide instruction in a
language other than English in such programs to demonstrate their fluency in that
language through a specific language fluency assessment.
According to data collected in 2009–10 as part of the National Evaluation of Title III
implementation, all 50 states and the District of Columbia require teachers who provide
instruction in English to demonstrate their English fluency (Tanenbaum et al., 2012). Most states
require evidence of English fluency through certification, licensure, and/or a specific assessment.
However, some states rely on local assurances from school districts that teachers are fluent in
English. For example, Massachusetts requires superintendents of Title III-funded districts to
submit annual written assurances certifying that they will ensure all language instruction
educational program (LIEP) teachers who provide instruction in English are fluent in English.
With regard to the partner language, the National Evaluation of Title III Implementation found
that, as of the 2009–10 school year, 39 states required teachers to demonstrate fluency in
languages other than English, through university certification or a licensure process, a language
assessment, or assurances from local districts.
Executive Summary xvii Dual Language Programming and Policies
Officials from all six case study states identified a shortage of qualified teachers as
a barrier to implementing dual language programs. Five case study states have
taken steps to build the supply of teachers qualified to teach in dual language
programs.
A growing number of programs around the country and a scarcity of teachers with the necessary
language skills have led to a shortage of qualified dual language teachers. A report issued by the
U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education (2015) indicates that 16
states identified bilingual education as a teacher shortage area for the 2015–16 school year.
States have pursued a variety of strategies to expand the supply of dual language teachers,
including creating alternative certification pathways, establishing partnerships with other
countries to identify teachers with appropriate partner language skills, increasing recruitment
efforts, forming partnerships with teacher preparation programs, and providing financial
incentives for teachers.
Two states require teachers in dual language programs to participate in professional
development. States offer professional development through workshops,
conferences, summer institutes, and online courses. Some states provide
professional development to school leaders to develop their expertise and ability to
support dual language programs.
Ongoing, high-quality professional development for dual language program staff is an important
tool for meeting the specific challenges of program implementation. Among the 11 states with
information available on the professional development offered or recommended to teachers in
dual language programs, three states indicated that this professional development is required.
Nine states provide workshops or conferences that cover dual language education topics. Six
states sponsor, require, or encourage teachers to attend summer institutes specifically designed
for dual language program teachers. Four states conduct webinars or online professional
development courses on topics related to dual language programs. Several states provide
professional development on dual language programs to principals to help them support the
programs and appropriately evaluate teachers.
State Support for Dual Language and Bilingual Programming
The development, implementation, and sustainability of dual language programs depend heavily
on the policy environment in which they function. The range of allowable program types,
support mechanisms, and funding are generally defined for schools and districts at the state level.
For dual language programs that serve ELs, state policies related to EL education, particularly
bilingual education, are an important part of the context in which they operate.
Executive Summary xviii Dual Language Programming and Policies
Seven states have formulated specific goals or value statements supporting dual
language programs or bilingual education more generally. Five states have laws that
require districts to offer bilingual education programs when they serve a minimum
number of ELs with the same language background. In contrast, four states have
laws constraining the use of bilingual education for ELs by requiring consent or
waivers.
States have a range of policies related to dual language and bilingual education. According to
their websites, seven states (Delaware, Georgia, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island,
Utah, and Washington) have developed explicit goals or value statements promoting the use of
dual language or bilingual education programs. Among these, Delaware, Georgia, and Utah have
established initiatives specifically focused on dual language education. Five states (Connecticut,
Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas) mandate that districts provide bilingual education if
they have 20 or more ELs in the same grade level from the same language background, and
schools can implement dual language programs to meet this requirement. Four states have
explicit laws constraining the use of bilingual education for ELs. In Arizona and California, ELs
may only participate in a bilingual education program if prior written, informed consent is given
annually by the child’s parents or legal guardian. Massachusetts law restricts bilingual education
in a similar manner, although an exception exists for two-way dual language and world language
programs. New Hampshire state law requires English-only instruction for all students, although
bilingual programs are permitted with prior approval from the state board and local school
district.
Six states have recently offered funding opportunities specifically for dual language
programs. In 2014–15, most states (46) provided additional funding for ELs, which
could be used to support dual language programs that serve ELs.
Funding that supports dual language programs is occasionally targeted for these programs, but,
more often, funding is based on the students served rather than the program type. According to
their websites, six states (Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, and Utah) offer funds
that specifically support the development of dual language programs. Dual language programs
that serve ELs generally have access to supports dedicated to those students. Three states
(Connecticut, Michigan, and New Mexico) offer funding specifically for bilingual education
programs, including dual language programs. Moreover, the Education Commission of the States
(ECS) found that, in 2014–15, 46 states made state funds available to districts and/or schools that
serve ELs through formula funding (34 states), categorical funding (nine states), or
reimbursement (three states) (Millard, 2015).
Officials from four of the six case study states identified challenges associated with
funding for dual language programs.
Representatives from Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and North Carolina reported
challenges associated with insufficient funding for dual language programs. The New Mexico
spokesperson also noted a lack of comprehensive understanding at the local level with regard
to appropriate uses of state bilingual education funding. The Illinois representative pointed out
the difficulties inherent in fully funding dual language programs that include non-ELs, given
that for non-ELs, schools do not receive the alternative language program funding that they
receive for ELs.
Executive Summary xix Dual Language Programming and Policies
Officials from five of the six case study states reported that the state provides
technical assistance to districts and schools in implementing dual language
programs. However, officials in four of the six case study states also noted that
state capacity issues limit the SEA’s ability to support dual language programs.
The states chiefly provide technical support by supplying information to school leaders and
teachers who work in dual language schools (through technical assistance meetings, contracts
with external technical assistance providers, state field agents, and online communication). Four
of the case study states offer networking opportunities to facilitate collaboration among
administrators and/or teachers in the state who are implementing dual language programs. At the
same time, these states reported capacity concerns that make it difficult to support dual language
programs, creating a need for additional state-level expertise and/or personnel. In Illinois, state
contracts with external consultants and organizations improve the state’s capacity to support dual
language and bilingual education in the state.
Conclusion
Interest in dual language education is increasing as the desire to provide students with
opportunities to gain proficiency in languages other than English grows, and as research
evidence points to specific benefits of dual language approaches for educating ELs (Valentino &
Reardon, 2015; Gómez, 2013; Lindholm-Leary & Block, 2010; Marian, Shook, & Schroeder,
2013).
Examining states’ dual language programming and policies is challenging because
states vary considerably in how they name their programs.
Greater standardization of terminology for program types would allow the field to conduct
research and communicate about experience more efficiently and with less confusion. We
suggest the field use the term “dual language” to refer to programs in which instruction is
provided in two languages, with the goal of promoting proficiency in both. We suggest using the
term “two-way” to describe dual language programs in which roughly equal numbers of students
from two languages groups (e.g., English speakers and partner language speakers) participate,
with the goal of both groups learning both languages. We suggest that the term “one-way” be
used for programs in which predominantly one language group (e.g., language minority students,
native English speakers, students with a family background or cultural connection to the partner
language) participates with the goal of learning two languages.
States, districts, and schools face a variety of challenges when developing,
implementing, and sustaining dual language programs.
One of the greatest challenges is finding qualified teachers to teach in dual language programs.
There also are some additional costs not incurred by other instructional programs (particularly
during the start-up phase) for items such as curriculum planning. Textbooks and other materials
in the partner language also add costs to dual language programs and may be difficult to find.
Some support may come from state and federal funding for the education of ELs, but that
funding is not available for English proficient students or former ELs who have been
reclassified.
Executive Summary xx Dual Language Programming and Policies
To help address some of the challenges faced by districts and schools as they
implement dual language programs, some states are providing support for dual
language programs.
To increase the supply of teachers proficient in the languages of instruction, states are
establishing alternative certification pathways, as well as partnerships with other countries, to
help recruit highly qualified teachers. Some states offer professional development designed for
dual language program teachers and support the development of curricula and materials,
particularly in the partner language. States also are creating incentives for students, such as the
Seal of Biliteracy for high school diplomas.
The growing number of dual language programs has created a need for more high-
quality, research-based information to guide states, districts, schools, and families.
It would be useful to survey the states (once the various program types have been accurately
named and described) to determine, among other things, the actual number and types of
programs in existence, and to collect demographic information about the populations enrolled in
these schools. Research on topics such as student learning trajectories and the influence of
student background, as well as classroom- and program-level factors, also is needed to better
understand how dual language programs can achieve their goals.
Introduction 1 Dual Language Programming and Policies
I. Introduction
Overview
In our globally connected and competitive world, all students need an educational experience
that prepares them to become effective global citizens, equipped for success in college, career,
and civic participation. Although this educational experience includes the development of a
broad range of knowledge and skills across subject areas, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills
has identified the development of bilingualism, biliteracy, and global awareness as particularly
important:
Global awareness is a new essential in the global economy. Americans need a secure
understanding of global issues that affect them as citizens and workers. They need to be
able to learn from and work collaboratively with people from a range of diverse cultures
and lifestyles. They need to be able to communicate in languages other than English
(Kay, 2010, p. xxii).
Numerous education and policy groups have echoed this theme, including the Large Countywide
and Suburban District Consortium, a network of 17 large school districts around the country that
collaborate on college and career preparation for all students through sharing effective
educational policies and practices. In a recent report, the Consortium argues that college and
career readiness goals for all students in public education in the 21st century should include
“ability and fluency in more than one language” (Large Countywide and Suburban District
Consortium, 2014, p. 5). Families, businesses, and policy-makers increasingly place language,
communication, and cross-cultural skills among the desired outcomes of education.
For individuals in this country, bilingualism in English and another language can contribute to
greater professional success, as well as increased earning power. In a recent study on the effects
of bilingualism in the workforce (involving more than 6,000 young adults), Rumbaut (2014)
found that bilingualism raised individuals’ occupational status and increased their earnings. As
the level of bilingualism increased, the advantages also increased. Another investigation of
nearly 300 Californian businesses found that more than two thirds of employers preferred
bilingual employees if their skills were comparable to those of monolingual employees (Porras,
Ee, & Gandara, 2014).
Bilingualism also is associated with a variety of cognitive benefits. For example, executive
function skills (i.e., cognitive processes involved in planning and carrying out actions) appear to
be enhanced in students who are becoming bilingual (Esposito & Baker-Ward, 2013; see reviews
of the research for young children in Ball, 2010; Espinosa, 2013; Sandhofer & Uchikoshi, 2013;
and Barac, Bialystok, Castro, & Sanchez, 2014.) Research also shows that ELs can benefit from
continuing to learn in their native language, both academically and cognitively (Lindholm-Leary
& Genesee, 2014). Oral proficiency and literacy in a student’s first language, for example, can
facilitate English literacy development (August & Shanahan, 2006; Moughamian, Rivera, &
Francis, 2009; Wu, 2005). ELs also can develop high levels of academic proficiency in their
native language (while mastering English as well), giving them the asset of bilingualism.
Looking ahead to high school graduation rates, Rumbaut’s (2014) study found that bilingualism
Introduction 2 Dual Language Programming and Policies
was associated with a lower likelihood of dropping out of school among adult children of
immigrants.
Bilingualism is an asset not only to individuals, but also to the countries they live in. As U.S.
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and Assistant Deputy Secretary Libia Gil have observed, it
is important to maximize the resources students bring with them when they come to school,
including their home language skills:
In our country, we have a valuable yet untapped resource within the estimated 4.6 million
students learning English—the fastest growing student population in our schools. These
students come to school already speaking a variety of home languages, most commonly
Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabic or Hmong. These languages are significant not
only to our economic competitiveness but also to our nation’s security. The heritage
languages our English learners bring to school are major assets to preserve and value
(Duncan & Gil, 2014).
As Duncan and Gil note, there are already many students in the United States from language
backgrounds other than English, and their numbers are growing. According to U.S. Department
of Education statistics for 2012–13, for example, the number of students classified as English
learners (ELs) is approaching five million, which represents 4.2 percent growth since 2007–08.
7
Although a large majority of ELs come from Spanish-speaking homes, many other languages
also are represented, including Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabic, Hmong, Bengali, Korean, Navajo,
Nepali, Portuguese, and Somali, to mention just a few. For these students, as well as for native
English speakers, it is important to provide opportunities to gain critical 21st century language
and cultural skills by creating clear and accessible paths to bilingualism and biliteracy in our
schools, while simultaneously improving educational outcomes.
Given the advantages of bilingualism and biliteracy for individuals and society, as well as the
increasing numbers of U.S. students who come from homes where a language other than English
is spoken, how can educators and families help more students gain these benefits?
Study Overview and Guiding Questions
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) holds states accountable for closing
achievement gaps and ensuring that ELs meet the same challenging academic content and
student achievement standards that all students are expected to meet.
In September 2013, the U.S. Department of Education issued a Request for Information (RFI)
asking respondents to comment on the evaluation and research needs of the Title III and EL
community, which included, but was not limited to, administrators, teachers, teacher trainers,
researchers and evaluators, families, and other members of the EL community. The Department
used the data gathered from the RFI submissions and information gathered from national
listening forums and conversations to develop an evaluation and research agenda to address the
needs of ELs. As a result of these information-seeking activities, a range of questions regarding
7
Based on an analysis of data collected through states’ Consolidated State Performance Reports and published
through ED Data Express ((http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-elements.cfm/sgid/108/).
Introduction 3 Dual Language Programming and Policies
dual language education were identified as one of the top priority areas in need of more research,
guidance, and technical assistance.
According to the Center for Applied Linguistics, in dual language education programs, students
are taught literacy and academic content in English and a partner language (Center for Applied
Linguistics, n.d.). Dual-language programs aim to help students develop high levels of language
proficiency and literacy in both program languages, attain high levels of academic achievement,
and develop an appreciation and understanding of another culture.
The purpose of this study is to summarize research and extant data on policies and practices
related to dual language programs to answer a set of guiding questions generated by the RFI
submission, national listening forums, and conversations (see Exhibit 1.1). This study is
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of English Language Acquisition
(OELA) and Office of State Support (OSS). The Department requested the study in order to
obtain information to describe the current state of dual language education programs, set
priorities for future grant competitions, and refine research questions that may be informed by
the review.
Exhibit 1.1. Study’s Guiding Questions
Guiding Questions
1. State Policies on Dual Language Education Programs
What are the similarities and differences of dual language programs across states and within states?
(Chapter II)
Do states have definitions for dual language education programs? If so, what range of
characteristics do these definitions include? (Chapter II)
Do states provide guidance or information on the key components of dual language programs? If
so, what guidance or information do states provide districts on the key components of dual
language programs? (Chapter II)
Does the state have legislative requirements, regulatory guidance, and non-regulatory guidance
related to dual language programming (e.g., the ratio of ELs to English proficient students or the
ratio of ELs to native English speakers in the program)? If so, what are they? (Chapter II)
What is the typical length of time that ELs and English proficient students remain in a dual
language program? (Chapter II)
Are there state legislative requirements and/or regulatory guidance that might encourage or
constrain dual language programming? Are there other state policies that might encourage or
constrain dual language programs? (Chapter VI)
Is there funding specifically targeted for dual language programs? If so, what is the source of this
funding? If not, is there funding that can be used for these programs? If so, what is the source of
this funding? (Chapter VI)
What are the state challenges to the implementation of dual language programs? What do states
know about district challenges to the implementation of dual language programs? Are there state
policies or activities to address these challenges? What do states know about district policies or
activities to address these challenges? (Chapters IV, V, and VI)
Introduction 4 Dual Language Programming and Policies
2. State- and District-Level Eligibility and Exit Criteria in Dual Language Programs
What tools or instruments are used to determine ELs’ eligibility for and placement in dual language
programs (including the tools or instruments used to identify students as ELs)? What tools or
instruments are used to determine English proficient students’ eligibility for and placement in dual
language programs? (Chapter III)
Do states have criteria for exiting EL students enrolled in dual language programs from EL status
that are different from state criteria for exiting EL students enrolled in other types of programs? If
so what are they? What is their source? (Chapter III)
Do states have laws or regulatory guidance in place to determine eligibility and placement for ELs
in dual language programs? If so, what are they? Do states have laws or regulatory guidance in
place to determine eligibility and placement for English proficient students in dual language
programs? If so, what are they? (Chapter III)
Do states have recruitment and retention policies or guidance for enrolling students in bilingual or
dual language programs? If so, what are they? What is their source? What can states tell us about
the procedures that districts have in place for recruiting and retaining students in dual language
programs? (Chapter III)
3. Assessment and Accountability for States and Districts Related to Dual Language
Programming
What language (i.e., English and partner language) proficiency standards do states require districts
to use in their dual language programs? What content standards do states require districts to use in
their dual language programs? (Chapter IV)
Do states monitor implementation of English language proficiency, partner language proficiency,
and academic content standards in dual language programs? If so, how? What can states tell us
about how districts monitor this implementation? (Chapter IV)
What are states’ requirements for assessing English language development and proficiency for ELs
in dual language programs? Are state officials aware of any additional assessments that districts
use to measure English language development and proficiency in dual language programs?
(Chapter IV)
Do states have requirements for assessing partner language development and proficiency in dual
language programs? If so, what are they? Are state officials aware of any district practices to
measure partner language development and proficiency in dual language programs? (Chapter IV)
Do states use any other measures to determine the effectiveness of dual language programs? If so,
what are they? (Chapter IV)
Do state accountability requirements support assessment strategies that encourage development in
both languages, rather than in only one language or the other? (Chapter IV)
4. Teachers and Professional Development Specific to Dual Language Programming
Do states have qualification requirements for teachers in dual language education programs? If so,
what are they? What can states tell us about district qualification requirements for teachers in these
programs? (Chapter V)
Do states provide incentives to teachers to become qualified to teach in dual language programs? If
so, what are they? Are these incentives for pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, or both? Do
states take steps to actively develop the supply of teachers with the skills needed in dual language
programs? If so, how? (Chapter V)
Do states have policies related to the content and other aspects of professional development (PD)
for teachers currently teaching in dual language education programs? What can states tell us about
Introduction 5 Dual Language Programming and Policies
district policies related to the content and other aspects of PD for these teachers? (Chapter V)
Do states use or require districts to use specific professional development models for teachers
currently teaching in dual language education programs? If so, what are they? What can states
tell us about the models that districts use? (Chapter V)
To answer the study’s guiding questions, the report draws on multiple data sources, including a
review of descriptive studies and research summaries on dual language programs, a review of
extant data sets, a review of SEA websites for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and
interviews with state officials in six states. The report reviews extant data regarding dual
language programs that are available for ELs and students in all states and the District of
Columbia.
Historical Context
Bilingual forms of education have existed in the United States since early in its history. Schools
established by various settler groups offered education in the language of the group, with some
featuring bilingual instruction in English and the heritage language as English became more
dominant (including, for example, German-English schools in Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, and
elsewhere; French-English schools in Louisiana; and Spanish-English schools in New Mexico)
(Crawford, 2004). In the early 20th century, schools moved away from the use of languages
other than English, except in world language teaching, as laws and beliefs (including reactions to
conflicts with other nations) emphasized the role of English. For American Indians, the move to
English-only education came earlier, with mid-19th century policies banning the use of native
languages in education (Crawford, 2004).
Bilingual education to serve the needs of ELs reappeared in the 1960s, spurred by the Civil
Rights movement and other socio-political forces (Crawford, 2004). A pioneer in this new phase
was in fact a two-way dual language program when, in 1963, the Coral Way Bilingual
Elementary School in Miami brought together Spanish-speaking and English-speaking students
in a program that sought to help all students become bilingual (responding, in part, to parents of
English-speaking students, including those of Cuban descent, who wished to give their children
access to bilingual education). In the 1970s, schools in Washington, D.C., Chicago, and San
Diego adopted a similar model. In the late 1980s, dual language education attracted increased
interest (including from the research community), and the numbers of programs began to grow.
As Christian (1996, p. 67) has argued, “This interest was likely the result of a convergence of
factors, including increased attention to foreign language learning for English speakers, research
on effective programs for educating language minority students, and the availability of federal
and state funding for programs using this approach.” Since then, there has been a steady growth
in the number of dual language programs, with a significant increase in recent years prompted by
several state initiatives (including initiatives in Delaware, North Carolina, and Utah) that support
the establishment of language immersion programs (including two-way immersion) to strengthen
language learning and global awareness for all students.
As educators gained experience with the dual language model and research highlighted its
effectiveness (see, for example, Gómez, 2013; Lindholm-Leary & Block, 2010; Marian, Shook,
Introduction 6 Dual Language Programming and Policies
& Schroeder, 2013; Valentino & Reardon, 2015; Lindholm-Leary, 2011), the approach became
more widely accepted as a promising educational alternative for ELs. Programs spread to schools
in diverse communities across the country—and to large urban, suburban, and rural school
districts—and design variations were introduced to meet the needs of different communities.
Policy Contexts
At the federal level, policies related to the education of ELs are central to considering dual
language education for this student population. Current federal policy builds on a series of
legislative and judicial actions that occurred over the last 50 years and sought to promote equal
opportunity in education for ELs (Hakuta, 2011). More recent attention to the needs of these
students was prompted by Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibited discrimination
on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any federally funded program. This law extended
to public schools and their students because state and local education agencies receive federal
funds. Ten years later, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a class action suit brought by
families of Chinese ELs against the San Francisco school district (Lau v. Nichols, 1974), finding
that the schools were violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by not helping ELs gain
the skills needed to participate fully in instructional programs. According to this ruling, school
districts are obliged to take affirmative steps to help ELs (as members of national origin minority
groups) learn English and benefit from educational offerings. This position was affirmed by
federal legislation in the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, which, among other
things, requires states and school districts to provide EL students with appropriate services to
overcome language barriers (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2015). This
policy became the civil rights foundation for federal requirements for EL services.
A few years later, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals set the parameters for what constitutes
“appropriate action to overcome language barriers” (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1981). Stated very
generally, the three-part test calls for education programs for ELs to be informed by a sound
educational theory, to be implemented adequately according to that theory, and to produce
results for students in a reasonable time that show that the intent is being achieved (Hakuta,
2011). These standards have since been widely used by the U.S. Departments of Justice and
Education when reviewing services for ELs. As recently as January 2015, the two agencies
issued “joint guidance…to ensure that EL students can participate meaningfully and equally in
educational programs and services” (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights,
2015, p. 2). The communication outlines what state and local districts are legally obligated to do
for EL students, as well as noting a number of issues that have arisen in compliance reviews.
Federal education legislation and regulations intersect with these pieces of civil rights legislation
(Hakuta, 2011). Shortly after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, the U.S. Congress in
1965 passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Among other provisions,
Title I of this act provided supplemental funds that states and districts could use to improve
education for students from poor families. In 1968, an amendment focusing on the needs of ELs
was passed—known as the Bilingual Education Act—which designated funding streams to
supplement state and local support for instructional programs, teacher preparation, materials
development, and other EL-related needs. This became Title VII of the ESEA, which included
bilingual education as a viable (but not compulsory) instructional program model. The ESEA and
Introduction 7 Dual Language Programming and Policies
the related regulations that were issued established a framework of federal requirements for EL
services in education.
The ESEA was discussed and amended several times in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, and the
role and maintenance of languages other than English for ELs remained a consistent topic of
discussion for Title VII—a core issue in any consideration of dual language education. Although
federal law considered bilingual education a permissible instructional model, it was not
compulsory, and renewals of the ESEA during this period varied in terms of whether they
encouraged or discouraged programs that sought to maintain EL students’ native languages while
they learned English (Crawford, 2004). As a result, federal funding support for dual language
education remained variable during this period.
The 2001 reauthorization of the ESEA—the No Child Left Behind Act—moved the provisions
concerning ELs to Title III and increased the focus on promoting English acquisition and helping
ELs meet challenging content standards. States now receive funds through a formula-based
funding approach based on numbers of EL students, and most of the funds are allocated to
districts to supplement their local language instruction educational programs (LIEPs) for ELs. In
a new mandate that began with this reauthorization, Title I requires states to report on the
proficiency of all students in achieving state-set standards in mathematics, reading or language
arts, and science. States must maintain state academic standards, with aligned assessments and
targets set for adequate yearly progress (AYP) in reading/English language arts and mathematics.
EL students are included in these requirements, and their performance as a subgroup is part of
the overall assessment of state and local attainment of AYP targets.
8
Furthermore, Title III
mandates explicit accountability for ELs’ English language proficiency (ELP) development and
academic achievement. In addition to the Title I content standards, states are required to develop
ELP standards for EL students, along with assessments that measure progress toward those
standards. States also need to set annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) for ELs,
and districts that receive Title III funds must report on how well their EL students meet those
AMAOs to ensure that they are making progress in learning English, attaining English
proficiency, and learning grade-level academic content. Title III also requires states and districts
to ensure that teachers in LIEPs are fluent in English and any other language in which they
provide instruction.
The United States has no official language and generally leaves decisions about the language of
instruction to states, district, and schools. Federal law does, however, affirm the rights of Native
American populations—including American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and
Pacific Islanders—to use and develop their native languages.
9
8
As of 2012–13, SEAs with approved ESEA flexibility plans no longer need to follow specific AYP provisions
outlined in Title I but are required to implement a system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support
for all districts and Title I schools, and this system must be designed to improve student outcomes and close
achievement gaps for all subgroups, including ELs (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
9
The Native American Languages Act (NALA) of 1990 asserts that it is U.S. policy to: “preserve, protect, and
promote the rights and freedoms of Native Americans to use, practice,
and develop Native American languages”;
encourage and support the use of Native American languages as a medium of instruction; encourage institutions of
elementary, secondary, and higher education, where appropriate, to include Native American languages in the
curriculum in a manner comparable to other world languages; and allow exceptions to teacher qualification
Introduction 8 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Dual language programs must comply with the Title I ESEA requirements, and if the school
district is a Title III grantee, with the Title III requirements as well. In addition, states and local
districts have their own policies that determine how school systems are organized and what kinds
of programs may be offered. In recent years, some states (such as Arizona and California) have
established policies that constrain the use of bilingual programming—including dual language
programming, in some cases—for ELs (e.g., policies that require parents to provide informed
consent before their child is placed in a bilingual program). These policies do not necessarily
prohibit the use of dual language programs, however. For instance, despite California’s policies
requiring parental informed consent, the number of dual language programs in the state has
increased in recent years.
10
Some states have moved to increase the numbers of dual language programs in an effort to equip
students with multilingual skills that will make them more competitive in the global marketplace.
For example, the state of Utah passed legislation in 2008 that called for the establishment of dual
language programs
11
throughout the state and provides funding for programs, teacher
development, and curriculum and materials preparation (Utah State Office of Education, n.d.b).
Since then, Utah has seen tremendous growth in the number of programs operating in the state.
12
Delaware, Georgia, and North Carolina are among other states that have recently undertaken
efforts to promote dual language education. Local school districts also are expanding their dual
language offerings. In many cases—such as in New York City, where programs are being added
or expanded at 40 schools in fall 2015—the moves are part of a plan to improve services for ELs
(Mitchell, 2015). To further promote multilingualism and dual language education, states and
districts across the country are increasingly adopting Seal of Biliteracy policies that officially
recognize students who become bilingual and biliterate by the time they graduate high school by
awarding them a special seal or insignia on their high school diploma.
It also is important to recognize that policies that affect dual language education extend well
beyond rules concerning the language of instruction in schools. Teacher qualification
requirements set the ground rules for staffing dual language programs, and regulations for
educating students with disabilities need to be followed. In school districts, the availability of
magnet schools or busing may determine whether students from a particular language
background who live in different neighborhoods can attend the same school (Dorner, 2010), and
funding decisions may or may not allow for the purchase of materials in different languages. As
a result, the policy context for dual language education is both multilevel (federal, state, local)
and multidimensional (Johnson, 2009; Varghese, 2008).
requirements for federal programs in situations where the requirements inhibit the employment of teachers who can
teach in a Native American language (NALA, 25 U.S.C. 2903).
10
For instance, between 2006 and 2012, the number of dual language programs in the state grew from 201 to 318
(Yang Su, 2012).
11
In Utah, state-funded dual language programs begin in kindergarten or first grade and add an additional grade
level each year through Grade 12.
12
During the first year of Utah’s initiative, the state had 1,400 students participating in 25 dual language programs;
by 2013–14, it had 20,000 students enrolled in 98 dual language programs (Utah State Office of Education, 2013).
Introduction 9 Dual Language Programming and Policies
(This brief discussion highlights just a few of the major legal provisions that affect the education
of ELs. For a fuller discussion of the policy context for EL education established by Title III, see
U.S. Department of Education, 2013, and Tanenbaum et al., 2012, p. xiii.)
Current Status of Dual Language Education in the United States
Dual language education holds the promise of giving students access to key 21st century skills,
namely bilingualism, biliteracy, and global awareness. A growing body of research also suggests
that the approach provides more opportunities for ELs to reach higher levels of academic
achievement (Gómez, 2013; Valentino & Reardon, 2015)
13
as well as more positive motivation
and a sense of identity (Lopez, 2010). As a result, the number of schools adopting this model is
rising quickly, particularly in response to concerns about the education of EL students. However,
recent research also has raised questions about the ability of dual language education to secure its
goals for ELs in educational settings in which English is perceived as having a higher status than
the partner language (de Jong & Howard, 2009; Scanlan & Palmer, 2009). Given that dual
language programs operate in a mosaic of policy contexts in schools around the country (which
implement the model in diverse ways), it is important to understand the current status of dual
language education in states and schools around the country to inform policymaking at the
federal, state, and local levels.
Focus of This Report
This report will focus on policies and practices related to two types of dual language programs:
(1) two-way dual language programs (also known as two-way immersion programs), in which
language minority students participate alongside English-speaking peers and receive instruction
in both English and a partner language; and (2) one-way dual language programs, in which
students from predominantly one language group receive instruction in both English and a
partner language. One-way dual language programs may serve predominantly language minority
students (also known as developmental or maintenance bilingual programs); predominantly
English-speaking students (also known as one-way/world language immersion programs); or
predominantly students with a family background or cultural connection to the partner language
(also known as heritage or native language programs). Both types of programs share the goals of
promoting bilingualism, biliteracy, grade-level academic achievement, understanding and
appreciation of multiple cultures, and positive cross-cultural attitudes. (This report does not
include a focus on transitional bilingual programs, which feature instruction in two languages
with the goal of exiting students once they become proficient in English.)
Overview of Analytic Approach and Data Sources
This report draws on multiple data sources to address the guiding questions, including a review
of the literature related to dual language programs, a review of extant data sets, a review of SEA
websites for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and interviews with state officials in six
states.
13
See also Lindholm-Leary & Block, 2010; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014; and Marian, Shook, & Schroeder,
2013.
Introduction 10 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Literature Review
This study began with a review and synthesis of the literature related to dual language programs
published within the last 10 years. The review incorporates theoretical and empirical sources. We
excluded editorial and opinion pieces. The methodological process for the literature review
involved multiple steps. The first step was to identify the literature related to two-way dual
language education programs and one-way dual language education programs for ELs. A
protocol was developed that outlined the terms for searching the literature. The search terms
were determined based on the guiding questions. Three major education research databases
(ERIC, Professional Development Collection, and PsycINFO), as well as the What Works
Clearinghouse (WWC) website, were searched. The thesaurus in each database was checked to
search for any subject-heading terms relevant to the concept of dual language programs. There
were no consistently used subject-heading terms for this concept, so we used the phrase dual
language as the main search term. We searched on that phrase in both the title field and the
abstract field, combining it with several truncated “program” terms appearing in any or all
searchable fields. The program terms were truncated to ensure that the search would pull articles
that used the term program or programs, as well as class or classroom or classrooms, for
example. The preliminary search was limited to peer-reviewed, English language results
published within the last 10 years. This preliminary search identified 196 articles published in
English between 2004 and 2014. In addition, the study team found 20 WWC articles published
between 2004 and 2014 by using the search terms bilingual, English language learner, English
learner, literacy, and Spanish. Among the 196 articles, 11 duplicate articles were found and
removed, resulting in 185 articles. Twenty WWC articles also were included in the preliminary
screening process, resulting in a total of 205 articles.
The search was then expanded in an effort to find high-quality technical reports and publicly
available dissertation research that aligned to the research questions. Other sources also were
used to locate literature, including, for example, Google and Google Scholar, the National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, the Center for Applied Linguistics, and the
Council of Chief State School Officers websites. An extended list of search terms connected with
both dual language and bilingual education programs and related to the research questions was
used. Examples of search terms include dual language programs and policies, dual immersion
programs and policies, two-way immersion programs and policies, bilingual education
assessment, and bilingual education policy. Through this second search, the study team
identified a total of 63 supplementary documents, which included technical reports, journal
articles, and publicly available dissertations. Of the 63 supplementary documents initially found,
29 documents were not included in the preliminary screening because they did not meet the
inclusion criteria (i.e., they were not technical reports, publicly available journal articles, or
publicly available dissertations). Of the 63 supplementary documents, abstracts from 34 publicly
available technical reports, journal articles, and dissertations responded to at least one guiding
question and therefore met the criteria for further coding. These 34 supplementary documents
were entered into the crosswalk matrix.
The second step was to crosswalk the abstracts of the 239 identified studies from the searches
with the project’s 20 guiding questions in order to eliminate studies that did not align with the
research questions. A detailed spreadsheet was created to conduct the “crosswalk” of each study
with the entire set of guiding questions. Although the majority of the article abstracts did not
address the guiding questions, a total of 51 abstracts responded to at least one guiding question.
Introduction 11 Dual Language Programming and Policies
To begin the coding process, the study team created a detailed spreadsheet to capture each
study’s title, year of publication, and abstract for the full literature review. In the third step, each
of the studies was then read in its entirety, and the sample, methods, measures, outcomes, key
findings, limitations, and themes that supported the research questions were coded. To calibrate
this step, two analysts read and coded an article together to ensure that the process was
conducted consistently and to fine-tune the coding instrument. After this process was refined, the
remaining studies were coded individually. Finally, the results were summarized by research
question.
In the fourth step, after the analyses of state data were complete, we conducted another literature
search to inform our interpretation of the results and provide additional context for our findings.
The search was guided by the chapter topics and research questions associated with them.
Inclusion criteria were expanded to include books or book chapters and literature prior to 2004 if
they provided historical context. Relevant literature published in 2015 also was included.
Sources included those cited above as well as books and educational periodicals.
All of the sources cited are listed in the references following the report. Appendix A includes
studies that most specifically focused on dual language programming and policies and addressed
the report’s research questions.
Review of Extant Data Sets
By beginning the policy scan with analyses of extant data sets, the study team gained an
important baseline understanding of particular policies and contextual factors related to dual
language programs. The study team examined databases and evaluated their usefulness to the
study using the following criteria: (1) responsiveness to the guiding questions, (2) timeliness of
the data, and (3) ability to provide relevant background or foundational information for the study.
Databases consulted included the Colorín Colorado State Policy Database, the Education
Commission of the States (ECS) ELL State Policy Database, the Consolidated State Performance
Reports
14
(CSPRs), the EdCounts database, the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) database, the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), the Civil Rights Data Collection
(CRDC), and data collected through the National Study of Title III Implementation. For this
report, the study drew extant data variables primarily from the CSPRs for the 2012–13 school
year and the ECS ELL State Policy Database. The study team extracted relevant variables from
these data sets and stored them in Excel spreadsheets, which carefully documented the following
for each data variable collected: the data source (i.e., database name and location), variable
name, variable definition, and data collection year.
14
It is important to note that some of the reported data from CSPRs are applicable only to districts with Title III
funding, which include many but not all school districts. When reporting data from the CSPRs, we specify whether
the data reflect all districts in a state or only those that receive Title III funding.
Introduction 12 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Review of State Websites
The research team’s review of extant data sets found that relatively little information about state
dual language policies and programs had already been compiled. As a result, the study team
conducted systematic searches of state websites to gather and analyze dual language policy
documents and resources from individual states. This involved developing data collection tools
and procedures, locating and capturing data, and reviewing data for quality assurance.
Developing data collection tools and procedures. To facilitate the collection of policy
information related to the study’s guiding questions—and to ensure consistency in data
collection procedures—the study team developed a structured protocol that outlined the types of
information to be collected from state websites, as well as procedures for locating and capturing
those data. Using a matrix of key constructs derived from the study’s guiding questions, the
study team designed protocol questions to guide state website reviewers in collecting information
relevant to those constructs. The protocol featured a mix of closed-ended questions (which
required a yes/no, categorical, or numeric response) and open-ended questions (which required a
descriptive response, such as excerpts from state policy documents or written summaries). In
conjunction with the data collection protocol, the study team developed a set of Excel
spreadsheets to serve as data capture forms for entering data on state dual language policies.
Each data capture form corresponded to a particular item on the data collection protocol and was
structured to allow the data collection team to record relevant data from all 50 states and the
District of Columbia (using one row per state).
Before commencing the full state-by-state review of websites from all 50 states and the District
of Columbia, the project team piloted its data collection instruments and procedures with a
sample of six states: Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas, and Utah. These
states were selected for the pilot because they promote dual language programming or bilingual
education more generally, and because a large number of districts in these states implement dual
language programs or other types of bilingual education programs. Based on lessons learned
during the pilot website searches, the study team revisited the study’s guiding questions and
construct matrix to reflect its new understanding of the state policy landscape and the types of
information it might expect to find in policy documents posted on state websites. The revised
construct matrix was then used to revise the state website data collection protocol for the full
state website review. (See Appendix B for the final data collection protocol.) Given the large
sample size, the revised protocol focused on high-level questions that the study team anticipated
could be answered for most, if not all, states and the District of Columbia. In addition to revising
the data collection protocol, the study team refined the data collection procedures and data
capture form to help ensure that the data collection process ran as smoothly and efficiently as
possible.
Prior to conducting both the pilot website search and the full state website review, members of
the data collection team participated in training sessions to review the protocol and data
collection procedures. As part of this training, each reviewer received a guidance document that
identified potential data sources, such as state EL or dual language program manuals/handbooks,
state policy letters, state-developed technical assistance materials (e.g., PowerPoint
presentations), and state laws. The guidance document also listed basic procedures and tips for
completing the search.
Introduction 13 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Locating and capturing data. To locate relevant policy information, state website reviewers
systematically reviewed key sections of states’ SEA websites. Although each SEA website is
structured differently, reviewers were instructed to examine (where applicable) SEA webpages
related to EL services and/or Title III, world languages, research and evaluation, teacher
certification and licensure, and Title I. Reviewers also performed targeted keyword searches
using both the SEA websites’ internal search engines and external search engines such as
Google. To help ensure the timeliness of the data collected, reviewers sought the most recent
information available on state websites and limited their searches to information published
within the last five years (except in cases where a reviewer found evidence that information older
than five years was still in effect).
Once state website reviewers had located information relevant to a particular protocol question,
they entered that information into the appropriate Excel-based data capture form. In addition to
featuring columns for entering state policy data, each data capture form also included a notes
column for recording clarifying information and data quality concerns, as well as a series of data
source columns for documenting the name and location of the webpage from which data were
retrieved. In addition to logging data sources and publication dates in the data capture form,
reviewers downloaded and saved a copy of each data source alongside the data collection
protocol on a secure project server. Exhibit 1.2 displays an excerpt from one of the data capture
forms used for the state website review.
Introduction 14 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Exhibit 1.2. Excerpt From Excel-Based Data Capture Form for State Website Review
Protocol Question Q21a
Q21a State Requirements for Assessing English Language Development and Proficiency
State
Name
Name of
State
English
Language
Proficiency
Assessment
State-Defined
Annual ELP
Growth Target
(Title III AMAO
1) “Making
Progress”
State-Defined
Proficiency Cut
Scores (Title III
AMAO 2)
“Attaining
Proficiency” Notes
Data Source
for Name of
ELP
Assessment
Data
Source for
ELP
Growth
Target
Data
Source for
Proficiency
Cut Scores
Alabama WIDA
ACCESS for
ELLs©
An increase of
0.5 on the
proficiency level
from one data
point to another
data point
A composite
proficiency score of
4.8
EL Handbook
http://alex.stat
e.al.us/ell/site
s/alex.state.al
.us.ell/ell_files
/EL%20Hand
book%20201
4-
2015%20revis
ed.pdf
EL
Handbook
http://alex.s
tate.al.us/el
l/sites/alex.
state.al.us.
ell/ell_files/
EL%20Han
dbook%20
2014-
2015%20re
vised.pdf
EL
Handbook
http://alex.st
ate.al.us/ell/
sites/alex.st
ate.al.us.ell/
ell_files/EL
%20Handb
ook%20201
4-
2015%20re
vised.pdf
Alaska WIDA
ACCESS for
ELLs©
A gain of 0.4 on
the composite
proficiency level
from the prior
year to the
current year
An overall
composite
proficiency level of
5.0 or higher on the
ELP Assessment
and 4.0 or higher on
each domain:
listening, speaking,
reading, and writing.
Students in Grades
1–12 must take Tier
B or C of the
ACCESS for ELLs
to attain proficiency.
No tiers apply for
kindergarten
students.
AMAO
document
http://www.ee
d.alaska.gov/
nclb/pdf/Title_
III_Objectives
_AMAOs.pdf
AMAO
document
http://www.
eed.alaska.
gov/nclb/pd
f/Title_III_O
bjectives_A
MAOs.pdf
AMAO
document
http://www.
eed.alaska.
gov/nclb/pdf
/Title_III_Ob
jectives_AM
AOs.pdf
The Excel-based data capture forms offered several features that aided in the collection,
management, and review of state policy information: (1) a format that was suitable for both
quantified and text data; (2) a flexible interface, in which new variables could be inserted or data
could be updated easily; (3) fields to indicate when data were updated; (4) flags to indicate when
data were uncertain and in need of verification; and (5) mechanisms to facilitate basic counts,
tabulations, and charts. The Excel format also allowed the study team to integrate the data
collected from extant data sets into the same data capture file for analysis.
In-Depth Policy Review in a Sample of Six Case Study States
The final stage of the state policy scan involved an investigation into the dual language program
policies and practices within a purposefully chosen subsample of six states: Delaware, Illinois,
Massachusetts, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Utah. The purpose of the case studies was to
Introduction 15 Dual Language Programming and Policies
find out more in-depth information not only about dual language programs and policies but also
about the conditions that enhance or inhibit dual language programming.
Toward this end, six case study states were selected, to include states with policies that promote
dual language programs (Delaware, North Carolina, and Utah), states with policies that promote
the use of bilingual education programs (Illinois and New Mexico), and a state with a large EL
population and policies that constrain the use of bilingual education programs (Massachusetts).
The case study states also were selected to ensure geographic diversity. Exhibit 1.3 presents the
characteristics of the six case study states.
Exhibit 1.3. Characteristics of Case Study States
Number of
Dual
Language
Programs,
2014–15
Number of
ELs in the
State,
2012–13
Percentage
of ELs in
the State,
2012–13
Percent
Growth in
State’s EL
Population,
2007–08 to
2012–13
Top Five EL Language
Groups, 2012–13
Delaware
15 (including
four two-way
programs)
7,503 5.9% 9.8%
Spanish, Amharic, French,
Chinese, Vietnamese
Illinois
30 (including
two
districtwide
programs)
190,172 9.3% 8.4%
Spanish, Arabic, Polish,
Chinese, Urdu
Massachusetts 20 71,066 7.1% 45.1%
Spanish, Portuguese,
Haitian/Haitian Creole,
Chinese, Creole and Pidgin
New Mexico
653
(including
143 two-way
programs)
59,071 15.6% -2.6%
Spanish, Navajo, Nias,
Vietnamese, Zuni
North Carolina 95 102,311 6.5% -10.7%
Spanish, Arabic, Vietnamese,
Chinese, Hmong
Utah
118
(including 27
two-way
programs)
39,238 5.4% -25.5%
Spanish, Navajo, Somali,
Arabic, Chinese
Exhibit Reads: Fifteen dual language programs, including four two-way programs and 11 one-way programs, were operating in
Delaware in 2014–15.
Source: SEA website searches and state interviews conducted in spring 2015; Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2012–13;
Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2007–08.
The case study data collection included two primary components: (1) more extensive searches of
the case study states’ websites to uncover additional policy information, and (2) interviews with
SEA officials with primary responsibility for overseeing state policies and practices related to
dual language programs.
Case study state website searches. Website searches for the case study states followed
the same general procedures as the other state website searches conducted for this study, but they
involved more in-depth exploration of key study topics, with a greater emphasis on collecting
rich, descriptive information on states’ dual language education policies and practices. Website
Introduction 16 Dual Language Programming and Policies
searches for the case study states also incorporated a broader set of topics than the other website
searches. By focusing on the six case study states, the study team was able to investigate
important, policy-relevant topics without expending the resources required to examine those
topics across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Interviews with officials in six case study states. In addition to conducting these more
comprehensive examinations of state websites, the study team interviewed state officials from
the six case study states to identify and obtain relevant policy documents that were not available
on the states’ websites, request clarification on policy information that had been collected, and
gather additional information that was unavailable through extant sources. SEAs vary in how
they organize responsibility for dual language programming, which meant that the SEA officials
interviewed for this study held different roles within the SEA. However, they were all
determined to be the officials with primary responsibility for dual language programming. The
case study interviews followed a semi-structured interview protocol that aligned with the
protocol developed for the state website searches. Prior to each interview, the study team tailored
the state interview protocol to reflect the data already collected for that state through the SEA
website searches. This process allowed the interviewer to customize the conversation with each
state official to ensure a detailed and accurate understanding of policies specific to that state.
All interviews were audio recorded to back up note taking and allow for comprehensive and
accurate summaries. Following each interview, the interviewer cleaned the interview notes to
ensure that they were easy for an outside reader to follow (i.e., free from abbreviations and
partial sentences; pronouns, proper nouns, and acronyms explained), and the interviewer then
sent a copy of the cleaned notes to the state interview respondent for confirmation and
clarification. Once state interview respondents returned a finalized copy of the interview notes,
the study team used these notes to verify the information entered into the state website data
capture form, revising entries and inserting additional detail as appropriate. To store and analyze
data that were unique to the state interviews (e.g., data on state challenges in implementing dual
language programs, which were not available through extant data sources), the study team
developed state interview data capture forms that mirrored the data capture spreadsheets for the
state website search. When conducting the telephone interviews with state officials, the study
team also requested any relevant documents that were not publicly available on the state website,
such as dual language program guidelines and evaluation reports. These materials were reviewed
and analyzed in conjunction with the policy documents collected directly from the SEA websites.
Data Analysis Procedures
Entering data into the data capture forms marked a critical first step in terms of organizing and
summarizing state-level data, but additional coding was necessary to identify all important data
variables. For example, the prevalence or relevance of certain variables may not have been
readily apparent during the first round of data entry, but later became apparent as study team
members delved into specific areas of state policy and practice. In some cases, patterns and
trends across states emerged over the course of the data collection and analysis, at which point
analysts would go back to the data capture form to explore these patterns more systematically.
Furthermore, in some cases, it was determined that the initial coding categories did not
adequately reflect states’ policies and practices. These categories were then revisited and revised
to more accurately capture and interpret the data on the topic. When necessary, the study team
Introduction 17 Dual Language Programming and Policies
also reexamined state policy documents and webpages to fill in missing details, clarify
ambiguous information, and ensure the accuracy of the coding.
This second phase of analysis was an iterative process that involved reviewing and filtering the
data included in the Excel data capture form to (1) locate important information related to the
key constructs featured in the study’s guiding questions, and (2) develop coding categories that
reflected the variation in states’ approaches to particular policies or practices. Applying these
coding categories to the qualitative state data allowed the study team to quantify patterns in state
actions (for example, by producing counts of the number of states with specific policies or
practices in place).
Considerations
The findings presented in this report should be interpreted with the following considerations
in mind:
• Although this report summarizes findings from other research studies that sought to
identify best practices and/or causal relationships between dual language education
practices and student outcomes, the report’s analyses of states’ policies, guidance, and
practices related to dual language programs are descriptive in nature.
• This report provides counts of the number of states that have particular policies in place
or have taken specific actions related to dual language programs. These counts are based
solely on the study team’s interpretation of the information available on state websites,
within extant data sets, and through interviews with officials from the six case study
states. With the exception of the state interview data, this information has not been
confirmed by representatives from the states. The state counts in this report should
therefore be interpreted with caution.
• Unless otherwise noted, the data presented in this report are intended to reflect state
policies and practices in place at the time of data collection (spring 2015). However,
despite efforts to ensure that the information gathered from state websites was current
and timely, the data collection procedures could not account for recent changes in state
policy or practice that had not yet been communicated on states’ websites, unless
information on such changes was available through other data sources (such as the six
state interviews).
• The terminology used to describe dual language programs is inconsistent across research
studies and state websites. In some instances, the same terms were used to refer to
different types of programs. At other times, different terms were used to refer to the same
program. The study team bore such inconsistencies in mind when interpreting research
findings and state policy information, using the study’s definitions of two-way and one-
way dual language programs as a framework for examining research and state policy
information using a common language.
Introduction 18 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Organization of This Report
The study’s findings are presented in the chapters that follow. Chapter II presents information on
the design of dual language programs and the guidance that states provide regarding the features
of these programs. Chapter III describes the policies and procedures that states have in place
regarding EL and English proficient students’ eligibility for and placement in dual language
programs. Chapter IV examines states’ policies related to the use of standards, assessments, and
program evaluation measures in dual language programs. Chapter V explores states’ policies
regarding the qualifications of teachers who serve in dual language programs, as well as states’
approaches to providing professional development opportunities for those teachers. Finally,
Chapter VI presents information on state-level support for dual language and bilingual
programming, including political support, funding, and technical assistance.
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 19 Dual Language Programming and Policies
II. Dual Language Education Program Design—Features
and Guidance
This chapter begins with a brief discussion of key themes in the literature on dual language
education program characteristics, and how these features are designed to support student
learning. It then examines the information that states have posted on their websites, including the
terms and descriptions used to define their programs and the guidance provided to local districts
regarding implementation.
Key Findings
• Dual language programs vary in structure and implementation but share three common goals for
students: (1) to develop bilingualism and biliteracy, based on high levels of proficiency in two
languages (English and a partner language); (2) to achieve academically at grade level or better in
both languages; and (3) to develop an understanding and appreciation of multiple cultures, with
positive cross-cultural attitudes toward fellow students, their families, and the community.
• To promote bilingualism and biliteracy, dual language programs integrate language and academic
content instruction in English and a partner language.
• Dual language programs vary in how they divide instructional time between English and the
partner language, but a general principle is that at least 50 percent of instruction takes place in the
partner language through the elementary school grades.
• Dual language programs generally commence at the beginning of elementary school (in either
kindergarten or Grade 1) and continue throughout elementary school, with some programs
continuing at the secondary level.
• Dual language education can be implemented as a “whole-school” program (in which all students
participate) or a “strand” program (in which one or more classes at every grade level are dedicated
to the dual language program, while other classes follow a different model).
• Two-way programs serve both English learners (ELs) and non-ELs by integrating ELs from a
common language background (e.g., Spanish, Mandarin Chinese) and English-speaking students in
the same classroom for academic instruction in both languages (Lindholm-Leary, 2012).
• One-way dual language programs typically include one language group (from a common language
background) learning through two languages, rather than students from two different language
backgrounds learning together.
• The majority of states (39 states and the District of Columbia) reported that districts in their state
were implementing dual language education programs during the 2012–13 school year. The most
commonly implemented programs were dual language programs with Spanish or a Chinese
language as the partner language.
• Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have issued definitions of two-way dual language
programs, and 16 states and the District of Columbia have issued definitions of one-way dual
language programs that predominantly serve language minority students. States’ program
definitions tend to emphasize the programs’ goals of promoting bilingualism and biliteracy,
academic achievement, and cross-cultural understanding.
• Relatively few states have explicit requirements or expectations regarding particular program
features. For example, out of the 16 states and the District of Columbia that provide guidance on
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 20 Dual Language Programming and Policies
the ratio of English-speaking students to partner-language-speaking students in two-way dual
language programs, only two states have set requirements for this ratio. Seven states have
established expectations regarding the allocation of instructional time in English and the partner
language, and four states have articulated specific pathways for offering dual language programs at
the secondary level.
Types of Dual Language Programs
Two-Way Dual Language Programs
Two-way programs serve both ELs and non-ELs by integrating ELs from a common language
background (e.g., Spanish, Mandarin Chinese) and English-speaking students in the same
classroom for academic instruction in both languages (Lindholm-Leary, 2012). Ideally, there
should be a 50:50 balance of partner language speakers and English proficient students, which
allows students to serve as language models for each other (Faulkner-Bond et al., 2012). If a
50:50 ratio is not possible, each language group should account for at least one third of a
program’s students in order to have enough second language peers (in both languages) to
facilitate interactions between the two groups and stimulate the second language acquisition
process (Gómez, Freeman, & Freeman, 2005; Lindholm-Leary, 2007; Rosado, 2005; Torres-
Guzman et al., 2005). The expectation is that native speakers will serve as language models and
resources, and there is some evidence to suggest that native speakers provide limited and specific
scaffolding for their classmates who are learning the language (for example, through word
translation and explanation of grammar or word usage) (de Jong & Howard, 2009). See the text
box titled “Operating a Spanish Two-Way Dual Language Program at the Elementary and
Secondary Levels” for an example of programs that feature a balance of students from two
language groups.
It has become clear, however, that the benefits of integrating linguistic groups do not
automatically occur when students from different backgrounds share a classroom (de Jong &
Howard, 2009; Hernandez, 2015). There are a number of reasons for this, including the unequal
linguistic status of the two languages of instruction (with English the more powerful and higher
status language in the United States), which can lead to differences in peer interactions. For
example, ELs may become proficient in English faster than English speakers become proficient
in the partner language, which may create pressure to switch to English for discussions, limiting
opportunities for ELs to serve as language resources. Cultural differences and teacher
expectations about academic language skills also may affect these opportunities (de Jong &
Howard, 2009). De Jong and Howard (2009) have suggested specific actions that teachers can
take to address these challenges, such as providing native language speakers with explicit
direction in being “academic language experts” for their classmates, and separating students by
native language for brief periods (two hours per week) to address particular language needs (e.g.,
giving more challenging instruction to native speakers and/or targeted help to second language
learners).
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 21 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Operating a Spanish Two-Way Dual Language Program at the Elementary and
Secondary Levels
Lindholm-Leary, Hardman, & Meyer (2007) describe Spanish two-way dual language programs operating
in a small community in southern San Diego County, California, that allow students to participate in dual
language education throughout their elementary and secondary schooling. The goals of these programs
include promoting “bilingualism and biliteracy, academic excellence in both Spanish and English, and
positive cross-cultural relationships and high levels of self-esteem” (Lindholm-Leary, Hardman, &
Meyer, 2007, p.20).
Students typically enter the program in kindergarten at Nestor Language Academy, which serves a
diverse student population that is more than 85 percent Latino and about 50 percent EL. Nestor Language
Academy’s program follows a 90:10 model of language allocation that begins by providing
kindergarteners with instruction in Spanish for 90 percent of the school day and in English for 10 percent
of the school day. Then, during each successive school year, the proportion of instruction in Spanish
decreases by 10 percent, until the instructional day is evenly split between Spanish and English by the
fifth grade. Students first learn to read and write in Spanish, and they begin receiving formal literacy
instruction in English in Grade 3.
The program follows a district-adopted curriculum that is aligned with the California State Standards, but
it fulfills the curriculum and other state and district instructional requirements through the lens of two-
way dual language education. For example, teachers integrate multiple cultures and perspectives into the
curriculum to allow students to feel that their own culture is valued while developing their appreciation
for other cultures. They deliver their instruction using a variety of instructional strategies designed to
support students as second language learners, such as visuals, cooperative learning, and scaffolding.
Moreover, teachers enable students to serve as language models for their peers: they seat students in
groups that intentionally feature an equal balance of native English speakers, native Spanish speakers, and
bilingual students to ensure that each group always has a “language expert” at the table.
After Grade 6, students from Nestor Language Academy transfer to nearby Southwest Middle School,
where they can continue the two-way dual language program in Grades 7 and 8. At this time, new
students also may join the middle school program, but they must pass assessments of reading, writing,
and mathematics in Spanish and English to ensure they have sufficient background in both languages to
benefit from the dual language instruction. The program at Southwest Middle School divides the
instructional day evenly between Spanish and English instruction, devoting 15 hours per week to each
language. Students receive social studies, mathematics, and language arts instruction in Spanish and
science/health, physical education, and language arts classes in English. They also may participate in an
optional academic support class provided in English before the start of the school day. Teachers in the
middle school dual language program collaborate with teachers from Nestor Language Academy’s K–6
program to enhance their skills in providing high-quality dual language instruction. Once students
complete Grade 8 of the middle school program, they have the option of continuing their language studies
at Southwest High School by taking Advanced Placement (AP) college-level courses.
According to Lindholm-Leary, Hardman, & Meyer (2007), evaluations of these two-way dual language
programs have shown success in accomplishing the programs’ goals. With regard to language
proficiency, 92–93 percent of sixth graders were rated as proficient in their second language (i.e., English
or Spanish). In Grades 5 and 6, 60–63 percent of English proficient students and 41–47 percent of ELs
scored Proficient or Advanced on the state English language arts (ELA) and mathematics assessments,
meaning they scored comparable to or higher than the state average for all students. Furthermore, when the
programs’ first cohort of students reached 10th grade in 2005–06, all students—including former ELs and
students receiving special education services—passed the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) on
their first try, and many reportedly received perfect scores.
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 22 Dual Language Programming and Policies
One-Way Dual Language Programs
One-way dual language programs typically include one language group (from a common
language background), learning through two languages, rather than students from two different
language backgrounds learning together. As described in the text box titled “Types of Dual
Language Education Programs” and in Exhibit 2.1, one-way dual language programs include
student populations who are English proficient speakers who are acquiring a world language or a
heritage language.
15
Heritage language programs are designed to support students who have a
family background or cultural connection to a particular language. The third type of one-way
dual language program, often known as developmental or maintenance bilingual programs,
enrolls language minority students—generally ELs and former ELs—who share a common
native language (Feinauer & Howard, 2012; Valentino & Reardon, 2015; de Jong, 2004). Three
studies that describe such a model (Gómez, Freeman, & Freeman, 2005; Lindholm-Leary &
Block, 2010; Lopez Estrada, Gómez, & Ruiz-Escalante, 2009) are summarized in the text box
titled “Implementing a Dual Language Approach With a Majority of Students From the Same
Language Background.”
Types of Dual Language Education Programs
Two-Way Dual Language Programs
Two-way dual language programs (also referred to as two-way bilingual or dual language
immersion programs) enroll equal populations of ELs and non-ELs and instruct both groups in
English and the non-English partner language. The goals of the program are academic
achievement, bilingualism, biliteracy, and biculturalism. Programs generally follow either a 50:50
model (with 50 percent of instruction taking place in English and 50 percent taking place in the
partner language) or a 90:10 model (which begins by delivering 90 percent of instruction in the
partner language and 10 percent of instruction in English, and then gradually transitions to a 50:50
balance of instruction between the two languages over the course of several years). Programs may
balance languages by dividing instructional time based on content area, class period, instructor,
day, week, unit, or semester. Each group of students acquires language and content-area knowledge
in their own language, as well as in the partner language (Faulkner-Bond et al., 2012).
One-Way Dual Language Programs
• One-way immersion programs (also known as world language immersion programs) are very
similar to two-way dual language programs in terms of implementation, but have different student
populations. In one-way dual language programs, students are predominantly from one language
group and are usually native English speakers, although programs also may include some ELs or
heritage language learners of the partner language (Gómez, Freeman, & Freeman, 2005; Howard et
al., 2007; Parkes & Ruth, 2011).
• Developmental bilingual education programs (also referred to as maintenance bilingual
programs) are generally for ELs only. These programs offer a balance of instruction in the non-
English partner language and English to promote academic achievement, bilingualism, and
biliteracy. Programs follow either a 50:50 model or a 90:10 model and may balance languages by
dividing instructional time based on content area, class period, instructor, day, week, unit, or
semester. Students acquire language and content-area knowledge in English and the non-English
partner language (Faulkner-Bond et al., 2012).
15
In the case of one-way dual language programs that serve predominantly native English-speaking students, the
partner language is often referred to as a world or foreign language.
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 23 Dual Language Programming and Policies
• Heritage or native language programs are language development programs that are designed or
tailored to address the needs of heritage language learners. A heritage language learner has a family
background in, or a cultural connection to, the language he or she is studying (Kelleher, 2010).
Heritage language programs also may seek to rejuvenate an indigenous language, in addition to
promoting bilingualism and biliteracy (with English). Indigenous communities commonly call this
type of program a native language program. In some cases, this type of language program is
designed to respond to the potential extinction of the language and culture of indigenous people
(Pacific Policy Research Center, 2010).
Implementing a Dual Language Approach With a Majority of Students From the
Same Language Background
The Gómez and Gómez model of dual language education is a schoolwide, 50:50 model, designed to
support the academic and linguistic development of first- and second-language learners in elementary
school. In this model, the majority of students are from the same language background (e.g., Spanish)
but vary in their proficiency in the home language and in English, with some students being home
language-dominant and others being English-dominant. Each content area is taught consistently in one
language at a time. Mathematics is taught in English, science and social studies are taught in Spanish,
and language arts is taught in both English and Spanish. The language for all other activities alternates
daily (Gómez, Freeman, & Freeman, 2005; Lopez Estrada, Gómez, & Ruiz-Escalante, 2009). The
Gómez and Gómez dual language model is being used at more than 360 schools in Texas and in
schools in the state of Washington (Gómez, Freeman, & Freeman, 2005; Lopez Estrada, Gómez, &
Ruiz-Escalante, 2009).
A central component of the Gómez and Gómez model is bilingual grouping, which pairs Spanish-
dominant students with English-dominant students. Learners are grouped in bilingual pairs or groups
for all content-area instruction. The pairs/groups change regularly, usually on a weekly basis. This
pairing also is used in bilingual learning centers and bilingual resource centers. Bilingual learning
centers—employed in kindergarten and Grade 1—are interactive, subject-based learning areas with
activities that support first- and second-language learners. Bilingual learning center activities align with
the themes that classes are studying, serving as previews or extensions of the content objectives related
to those themes. In bilingual resource centers, which are employed in Grades 2 to 5, students work in
bilingual pairs on self-directed learning activities for a minimum of 30 minutes per day. Bilingual
resource center activities are used exclusively with lessons during content-area instruction; they use
cooperative learning and project-based activities (Gómez, Freeman, & Freeman, 2005).
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 24 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Exhibit 2.1. Overview of the Key Attributes of Dual Language Education Programs,
by Program Type
Two-Way Dual
Language Programs One-Way Dual Language Programs
Two-Way Immersion/
Dual Language
Immersion
World Language
Immersion
Programs
Developmental
Bilingual
Education
Programs
Heritage
Language
Immersion
Programs
Student Population
Served
ELs and non-ELs
(ideally 50 percent in
each group, or a
minimum of 33
percent)
Primarily English
speakers; can
include ELs and
heritage speakers
ELs and former
ELs only
Students whose
families’ heritage
language is/was
the partner
language
Languages
English and the ELs’
home (partner)
language
English and a
partner language
English and the
ELs’ home
(partner) language
English and the
heritage (partner)
language
Staffing
One bilingual teacher,
who teaches in both
languages, or one
teacher per language
One bilingual
teacher who
teaches in both
languages, or one
teacher per
language
One bilingual
teacher who
teaches in both
languages, or one
teacher per
language
One bilingual
teacher who
teaches in both
languages
(prevalent model)
Time Allocation per
Language
Primarily 50:50, or a combination that starts with more of the partner language (90:10,
80:20, and so on)
Language of
Academic Subjects
Varies by program
Language Allocation Language of instruction allocated by time, content area, or teacher
Duration of Program Throughout elementary school, with some programs continuing at the secondary level
Size of Program Strand or whole school
Exhibit Reads: Two-way dual language programs, also known as two-way immersion or dual language immersion programs, serve a
student population consisting of both ELs and non-ELs (ideally, 50 percent in each group, or a minimum of 33 percent).
Characteristics of Dual Language Education Programs
Dual language education is, first and foremost, a full instructional program for participating
students (even when delivered as a strand program, rather than a whole-school program). It is not
a partial or specialized program that is combined with another general education program; rather,
it provides the full educational experience for its students, with dual language classrooms
covering the core curriculum (i.e., the same content that is taught in all schools in a district). The
defining element of dual language programs is the provision of instruction in two languages.
This section summarizes the key features of dual language education, focusing on characteristics
specific to this approach. The findings apply to both two-way and one-way models of dual
language education unless otherwise noted.
16
16
It also is important to note that the characteristics of effective schools apply to dual language schools as well, from
teacher preparation and school leadership to instructional practices, school organization, and parent involvement
(Lindholm-Leary, 2007).
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 25 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Common Goals
Dual language programs vary in structure and implementation but share three common goals for
students: (1) to develop bilingualism and biliteracy, based on high levels of proficiency in two
languages (English and a partner language); (2) to achieve academically at grade level or better
in both languages; and (3) to develop an understanding and appreciation of multiple cultures,
with positive cross-cultural attitudes toward fellow students, their families, and the community
(Lindholm-Leary, 2007; Torres-Guzman et al., 2005; Howard et al., 2007; Alanís & Rodriguez,
2008; Block, 2011; Paciotto & Delany-Barmann, 2011; Parkes & Ruth, 2011; Rodriguez &
Alanís, 2011).
A key element in realizing these goals is the “additive bilingual” purpose, whereby all students
learn (or add) a new language while continuing to develop academically and linguistically in
their home language. As dual language education offers the promise of bilingualism for all
students, its role for ELs is especially noteworthy because ELs can benefit from continuing to
learn through their native language, both academically and cognitively (Esposito & Baker-Ward,
2013; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014). For example, oral proficiency and literacy in ELs’
first language has been shown to facilitate English literacy development (August & Shanahan,
2006).
Most reviews of dual language education outcomes have focused on the first two goals listed
above, and they have found promising results in the development of proficiency in two
languages and academic achievement (de Jong, 2014; Lindholm-Leary & Howard, 2008;
Lindholm-Leary & Block, 2010; Cheung & Slavin, 2012; Valentino & Reardon, 2015). There
has been relatively little research on outcomes related to the third and “most elusive” goal—
cross-cultural awareness and appreciation (Feinauer & Howard, 2014, p. 258). More recently,
however, research has identified the development of “strong, positive multilingual identities”
(Feinauer & Howard, p. 258) as a key component in achieving this third goal. Cross-cultural
awareness and appreciation is particularly relevant to two-way dual language models, where
students from different language backgrounds are integrated for all or most of their instructional
time. The rationale behind this approach is that, through collaboration and daily interactions,
students will form positive relationships with peers from different backgrounds and will develop
an appreciation and understanding of social and cultural differences (Lambert & Cazabon, 1994;
Lindholm, 1994; Lindholm-Leary, 2003). Students in two-way dual language programs appear to
appreciate having classmates from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, and tend to have
more positive cross-cultural attitudes than peers in other programs (Block, 2011; Feinauer &
Howard, 2014). Although one-way programs may not have built-in student diversity to draw on
as a resource in this area, cross-cultural awareness and appreciation may still be developed by
paying careful attention to social and linguistic context, and by fostering opportunities for
positive cross-cultural experiences and multilingual identity development.
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 26 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Integration of Language and Content Instruction in English and the Partner
Language
To promote bilingualism and biliteracy, dual language programs integrate language and
academic content instruction in English and a partner language. As a result, language is taught
through content. In other words, most instruction does not focus explicitly on language forms;
rather, content instruction is structured to simultaneously develop language skills. All students in
dual language programs learn some academic content through a second language, so instruction
needs to be designed to make the content comprehensible to them, and to help them expand their
second language skills. Sheltered instruction incorporates a variety of techniques to make content
more accessible to second language learners (Lindholm-Leary, 2007), such as visually presenting
materials, checking regularly for comprehension, integrating language objectives into content
lessons, and scaffolding both language and content. (See Short and Echevarria, 2015, for an
extensive discussion of sheltering strategies.) Incorporating various explicit language
development strategies (such as attention to vocabulary) into content lessons is recommended for
second language learners (Graves, August, & Mancilla-Martinez, 2013).
In some programs, students may receive supplementary language instruction in their second
language (English as a second language [ESL] for ELs, Spanish as a second language for English
speakers in a Spanish-English program, and so on). In two-way dual language programs, this
practice is generally limited to newcomers to the program or students who are struggling with the
language. This ensures that students are not separated into native language-based groups for
longer than is necessary. Some two-way programs also separate students for early reading
instruction in their native language, while others integrate students for literacy, either in the
partner language or in both program languages simultaneously.
Two-way dual language programs face the difficult task of challenging native speakers of a
language while also making instruction accessible to non-native speakers (since the two groups
are integrated in the classroom) in order to promote high levels of proficiency and literacy. There
is substantial evidence that native English speakers attain high proficiency in English (with no
significant differences when compared with English speakers in other programs), though there
may be a lag in literacy (not oral language) in the primary years in programs with a higher
proportion of partner language instruction (Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014). Among ELs,
native language (or partner language) proficiency has not received as much attention, but
research indicates that they become reasonably skilled (Lindholm-Leary & Hernandez, 2011).
However, other researchers have noted that, due to differences in the status of English and the
partner language, more attention may be paid to English-speaker needs during partner language
instruction, resulting in less challenging native language demands for ELs. This status difference
can affect peer interactions, which will then tend to be in English, providing ELs with less
opportunity to develop their native language (Hernandez, 2015). Indeed, some argue that without
explicit attention to language status issues, the benefits of dual language instruction may not be
as strong for ELs as for English speakers (de Jong & Howard, 2009).
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 27 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Allocation of Instructional Time
Dual language programs vary in how they divide instructional time between English and the
partner language. In general, however, at least 50 percent of instruction takes place in the partner
language through the elementary school grades.
Overall allocations: Many programs follow one of two widely adopted models at the
elementary level: the 50:50 model and the 90:10 model. In the 50:50 model, students receive half
of their instruction in English and the other half in the partner language throughout their elementary
years (Gómez, Freeman, & Freeman, 2005; Montague, 2005; Palmer, 2007; Lindholm-Leary, 2012;
Gómez, 2013). In some programs, students first learn to read in their primary language and then add
second language literacy; in other programs, students learn to read in both languages simultaneously
(Lindholm-Leary, 2012). In the 90:10 model, 90 percent of the instructional day is provided in the
partner language in kindergarten and Grade 1, and 10 percent is provided in English (Gómez,
Freeman, & Freeman, 2005; Palmer, 2007; Alanís & Rodriguez, 2008; Lindholm-Leary, 2012).
Reading instruction generally begins in the partner language for both native speakers of that language
and native English speakers. At each successive grade level, the percentage of English instructional
time increases until Grades 4, 5, and 6, when students’ instructional time is balanced equally between
English and the partner language (Lindholm-Leary, 2012). Although these two models reflect the
boundaries of language allocation in dual language education, in practice students experience many
points between these boundaries (e.g., 60:40, 70:30, and so on), often as a result of practical
considerations such as the availability of resources or assessment concerns. In a few schools, a third
language is introduced, and the program may begin at 80:10:10, with 10 percent of instructional time
delivered in the third language (Howard & Sugarman, 2007). In general, however, at least 50 percent
of instruction throughout elementary school needs to be delivered in the partner language in order to
promote bilingualism and biliteracy (Lindholm-Leary, 2007).
These models of dual language education build on the knowledge base of modern world
language immersion programs, which came to the United States from Canada in the late 1960s.
The results of these programs demonstrated that native English speakers could be immersed in
another language without harming their knowledge of English or their academic achievement.
The early immersion programs were “total” or 90:10 models. As programs spread around the
country, however, a 50:50 model—or “partial” immersion model—became popular (Christian,
2011). At the same time, bilingual education programs were emerging to educate ELs, based on
growing evidence that delivering education in the native language, while simultaneously
teaching English, could benefit the EL population. One version—developmental bilingual
education—aimed for students to maintain and develop their native language. These programs
tended to follow a 90:10 model, with the amount of instruction in English increasing each year.
The blending of these two traditions—world language immersion programs and bilingual
education programs—led to the emergence of the two-way dual language approach, which brings
the two groups of students together while continuing with the same 90:10 and 50:50 language
allocation models. Research comparing 90:10 and 50:50 models is not extensive, but evidence
suggests that both models produce similar outcomes for students (Lindholm-Leary, 2007; de
Jong, 2014). The most pronounced difference occurs in levels of proficiency in the partner
language, which may not be as high in the 50:50 model, especially among English speakers
(de Jong, 2014).
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 28 Dual Language Programming and Policies
In any allocation model at the elementary level, the language of instruction is usually determined
by content area, teacher, or time (Lindholm-Leary, 2007; Torres-Guzman et al., 2005; Howard et
al., 2007). For example, mathematics may be taught in English for all or half of the year, while
social studies is taught in the partner language. Alternatively, students may be taught by two
teachers, each using a different language of instruction, or by a single bilingual teacher, who
instructs in both languages. Last, different languages can be scheduled for different blocks of
time, such as in 50:50 programs that alternate between languages every day or half day.
Instructional use of language within classrooms: Although dual language education
models are characterized by the proportion of instruction delivered in the two languages, the
actual mix of languages in the classroom on a day-to-day basis is variable. Drawing on second
language acquisition literature, early guidance called for the separation of languages, based on
the principle that extended monolingual instruction was important for promoting language
development (Collier & Thomas, 2005; Lindholm-Leary, 2007). This meant that teachers and
students were expected to use only the current language of instruction in any given lesson
(Howard et al., 2007). This principle has since been called into question, however, particularly
by those who argue for a dynamic approach to bilingualism and maintain that individuals with
two or more languages benefit from drawing on all of their linguistic resources in any situation
(Garcia, 2009). For example, a Spanish-speaking EL may offer an explanation in English to an
English speaker during a lesson in Spanish—a form of “translanguaging” (Garcia, 2009).
According to proponents of this approach, a “blending of language separation with language
integration” is called for… [to reflect] the dynamic bilingual use of the twenty-first century”
(Garcia, 2009, p. 304). Discussion and debate about the most appropriate approach—based on
the age of students, the degree of bilingualism attained, and other factors—is ongoing.
The power and status of the two languages of instruction also have prompted concern about
interaction within the classroom. In particular, there are concerns that the dominance of English
can lead to a preference among students for using English in the classroom (particularly when
ELs have gained a level of English proficiency), which may reduce students’ opportunities to
develop high levels of proficiency in the partner language (de Jong & Howard, 2009).
Beyond the elementary grades, the design of dual language programs is not as well defined.
Generally, secondary schools offer students who come to them from elementary programs
opportunities to take a core content area course in the partner language, along with a specially
designed language/language arts course (accounting for between 25 percent and 40 percent of
class time). Offerings are often limited by the availability of teachers qualified to teach the
content in the partner language and by scheduling issues (Montone & Loeb, 2000; Sandy-
Sanchez, 2008). It becomes more difficult to give the languages equal status in this restricted
context (de Jong & Bearse, 2014).
Program Duration
Dual language programs generally commence at the beginning of elementary school (in either
kindergarten or Grade 1) and continue throughout elementary school, with some programs
continuing at the secondary level. Generally, students do not exit these programs during the
elementary school years, even if ELs become proficient in English, as developing bilingualism
and biliteracy in both languages is a goal for all students enrolled in the program (Faulkner-Bond
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 29 Dual Language Programming and Policies
et al., 2012). In contrast, many programs for ELs focus solely on English proficiency, regardless
of grade level, and, when this is attained, students move to English-only programs.
Guided by research on the length of time needed to develop second language proficiency suitable
for grade-level achievement (Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000, Saunders & O’Brien, 2006), dual
language programs are expected to enroll students and provide content-based instruction through
the partner language for a minimum of six years. Although the ability to use a second language
in social interactions may emerge much earlier, academic language proficiency is needed for
learning and success in school (Hakuta, 2011). There also is some evidence that EL students may
experience an initial delay in English performance, as they learn through two languages, but will
catch up with (and often exceed) their peers in other programs by the end of elementary school
(Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014).
Students are enrolled when they enter school, either in kindergarten or Grade 1, and most schools
have policies that determine which students can join the programs after this time. In two-way
dual language programs, it is difficult to add new students later because they are unlikely to have
the necessary language and literacy skills in both languages to keep up with instruction. Often,
native English speakers are not allowed to enroll after Grade 1 or 2, unless they can demonstrate
the needed language skills in the partner language. Depending on other program alternatives in
the district, ELs may be included at higher grade levels, if the (one-way or two-way) dual
language program is thought to be the best option for them.
To promote bilingualism, program planners pay attention to the articulation of language
development objectives across grades and education levels (just as literacy and core content
instruction are articulated to build knowledge). This vertical articulation specifies learning goals
for each grade or level, so that language development in the second language is cumulative for
all students. This is especially important when students move from elementary to secondary
levels because typical language course offerings in middle and high schools are not appropriate
for students who have had a dual language experience in elementary school (Wilson, 1988).
Language courses in most secondary schools are intended for students without previous language
study and do not accommodate the skills already developed by heritage language speakers.
In the absence of a dual language program, middle and high schools also are unlikely to offer
content area courses in a language other than English, although in some cases, there are
alternative programs (such as the International Baccalaureate), which can serve as a secondary
follow-on to an elementary dual language program (Montone & Loeb, 2000). As the number of
dual language programs grows, this issue will increasingly confront universities, which will need
to refine their course offerings to provide challenging continuing language development for
graduates of dual language schools. Several universities in Canada, for example, have structured
programs to help graduates of French immersion (a form of one-way dual language) schools
maintain and advance their language skills. At the University of Ottawa (a bilingual
French/English institution), the French Immersion Studies program focuses on the needs of
speakers of French as a second language and offers an array of subject matter courses taught in
French (mainly in social sciences and arts), some with accompanying language development
adjunct sessions; advanced French language courses; and support services such as the Immersion
Mentoring Centre (Burger, Weinberg, Hall, Movassat, & Hope, 2011).
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 30 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Whole-School and Strand Programs
Dual language education can be implemented as a “whole-school” program (in which all
students participate) or a “strand” program (in which one or more classes at every grade level are
dedicated to the dual language program, while other classes follow a different model) (Palmer,
2007). The choice between whole-school and strand programs is often a practical one. Programs
often start as strand programs at a neighborhood school, depending on the number of ELs from
the same language background (and native English speakers, for two-way models) who are
interested in enrolling. After some years of operation and growing demand, these schools often
expand the number of classes they offer at each grade level and may eventually reach whole-
school status. In districts with magnet schools, a school may develop a dual language program
and offer it to students districtwide. This mitigates the demographic constraints of a
neighborhood school. In general, the feasibility of a whole-school model depends on the
community’s level of interest, student population characteristics, the availability of staff with the
necessary skills, and the district’s school organization model (Howard & Christian, 2002). When
a program operates as a strand in a larger school, it is important to build cohesion with other
programs and gather support from the broader community so that those outside the program
understand its goals. It also is useful to begin the program with several classes at the
kindergarten/Grade 1 level, if possible, so that normal attrition does not lead to problems with
class size in the upper elementary grades (Howard & Christian, 2002).
Palmer (2010) identified a number of challenges associated with implementing strand dual
language programs in her study of a multiethnic, urban elementary school in Northern California
that adopted a two-way dual language program to replace its transitional bilingual program. At
this school, there was only one dual language class at each grade level, which meant that the
same group of students moved through the grades together, with little or no interaction with other
students. Although the dual language class was diverse, the students did not have the opportunity
to interact with the full range of students in the school community. Palmer’s study also found
that the teachers outside the dual language program were perceived as unprepared or uninterested
in issues affecting ELs and lacking a commitment to help them achieve the goals of the dual
language program. During library time, for example, the English-only librarian read stories aloud
in English to the children in the dual language program, but did not differentiate instruction to
accommodate the needs of Spanish-speaking ELs. More broadly, the dual language program
struggled to achieve a balance between the partner language and English while operating within
an English-dominant environment.
Prevalence of Dual Language Education Programs
Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia reported offering dual language
education programs during the 2012–13 school year, with Spanish and Chinese the
most commonly reported partner languages.
In the 2012–13 Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs), these states and the District of
Columbia indicated that Title III-funded districts implemented at least one type of dual language
program that year. In total, these programs featured more than 30 different partner languages. As
shown in Exhibit 2.2, states most frequently reported dual language programs with Spanish (35
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 31 Dual Language Programming and Policies
states and the District of Columbia), Chinese (14 states), Native American languages (12 states),
and French (seven states and the District of Columbia) as the partner languages.
Exhibit 2.2. Number of States That Reported Offering Dual Language Education
Programs in a Particular Partner Language, 2012–13
Exhibit Reads: Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia reported that their Title III-funded districts implemented at least one
dual language program in Spanish in 2012–13.
Notes: Includes 44 states and the District of Columbia (five states were excluded due to missing data). For simplicity, the District of
Columbia is represented in the figure as a state. States that reported offering dual language education programs in a particular
language include states that reported offering any of the following types of program (as defined in the CSPR) in that language: dual
language, two-way immersion, developmental bilingual, and heritage language programs.
“Chinese” includes Chinese, Cantonese, and Mandarin.
“Native American languages” includes Arapahoe, Cherokee, Crow, Hoopa, Inupiaq, Lakota, Nahuatl, Navajo, Ojibwe,
Passamaquoddy, Shoshoni, Ute, and Yurok.
“Other languages” includes Armenian, Filipino, French Creole, Khmer, Korean, Polish, and Urdu (each were reported by only one state).
Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs), 2012–13
State Definitions of Dual Language Programs
This section examines state definitions of dual language programs, which are typically short
descriptions that offer a brief overview of programs’ key characteristics. Although program
definitions are only one form of state guidance on dual language programs, they may serve a
variety of important functions, such as providing a quick introduction for individuals previously
unfamiliar with the programs, establishing a framework for distinguishing among different
program types, or promoting a common vision of what these programs entail. Given these
potential functions, it is useful to explore the program characteristics that states include in their
program definitions.
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
5
5
8
12
14
35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Other languages
Portuguese
Italian
Russian
Ukrainian
Hmong
Japanese
German
Arabic
Vietnamese
French
Native American languages
Chinese
Spanish
Number of States
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 32 Dual Language Programming and Policies
States’ definitions of dual language programs reflect multiple and inconsistent use
of program terms in the field of dual language education.
One challenge in examining states’ definitions of dual language programs is that states vary
considerably in how they apply terminology associated with these programs. To ensure that our
analysis compared state definitions of the same program type, we used our study definitions of
two-way and one-way dual language programs to categorize states’ program definitions using a
standard set of terms. We classified state program definitions as a definition of “two-way dual
language programs” if the definition indicated that the program (1) provides instruction in two
languages, and (2) includes a mix of language majority and language minority students. We
classified state program definitions as a definition of “one-way dual language programs that
predominantly serve language minority students”
17
if the definition indicated that the program
(1) provides instruction in two languages, (2) serves predominantly language minority students
(i.e., students with a native language other than English), and (3) does not aim to transition ELs
or former ELs to English-only classrooms.
Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have issued program definitions that
match our criteria for two-way dual language programs, and 16 states and the
District of Columbia have issued definitions that match our criteria for one-way dual
language programs that serve predominantly language minority students.
For example, California’s English language Development (ELD) Framework includes the
following definition for “dual language immersion programs (aka two-way bilingual education)”
that matches our criteria for two-way dual language programs:
Provides integrated language and academic instruction for native speakers of English and
native speakers of another language with the goals of high academic achievement, first
and second language proficiency, and cross-cultural understanding. In dual language
immersion programs, language learning is integrated with content instruction (California
Department of Education, 2014, p.1063).
California’s ELD Framework also includes the following definition for “developmental bilingual
education (DBE)” that matches our criteria for one-way dual language programs that serve
predominantly language minority students:
Also referred to as maintenance bilingual education and late-exit bilingual education, is
an enrichment form of dual language education that uses English learners’ home
language and English for literacy and academic instruction throughout the elementary
grade levels and, whenever possible, school as well (Ibid, p.1063).
The results of these analyses (presented in Exhibits 2.3 and 2.4 below) underscore the variation
in states’ use of program terminology. Many states’ definitions include multiple names for each
program type (reflecting the diversity of terms used in the field), while others use the same term
to refer to different program types. For example, program definitions from three states use the
17
As noted in the definition of one-way dual language programs, the students in these programs are predominately
of one language background and can be ELs or students who are English proficient and acquiring a heritage or world
language. For the purpose of this report, we focus on ELs acquiring English.
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 33 Dual Language Programming and Policies
term “developmental bilingual” to refer to two-way dual language programs
18
(see Exhibit 2.3),
while program definitions from another 11 states use the same term to refer to one-way dual
language programs that predominantly serve EL language minority students (see Exhibit 2.4).
Exhibit 2.3. Program Terms and Characteristics Featured in States’ Definitions of Two-
Way Dual Language Programs
State Name
Terms Used to
Describe the Program
Program Has
Goal of
Promoting
Bilingualism/
Biliteracy
Program Has
Goal of
Promoting
Academic
Achievement
Program Has
Goal of
Promoting
Cross-Cultural
Understanding
Program Lasts
for Extended
Period of Time
(e.g., Spans
Multiple Years)
Alabama
Two-way bilingual,
developmental bilingual
x
Alaska
Two-way immersion,
two-way bilingual, dual
language program
x x
California
Dual language
immersion, two-way
bilingual education
x x x
Connecticut
Dual language/two-way
bilingual education
program, a type of
developmental bilingual
education program
x
Delaware
Two-way immersion, a
type of world language
immersion program
x
District of
Columbia
A type of dual language
program
x
Florida
Dual language, two-way
developmental bilingual
education
Idaho
Dual language/dual
immersion, two-way
immersion, two-way
bilingual education
x x x
Illinois
Two-way immersion/dual
language
x
Iowa
Bilingual dual language
program, two-way,
developmental
x
Maine
Two-way bilingual
education,
developmental bilingual
education
x
Mississippi
Two-way bilingual
education, dual
immersion
x
Missouri Two-way developmental x
18
The definition from one additional state (Rhode Island) describes two-way dual language programs as one type of
developmental bilingual program.
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 34 Dual Language Programming and Policies
State Name
Terms Used to
Describe the Program
Program Has
Goal of
Promoting
Bilingualism/
Biliteracy
Program Has
Goal of
Promoting
Academic
Achievement
Program Has
Goal of
Promoting
Cross-Cultural
Understanding
Program Lasts
for Extended
Period of Time
(e.g., Spans
Multiple Years)
Montana
Two-way immersion,
two-way bilingual
x
Nevada
Two-way immersion, a
type of dual language
immersion program
x x
New Jersey
Dual-language bilingual
education
New Mexico
Dual language
immersion
x x x x
New York
Two-way bilingual
education, two-way
immersion
x x x
North
Carolina
Two-way immersion x x x
Oregon
Two-way bilingual, two-
way immersion, a type of
dual language program
x x x
Rhode
Island
Two-way/dual language,
a type of dual language
program
x x x
South
Dakota
Dual language x x x x
Texas
Dual language
immersion/two-way, a
type of dual language
immersion program
x x x x
Utah
Two-way immersion,
two-way bilingual, a type
of dual language
immersion program
x x
Virginia
Two-way immersion, a
type of dual language
education
x x
Wisconsin
Two-way immersion, a
type of dual language
education program
x x
Wyoming
Two-way immersion/dual
language
x x
Total 27 states 22 states 11 states 10 states 8 states
Exhibit Reads: Alabama’s definition of two-way dual language programs refers to these programs as “two-way bilingual” and
“developmental bilingual” programs, and it indicates that these programs have the goal of promoting bilingualism and biliteracy.
Notes: Includes 26 states and the District of Columbia with definitions of a two-way dual language program. To be considered a two-
way dual language program, a state’s definition had to indicate that programs (1) provide instruction in two languages, and (2)
include a mix of language majority and language minority students. For simplicity, the District of Columbia is represented in this
table as a state.
Source: Review of SEA websites conducted in spring 2015
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 35 Dual Language Programming and Policies
States’ definitions of two-way dual language programs tend to emphasize the
program’s goals of promoting bilingualism and biliteracy, academic achievement,
and cross-cultural understanding.
An analysis of state definitions of two-way dual language programs revealed that program goals
are often highlighted as defining characteristics. For example, the most common program
characteristic in states’ definitions of two-way dual language programs—aside from instruction
in two languages and inclusion of students from two language groups—is the goal of promoting
bilingualism and/or biliteracy (see Exhibit 2.3). The next most frequently cited characteristics are
the goals of promoting academic achievement and cross-cultural understanding, which are
included in the definitions of 11 states and 10 states, respectively. Definitions from seven states
and the District of Columbia note that two-way dual language programs last for an extended
period of time, indicating that programs span multiple grade levels or last throughout elementary
school (or, in some cases, K–12).
State definitions of one-way dual language programs that predominantly serve
language minority students also tend to highlight the goal of promoting bilingualism
and biliteracy, although they mention the goals of promoting academic achievement
and cross-cultural understanding less frequently than definitions of two-way dual
language programs.
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia provide definitions that identify their programs as
one-way dual language programs predominantly serving language minority students. Of these,
10 states have definitions that mention the goal of promoting bilingualism and/or biliteracy (see
Exhibit 2.4), two states mention the goal of promoting academic achievement, and two include
the goal of promoting cross-cultural understanding. North Carolina’s definition, for example,
explains that programs are designed to help students become “bicultural in a way that honors
their need to simultaneously identify and communicate with their heritage or home culture and
with the mainstream culture they live and will work in” (North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction, 2015).
Definitions provided by six states and the District of Columbia indicate that one-way dual
language programs for language minority students last for an extended period of time. For
instance, definitions from three of these states mention that programs last throughout elementary
school. Four states and the District of Columbia state that programs typically begin with
instruction predominantly in the partner language, but then transition over time to incorporate a
greater emphasis on instruction in English (such as with the 90:10 model).
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 36 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Exhibit 2.4. Terminology and Program Characteristics Included in States’ Definitions of
One-Way Dual Language Programs Predominantly Serving Language Minority Students
State Name
Terms Used to
Describe the
Program
Program Has
Goal of
Promoting
Bilingualism/B
iliteracy
Program Lasts
for Extended
Period of Time
(e.g., Spans
Multiple Years)
Proportion
of
Instruction
in English
Increases
Over Time
Program Has
Goal of
Promoting
Academic
Achievement
Program
Has Goal of
Promoting
Cross-
Cultural
Under-
standing
Alabama Late-exit x
Alaska
Developmental
bilingual, late-exit
transitional,
maintenance
bilingual
education
x x
California
Developmental
bilingual,
maintenance
bilingual
education, late-
exit bilingual
education
x
Colorado
Late-exit,
developmental
bilingual
education
x x
Connecticut
Developmental
bilingual
education,
gradual-exit/late-
exit bilingual
programs
x x x
District of
Columbia
A type of dual
language
program
x x
Idaho
Developmental
bilingual
x
Illinois
Developmental
bilingual
education
x x
Mississippi
Maintenance
bilingual
education, late-
exit bilingual
education
x
Missouri
Late exit,
maintenance
x
New Mexico
Maintenance
bilingual
x
North
Carolina
Developmental
bilingual
x x
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 37 Dual Language Programming and Policies
State Name
Terms Used to
Describe the
Program
Program Has
Goal of
Promoting
Bilingualism/B
iliteracy
Program Lasts
for Extended
Period of Time
(e.g., Spans
Multiple Years)
Proportion
of
Instruction
in English
Increases
Over Time
Program Has
Goal of
Promoting
Academic
Achievement
Program
Has Goal of
Promoting
Cross-
Cultural
Under-
standing
Oregon
Maintenance
bilingual
education, late-
exit bilingual
education,
developmental
x
Rhode
Island
Developmental
bilingual program,
a type of dual
language
program
x x x
Texas
Late-exit bilingual
services
Total 17 states 10 states 7 states 5 states 2 states 2 states
Exhibit Reads: Alabama’s definition of one-way dual language programs that predominantly serve language minority students refers
to these programs as “late-exit” programs, and it indicates that these programs last for an extended period of time (i.e., they span
multiple years).
Notes: Includes 16 states and the District of Columbia that provided definitions of one-way dual language programs that
predominantly serve language minority students. To be considered a one-way dual language program that predominantly serves
language minority students, the definition needed to indicate that the program (1) provides instruction in two languages, and (2)
serves predominantly language minority students (i.e., students with a native language other than English). In addition, the definition
could not indicate that the program had the goal of transitioning ELs or former ELs to English-only classrooms. For simplicity, the
District of Columbia is represented in this table as a state.
Source: Review of SEA websites conducted in spring 2015
State Guidance on Dual Language Program Features
While the analyses in the previous section examined the distinguishing characteristics that states
attribute to dual language programs in their published program definitions, this section examines
state guidance on specific program characteristics. These analyses drew on state program
definitions, as well as any other form of state-issued guidance that provided further specification
on dual language program components.
Student Composition
Approximately one in three states (16 states and the District of Columbia) have
issued guidance on the ratio of English-speaking students to partner-language-
speaking students participating in two-way dual language programs. Three states
have set specific requirements for this ratio.
Most of the states that provide guidance in this area (14 states) indicate that two-way dual
language programs either typically or ideally feature a 1:1 ratio of English-speaking students to
partner-language-speaking students (see Exhibit 2.5). For example, Connecticut’s definition of
two-way bilingual education programs states that an ideal class consists of 50 percent native
English speakers and 50 percent partner language speakers, ensuring sufficient peer modeling
and support. Two states and the District of Columbia provide guidance that the ratio of students
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 38 Dual Language Programming and Policies
from each language group should not exceed a specified range. For instance, information on
California’s SEA website asserts: “The ideal ratio of English learners to English speakers is
50:50, but to stay within the program design, the recommendation of many practitioners is that
the ratio should never go below 33 percent for either language group” (California Department of
Education, 2015a).
Three states—Delaware, Indiana, and Utah—require two-way dual language programs to
establish a ratio of English-speaking to partner-language-speaking students that falls within a
state-specified range. In Delaware, native speakers of the partner language must account for
between 30 percent and 60 percent of students in two-way dual language programs, and in
Indiana and Utah, a minimum of one third of students in two-way programs must come from
each language group (although the state encourages programs to pursue a 1:1 ratio). As of spring
2015, in Delaware and Utah, only Spanish/English dual language programs included a sufficient
number of students from each language group to qualify as two-way programs.
Exhibit 2.5. Types of Guidance That States Have Issued on the Ratio of English-Speaking
Students to Partner-Language-Speaking Students in Two-Way Dual Language Programs
State Name
Indicates That Ratio Is
Ideally or Typically 1:1
Recommends That Ratio
Fall Within a Specified
Range
Requires That Ratio Fall
Within a Specified
Range
Alabama X
California
X
One to two thirds partner-
language speakers
Colorado X
Connecticut X
Delaware
30 to 60 percent partner-
language speakers
District of Columbia
One to two thirds partner-
language speakers
Illinois X
Indiana
X
One to two thirds partner-
language speakers
Iowa X
New Jersey X
New Mexico X
New York
X
50–70 percent partner-
language speakers
North Carolina X
Oregon X
Texas X
Utah
X
One to two thirds partner-
language speakers
Wisconsin X
Total 15 states 3 states 3 states
Exhibit Reads: Alabama’s guidance on the ratio of English-speaking students to partner-language-speaking students participating in
two-way dual language programs indicates that the ratio is ideally or typically 1:1.
Notes: Includes 16 states and the District of Columbia, which have issued guidance on the ratio of English-speaking students to
partner-language-speaking students participating in two-way dual language programs.
Source: Review of SEA websites conducted in spring 2015
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 39 Dual Language Programming and Policies
State guidance on the ratio of students from each language group in two-way dual
language programs varies in how it defines these two language groups.
For example, guidance from seven states and the District of Columbia identifies students
representing the English language group as native English speakers, while guidance from another
four states specifies that students representing the English language group can include both
native English speakers and non-native English speakers classified as fully English proficient.
Guidance from the remaining five states refers to these students using more general terms, such
as “English speakers” or “language majority students.” Guidance from Texas—where the Gómez
and Gómez model originated (see the text box titled “Implementing a Dual Language Approach
With a Majority of Students From the Same Language Background: The Gómez and Gómez
Model”)—uses the term “dominant English speakers.”
With regard to students representing the partner language group, guidance from six states and the
District of Columbia describes these students as native speakers of the partner language, while
guidance from another four states identifies these students as ELs. Guidance from the other five
states uses broader terminology, such as “language minority students” or “speakers of the partner
language,” although the guidance from one of these states clarifies that these students are
typically ELs.
Allocating Instructional Time in English and the Partner Language
Seven states have established explicit expectations regarding the amount of
instructional time devoted to English and the partner language in dual language
programs, with each requiring instruction in the partner language for half of the
school day or more.
Overall, 16 states and the District of Columbia provide information or guidance about the
allocation of instructional time to each language within dual language programs. For example,
Rhode Island’s Dual Language Program Standards indicate that programs should “employ a
monolingual lesson delivery model (i.e., different periods of time devoted to instruction in and
through each of the two languages). Sustained periods of monolingual instruction in each
language help to promote adequate language development” (Rhode Island Department of
Education, 2014, p. 8).
Seven states have specific guidelines regarding the amount of instruction delivered in each
language. Four of these states (Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, and Utah) have adopted the 50:50
model of language allocation, whereby programs divide daily instruction evenly between English
and the partner language, as part of their statewide dual language program model. Two other
states (Georgia and Texas) indicate that programs should provide instruction in the partner
language for at least 50 percent—but potentially more—of the school day. The fifth state (New
Mexico) has set expectations for the number of hours devoted to English and the partner
language, which are tailored to each type of dual language program. For example, New Mexico’s
guidelines indicate that two-way dual language programs should devote a minimum of three
hours per day to each language, while one-way dual language programs for ELs and former ELs
(i.e., maintenance bilingual programs) must include at least one hour of partner language
instruction and one hour of English language development instruction, and may include an
additional hour of partner language instruction in the content areas of mathematics, social
studies, science, or fine art.
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 40 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Six states have issued guidance on the use of English or the partner language to
teach particular content areas.
Three of these states have released general information about content areas that can be taught in
the partner language (typically, math, science, social studies, and the arts), but the other three
states (Delaware, Georgia, and Utah) have defined specific models that outline, by grade level,
which content areas should be taught in which language. For example, Utah’s instructional
sequencing model
19
calls for students in Grades 1 to 3 to receive instruction in mathematics,
other content areas (e.g., social studies, science, physical education, art, health, and music), and
partner language literacy during the partner language half of the school day, and to spend the
English portion of the day learning English language arts and receiving content area
reinforcement. In Grades 4 to 5, students learn mathematics, English language arts, and social
studies in English and receive mathematics reinforcement, partner language literacy instruction,
and science instruction in the partner language. When students reach Grade 6, they continue to
follow the same general approach, but they switch to learning science in English and social
studies in the partner language.
Program Length and Secondary-Level Pathways
Nine states have provided information or guidance on the duration of dual language
programs; in each case, this guidance recommends or expects that programs
continue into middle and high school.
Four of these states explain that although dual language programs typically last throughout
elementary school (i.e., about six years), they should (where possible) extend to middle and high
school grades. The other five states (Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, North Carolina, and Utah)
indicate that dual language programs are expected or designed to run from kindergarten through
Grade 12. For example, guidance from Utah explains that dual language programs begin in
kindergarten or Grade 1, continue incrementally throughout the elementary grades, and then
extend through the middle and high school grades. Furthermore, a “Frequently Asked Questions”
page on Utah’s dual language website informs parents: “In order to fully benefit from the dual
language immersion program, we expect that students will commit to the program through high
school.”
Four states have articulated specific pathways for providing dual language
education at the secondary level.
North Carolina, for example, has developed pathways for heritage language learners at the
secondary level to develop their heritage language proficiency. These students begin by taking a
series of two courses designed to build literacy skills for native speakers of a world language,
19
Delaware follows a model very similar to Utah’s model. Georgia’s model also is similar: In kindergarten through
Grade 3, the partner language is used to teach literacy and most content areas (mathematics, science, and social
studies) while English is used to teach English language arts and specials (e.g., art, music, physical education) and to
provide content area reinforcement. In Grade 4 and Grade 5, conceptual instruction in mathematics and social
science is provided in English while practical-application instruction in these content areas is provided in the partner
language.
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 41 Dual Language Programming and Policies
and then progress to more advanced courses in that language (e.g., Mandarin Chinese IV,
Advanced Placement [AP] Spanish) alongside non-native-speaking students who have been
studying the language for four to five years.
Delaware, Georgia, and Utah have established pathways for extending dual language programs
from the beginning of elementary school through the end of high school. According to Utah’s
secondary pathway (which goes into effect in the 2015–16 school year), when students from K–6
dual language programs reach middle school, the focus of the dual language program shifts from
developing a foundation of content area language and vocabulary to deepening cognition skills
and cultural competencies. To that end, students in Grades 7 and 8 enroll in honors-level dual
language courses, and also may choose to enroll in a dual language immersion culture and media
course. Dual language students in Grade 8 have the additional option of completing a capstone
project. When dual language students enter Grade 9, they take the AP language and culture
course, which is intended to help prepare them for university upper division language study. In
Grades 10 and 12, students advance to upper division university courses, where the focus is on
applying language to global career opportunities and building global competency. Students in
Grades 10 to 12 also may choose to start learning a new world language at this point.
Delaware also outlines a secondary pathway in which dual language students enroll in honors-
level language classes and engage in project-based learning tasks during middle school (Grades
6–8), take the AP language and culture course in Grade 9, and take university-level language
courses in Grades 10 to 12. Delaware students also have the option of starting a third language in
middle school and taking an AP course for that language by the end of high school. In Georgia,
students take a content course in the partner language as well as a second course in advanced
language study when they reach middle school; they are then expected to enroll in AP language
coursework and complete the AP exam in Grade 9 or Grade 10. In Grade 10 through Grade 12,
students may take university-level coursework through blending learning with Georgia
universities and/or starting an additional language.
Teacher Staffing
Four states require or recommend that dual language programs use separate
teachers to provide instruction in English and the partner language.
Eight states provide guidance on staffing dual language programs.
20
Delaware and Utah require
dual language programs to employ a two-teacher staffing model, in which one teacher provides
instruction only in English and another teacher provides instruction only in the partner language.
These teachers are expected to collaborate regularly to coordinate curriculum and instruction for
their students. The remaining six states have issued guidance that indicates that dual language
programs can be implemented using this team-teaching approach or a single-teacher staffing
model, in which one teacher provides instruction in both English and the partner language.
However, guidance from two of these states recommends that dual language programs use the
two-teacher approach. For example, California encourages programs to use the two-teacher
20
This analysis refers to state guidance on the structure of dual language program staffing. Guidance and
requirements for teacher qualifications and professional development are discussed in Chapter V.
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 42 Dual Language Programming and Policies
approach, particularly in kindergarten through Grade 2, so that students can identify with a
model English speaker and a model partner language speaker.
Parental Involvement
Two of the six case-study states have issued guidance for parents on supporting
their children in dual language programs, and one case study state has provided
guidance for districts and schools on involving parents in dual language programs.
Delaware and Utah have both developed recommendations for parents on supporting their child’s
learning in the context of dual language education. For example, Delaware’s world language
immersion website advises parents of students in dual language programs to:
Commit to long-term participation in the immersion program so that your child can
develop advanced-level language skills. Develop an understanding of immersion
education. Encourage the use of the immersion language outside of school. Encourage
community support. Enjoy the challenges and celebrate the results (Delaware Department
of Education, n.d.).
Parent guidance released by Utah indicates that parents are encouraged to familiarize themselves
with the partner language and to volunteer in dual language classrooms, although it cautions
parents that only the partner language is spoken in partner language classrooms. Utah’s guidance
also explains how English-speaking parents can help with homework in the partner language:
“Only tasks that the student could complete independently will be assigned as homework in the
target language. This is best practice for all homework assignments regardless of the language.
Parents are still encouraged to read daily in English to their student” (Utah State Office of
Education, n.d.a).
North Carolina’s website does not feature recommendations for parents about their involvement
in dual language programs, but it does refer to research that provides guidance to districts and
schools about how they can foster parent and family engagement in dual language programs. For
example, drawing on research conducted on dual language programs, a document on North
Carolina’s website notes:
The bilingual/bicultural context of a well-implemented dual language/immersion program
nurtures everyone. The school may provide cross-cultural events for families, including
exchanges of skills and shared language learning experiences. Parent meetings focus on
the needs of their multilingual/multicultural community (Collier &Thomas, 2012, p. 3, as
cited in North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2014).
In the remaining three case-study states, state policy and guidance documents do
not mention parental involvement strategies specifically related to dual language
programs, but they do outline expectations and procedures for monitoring state and
federal parental involvement requirements related to EL services.
For example, Illinois requires districts to create Bilingual Parent Advisory Committees (BPACs)
to help guide local decisions related to EL services, and the state assesses districts’
implementation of parental involvement strategies through its Bilingual Education Program
Dual Language Education Program Design—Features and Guidance 43 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Delivery Report (PDR) system and state monitoring process. This system collects information
from districts on (1) whether the district has established a BPAC and the types of members who
serve on the committee; (2) the level of family involvement (i.e., whether families receive
information, provide feedback and recommendation only, or are involved in decision making) in
the planning, operations, and evaluation of EL programs; (3) the types of training the district
provides to parents and families of ELs; and (4) the types of resources the district supplies to
parents (e.g., documents translated into parents’ native language, native language translators,
parent workshops, transportation assistance, referrals to community organizations).
New Mexico also requires districts to establish a parent advisory committee that is representative
of the language and culture of students served in the district, and to engage parents in the
development, implementation, and evaluation of bilingual multicultural education programs
(which include dual language programs). When districts and schools apply to the state for
funding for such programs, they must provide a list of activities that they will use to strengthen
community and parent participation. Massachusetts monitors districts’ implementation of federal
EL parent involvement requirements through its Coordinated Program Review System for English
Learner Education. The evaluation tool for this monitoring provides the following guidance:
Parent involvement may be through the development of a parent advisory council on
English language education, through membership on a school-based council, or through
other means determined by the district. The district should provide multiple opportunities
and a variety of methods for parent-teacher communication (Massachusetts Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education, n.d., p. 21).
Chapter Summary
Dual language education programs provide academic content and language instruction in two
languages to promote bilingualism and biliteracy, mastery of academic content, and cross-
cultural awareness. Particular features of dual language programs—such as the ratio of English-
speaking students to partner-language-speaking students, the allocation of instructional time and
academic content to each language of instruction, program length, and the number of teachers
employed—vary within and across states. However, common approaches do exist, such as the
90:10 and 50:50 models for allocating instructional time.
This analysis of state policies and guidance for dual language programs suggests that states are
largely leaving program design decisions to district and school stakeholders, although some states are
providing information and guidelines about program components to help inform local decision
making. However, a few states—in particular, Delaware, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Utah—
have articulated specific state models or expectations for the design of dual language programs.
Student Eligibility for and Placement Into Dual Language Programs 44 Dual Language Programming and Policies
III. Student Eligibility for and Placement Into Dual Language
Programs
This chapter explores state-level policies and practices that help determine who participates in
dual language programs. It begins by examining states’ criteria for identifying students as either
English learners (ELs) or English proficient students when they first enter the school system, as
well as states’ criteria for reclassifying students as English proficient once they acquire
proficiency in English. This chapter then highlights state policies and guidance related to
students’ eligibility for and placement in dual language programs. It concludes with a discussion
of states’ efforts to support student recruitment and retention.
Key Findings
• All states with publicly available information about their EL identification procedures (46 states
and the District of Columbia) require districts to administer a home language survey followed by
an English language proficiency (ELP) assessment to identify students as ELs.
• Among states with publicly available information about their EL reclassification procedures, 20
states and the District of Columbia require that EL reclassification decisions be based solely on
students’ performance on the state ELP assessment, while the remaining 20 states require or allow
districts to consider additional criteria when making such decisions.
• Five states have established policies or guidance related to students’ eligibility for or placement
into dual language programs: two states require that dual language programs be open to students
with varying backgrounds and ability levels, three states provide information on enrolling students
after Grades 1 or 2, and two states require that parents submit annual written consent.
• State efforts to help recruit and retain students in dual language programs include providing
outreach materials and support (six states), offering a state Seal of Biliteracy to recognize high
school graduates who attain proficiency in two languages (11 states and the District of Columbia),
and creating opportunities for students to earn university course credit in high school (two states).
Identifying Students as English Learners or English Proficient
Students
Federal civil rights policies do not specify particular procedures for identifying students for
participation in dual language programs. To the extent that the focus of this report is on ELs, we
first describe the federal requirements for identifying ELs for special programming. Federal civil
rights laws mandate that states and/or districts have in place procedures for “accurately
identifying EL students in a timely, valid, and reliable manner so that they can be provided the
opportunity to participate meaningfully and equally in the district’s educational programs” (U.S.
Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights [OCR}, 2015, p. 11). The Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires that within 30 days of the start of the school year,
language minority students be assessed to determine levels of English language proficiency. The
procedures used to classify students as ELs have important consequences in terms of students’
access to specialized programs and services as well as their inclusion in the EL subgroup for
Title I and Title III accountability. With regard to dual language programs, the outcome of state
and district EL identification procedures can determine whether or not a student is eligible to
Student Eligibility for and Placement Into Dual Language Programs 45 Dual Language Programming and Policies
participate in one-way dual language programs designed specifically for ELs. Two-way dual
language programs may rely on the results of EL identification procedures to achieve an
appropriate balance of English- and partner-language-speaking students.
Multiple studies have documented how the specific criteria used to identify students as ELs vary
across states and, in some cases, across districts within the same state (Tanenbaum et al., 2012;
Regan & Lesaux, 2006; August & Hakuta, 1997). One implication of this variation is that a
student identified as an EL in one jurisdiction could potentially be considered English proficient
in another jurisdiction due to differences in the identification criteria applied. In this section, we
examine the tools and criteria that states use to determine which students are classified as ELs
and which students are classified as English proficient upon entry into the school system.
All 46 states and the District of Columbia with publicly available information about
their EL identification procedures require or recommend that districts administer a
home language survey to identify students with a language background other than
English.
As a first step in the process for identifying ELs, states require districts to administer a home
language survey when students first enroll in order to collect information about their exposure to
and use of a language other than English in their homes. Home language surveys often feature
questions about the language parents use in the home, the language students speak at home, the
language students first learned to speak, and the language students speak most frequently
(Tanenbaum et al., 2012; U.S. Department of Education, OCR, 2015). If the home language
survey indicates that a student has a background in a language other than English, the student
must undergo additional assessment to determine his or her level of English proficiency.
Most states (36 and the District of Columbia) require that districts use a state-
selected ELP assessment for identifying students as ELs; another seven states
require that districts choose an ELP assessment from a state-approved list.
To determine a potential EL student’s level of English proficiency, districts must administer a
valid and reliable English language proficiency (ELP) assessment that measures the student’s
proficiency in all four language domains (listening, speaking, reading, and writing).
21
According
to states’ published EL identification guidelines, the majority of states mandate which
assessment districts use for this purpose (see Exhibit 3.1). For example, 28 states and the District
of Columbia (all of them belonging to the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment, or
WIDA, Consortium) require that districts use a consortium-developed screening test (either the
WIDA ACCESS Placement Test [W-APT] or the Measure of Developing English Language
[MODEL]) for EL identification. Another eight states require that districts use a specific state-
developed or state-adopted ELP assessment, such as the Arizona English Language Learner
Assessment (AZELLA) placement test or the New York State Identification Test for English
21
This screening assessment plays an important role in the EL identification process. Its purpose differs from state
ELP tests administered annually for accountability purposes. Although both screening assessments and state ELP
tests measure students’ English proficiency, the results of the screening assessment are primarily used to ensure that
students are appropriately identified as ELs and to guide EL students’ placement into EL services offered in a
district or school.
Student Eligibility for and Placement Into Dual Language Programs 46 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Language Learners (NYSITELL). The remaining 10 states allow districts to select the ELP
assessment they use for EL identification purposes, but most of those states (seven) limit this
selection to a state-approved list.
Exhibit 3.1. State Policies on English Language
Proficiency Assessments for EL Identification
Exhibit Reads: Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia require that districts use a WIDA Consortium ELP screening
assessment to identify students as ELs.
Notes: Includes 46 states and the District of Columbia. For simplicity, the District of Columbia is represented in the figure as a state.
The WIDA Consortium’s ELP assessments for EL identification include the WIDA-ACCESS Placement Test (W-APT) and the
Measure of Developing English Language (MODEL).
Source: Review of SEA websites conducted in spring 2015
States vary in the proficiency cut points they use to determine whether a student
becomes identified as an EL.
Even though more than half of the states use the same WIDA ELP screener assessments to
measure students’ English proficiency during the EL identification process, these states differ in
the thresholds they have set for determining which students become classified as ELs and which
students become classified as English proficient. For example, among the 16 states and District
of Columbia for which we were able to locate W-APT performance cut scores, six states and the
District of Columbia consider students to be proficient in English if they receive an overall
composite score of 5.0 or higher on the W-APT; students scoring below that cut point are
identified as ELs. However, four other states allow students to be considered proficient in
English based on a lower composite score; the proficiency cut points for these states range from
4.0 to 4.6. In the remaining six states, students must receive an overall composite score of 5.0
and also achieve a specified level of performance in one or more of the individual language
domains for them to be considered proficient in English.
29 states
8 states
7 states
3 states
Districts must use a WIDA
Consortium assessment
Districts must use a specific state-
developed or selected (non-
WIDA) assessment
Districts must use an assessment
from a state-approved list
Districts select their own
assessment
Student Eligibility for and Placement Into Dual Language Programs 47 Dual Language Programming and Policies
EL identification guidelines from 10 states indicate that the state requires or permits
districts to consider factors in addition to the home language survey and ELP
assessment in the EL identification process.
For example, guidelines from four of these states indicate that EL identification and program
placement decisions should be based on a body of evidence that can include such factors as
content assessment scores, teacher referrals, interviews with family members, and prior academic
records. States also may develop specialized forms or tools to support the consideration of other
factors during the EL identification and placement process. For example, Alaska has developed a
form for recording information about students’ background in English and their home language
(see text box, “Language Observation Checklist”).
Language Observation Checklist
Districts in Alaska can use the state’s optional Language Observation Checklist Form B to help schools
collect information about students’ background in English and their home language. This form, to be
completed by a school staff member who is proficient in the student’s home language or a parent or other
speaker of the home language, asks about the student's use of English and non-English language and the
student's literacy in the home language. The form asks whether the student is a non-reader, developing
reader, or fluent reader, and whether he or she is a non-writer, developing writer, or fluent writer in the
home language. This checklist is not a formal language proficiency assessment, but the state’s EL manual
indicates that it can be a useful tool to use for students enrolled in dual language or other bilingual
programs (Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, 2014).
Four states require or encourage districts to assess students’ native language
proficiency as part of their EL identification and placement process.
For instance, guidance from Connecticut on EL identification indicates that districts can use
native language proficiency assessment results in conjunction with the home language survey
and ELP assessment to help determine the student's dominant language. According to state
guidelines, a native language proficiency assessment might be administered to “make a final
determination of the student’s dominant language” when a parent indicates on the home
language survey that a student has a solely English-speaking background but then the student has
trouble speaking English in class. Then, the district would need to evaluate whether the student is
an EL based on (1) a proficiency interview, (2) scores on standardized ELP assessments, and (3)
content assessment scores and/or the student’s academic history.
Nevada, Texas, and Rhode Island encourage districts to assess students who come from homes
where a language other than English is spoken in their primary language for program placement
decisions. Nevada requires districts to assess students who are identified as ELs and placed in
bilingual programs within 60 days of student enrollment to measure each student’s ability “to
comprehend, speak, read and write his or her primary language” (Nevada Administrative Code
388.630). Texas has compiled a list of state-approved Spanish language proficiency assessments
that can be used in the EL identification and placement process. Guidance from Rhode Island
recommends that districts assess students’ native language proficiency to look for indications of
limited or interrupted formal schooling.
Student Eligibility for and Placement Into Dual Language Programs 48 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Reclassifying Students as English Proficient
A student’s status as an EL is intended to be temporary. Once ELs become proficient in English,
they exit EL status and typically stop receiving EL-specific services. However, for two years
after reclassification, they continue to be monitored for Title I and Title III accountability.
Prior research has highlighted the complexities that states and districts face in designing criteria
for reclassifying students as English proficient (Tanenbaum et al., 2012; Ragan & Lesaux, 2006).
For instance, they must balance educators’ desires to mainstream students and show progress in
reclassification rates with the commitment to ensuring that EL students in fact have the requisite
proficiency to be successful in a general education setting. States and districts also have to
balance consistency in reclassification procedures across jurisdictions with the desire to allow
districts to incorporate multiple and sometimes more subjective measures into the decision-
making process. A single objective criterion is much easier to understand and communicate—
and also more likely to be applied consistently. However, a single criterion may insufficiently
represent a student’s performance across domains and contexts. Some states emphasize
consistency in their policies while others place greater emphasis on collecting data from multiple
sources and using these data to inform reclassification decisions (Tanenbaum et al., 2012; Ragan
& Lesaux, 2006).
As with EL identification procedures, the specific criteria used to make EL reclassification
decisions can vary widely, both within and across states. In this section, we briefly examine that
variation, drawing on publicly available guidance on EL exit procedures collected from the
websites of 40 states and the District of Columbia.
Among states with publicly available information about their EL reclassification
procedures, 20 states and the District of Columbia require that EL reclassification
decisions be based solely on students’ performance on the state ELP assessment,
while the remaining 20 states require or allow districts to consider additional criteria
when making such decisions.
All 40 states and the District of Columbia with guidance about EL reclassification posted on
their SEA website require that districts use students’ performance on the state ELP assessment as
a primary criterion for making decisions about exiting students from EL status. (See Chapter IV
for additional discussion of states’ ELP assessments.) For half of those states and the District of
Columbia, the ELP assessment score is the sole criterion used for determining whether students
had acquired sufficient proficiency in English to exit EL status. The other 20 states require or
recommend that districts weigh multiple factors when making EL exit decisions, such as
students’ performance on state or locally administered content assessments, recommendations
from a teacher or EL support committee, or portfolios of student work (see Exhibit 3.2).
Student Eligibility for and Placement Into Dual Language Programs 49 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Exhibit 3.2. Types of Criteria Featured in States’ Guidance on EL Exit Decisions
Exhibit Reads: Forty states and the District of Columbia require or recommend that districts use scores on the state ELP
assessment as a criterion for exiting students from EL status.
Notes: Includes 40 states and the District of Columbia. For simplicity, the District of Columbia is represented in the figure as a state.
Source: Review of SEA websites conducted in spring 2015
Although students typically remain in dual language programs after they exit EL
status, their change in status can have implications for program evaluation efforts
and funding.
Dual language programs differ from other types of language instructional education programs for
ELs in that students continue to participate in the program even after they become reclassified as
English proficient. State officials from all six case study states confirmed that once students in
dual language programs are reclassified as English proficient, they remain in the program and
begin a two-year monitoring period.
22
However, students’ change in EL status may nonetheless
have important implications for dual language programs. For example, students who exit EL
status are no longer required (under federal law) to participate in the state’s annual ELP
assessment. In addition, many state and district data systems lack the capacity to track former
ELs once their two-year monitoring period has ended, and this limitation may hinder the state or
district’s ability to assess former ELs’ long-term growth as part of program evaluation efforts
(Tanenbaum et al., 2012).
Students’ change in EL status also can affect the amount of funding available to support dual
language programs. (See Chapter VI for a discussion of the funding that can be used to support
dual language programs.) State funding streams for EL programs often allocate money based on
the number of ELs served. Thus, as ELs in dual language programs become proficient in English
and exit EL status, the programs no longer qualify to receive funding to support those students.
However, dual language programs bear added costs in serving these students (as well as other
students in these programs) relative to serving students in general education classrooms because
22
Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires that Title III-funded districts monitor
former ELs’ academic outcomes for two years after the students exit EL status, and report former ELs’ progress to
the states during this time period (Title III Subpart 2, Section 3121(a)(4)).
4
7
14
41
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Portfolio of Student Work
Teacher or Committee Recommendation
Content Assessment Score(s)
State ELP Assessment Score(s)
Number of States
Student Eligibility for and Placement Into Dual Language Programs 50 Dual Language Programming and Policies
of expenses associated with such things as specialized instructional materials or teacher
professional development (Lara-Alecio et al., 2005).
23
State Policies on Student Placement in Dual Language Programs
Although states often play a significant role in shaping EL identification and reclassification
procedures, they tend to allow more local discretion and flexibility in decisions regarding ELs’
placement into particular types of instructional programs (Tanenbaum et al., 2012). The results
of our state education agency (SEA) website review suggest that this is the case for dual
language programs as well: our website searches uncovered relatively few state-level policies
concerning students’ eligibility for or placement into dual language programs. In total, we
located policies or guidance in this area for five states.
Two states (Delaware and Utah) have established open enrollment policies to ensure
that students with diverse backgrounds and ability levels are able to participate in
dual language programs.
Delaware and Utah have two-way dual language programs and one-way dual language programs
where the learners are predominantly native English speakers acquiring a world language. Both
states have issued guidelines indicating that state-funded dual language programs must be open
to students “of varying backgrounds and abilities” (Delaware Department of Education, n.d.). In
Utah, dual language programs must provide assurances that they will adhere to this open
enrollment policy, and the state’s rubric for monitoring program fidelity ensures that dual
language programs have not imposed any prerequisite screening requirements for student
enrollment. In addition, an interviewed state official from Utah explained that the state provides
districts with technical assistance on ensuring that dual language program enrollment reflects the
school’s population as a whole. Because dual language programs are in high demand in Utah,
districts implement a lottery system when parents’ requests exceed the number of available
program openings.
Three states have released information on enrolling students in dual language
programs after Grade 1 or 2.
Because dual language programs typically begin when students enter kindergarten or Grade 1,
students who join the program in subsequent grade levels may struggle if they lack sufficient
English or partner language skills to keep up with instruction. Three states have issued guidance
related to this issue. For example, information on California’s SEA website indicates that two-
way dual language programs typically do not accept new English-only speakers after Grade 1
and do not accept new ELs after Grade 2; however, students who are bilingual and biliterate can
enter these programs at any time. Similarly, in Utah, students who wish to enroll in a dual
language program after Grade 2 must demonstrate their ability in the partner language through a
partner language proficiency assessment. Furthermore, Kentucky required schools applying for
the state’s 2014 dual language program planning/implementation grants to submit to the state a
plan for addressing students who enter the program after Grade 1.
23
See Chapter 6 for a more detailed discussion of costs and funding for dual language programs.
Student Eligibility for and Placement Into Dual Language Programs 51 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Two states (Arizona and California) require that parents of ELs submit annual
written consent for their child’s placement in a dual language program.
As with other types of bilingual programs in the state, Arizona and California mandate that
parents of ELs sign annual waivers consenting to their child’s placement in a dual language
program. In Arizona, procedures for acquiring parents’ informed consent call for the parent or
legal guardian to “personally visit the school to apply for the waiver, be provided a full
description of the educational materials to be used in different program choices, and be made
aware of other educational opportunities available for child” (Arizona Department of Education,
2014, p. 6). In California, ELs under the age of 10 in their initial school year in the state must be
placed in an English language classroom for 30 calendar days prior to enrolling in a dual
language program.
Recruiting and Retaining Students in Dual Language Programs
To ensure their sustainability, dual language programs must be able to attract and retain
sufficient numbers of students. Yet, despite the promise of these programs, parents may be
hesitant to enroll their child without a clear understanding of the program’s key features and
benefits. Additionally, because the timeline for learning English may differ in dual language
programs because students are learning through two languages (Lindholm-Leary & Genesee,
2014), parents unaware of this difference may grow concerned about initial delays in English
performance and remove their child from the program (Lee & Jeong, 2013). Thus, accurately
communicating with parents about how dual language programs operate and what they should
expect for their child can be essential for recruiting and retaining students (Alanís & Rodriguez,
2008).
In this section, we explore state efforts to facilitate student recruitment and retention through
outreach activities and incentives for student participation.
Outreach Activities
Four states have created websites that promote dual language programs in the
state.
The four states include Delaware, Georgia, North Carolina, and Utah. Delaware, Georgia, and
Utah have predominately one-way dual language programs where the learners are mostly English
proficient students learning a world language. Each of these websites describes key benefits
associated with dual language programs, provides contact information for schools currently
implementing dual language programs, and offers links to relevant online resources. Georgia’s
website, for example, highlights various news articles that showcase dual language programs
operating in the state. Utah’s website features a host of resources that explain the state’s dual
language program model, and includes photos and videos that show parents what dual language
classrooms look like.
Student Eligibility for and Placement Into Dual Language Programs 52 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Officials from four of the six case study states indicated that the state has provided
outreach materials and/or technical assistance to support districts in recruiting and
retaining students.
Delaware, for example, has developed parent outreach documents and slide presentations in both
English and Spanish that provide an overview of the key features and benefits of dual language
programs. District staff can use the PowerPoint presentations to conduct outreach meetings for
parents and also can invite SEA staff to come to the district to give presentations. Illinois
provides technical assistance to districts on student recruitment and retention through an
intermediary organization, the Illinois Resource Center. Additionally, a state official from New
Mexico indicated that the state is working to improve its technical assistance on student
recruitment and retention and is developing methods to ensure that parents are better informed
about program options.
Incentives for Students
As of spring 2015, 11 states and the District of Columbia have adopted policies to
recognize students who acquire proficiency in two languages with a specialized seal
or endorsement on their high school diploma; another 15 states are currently
considering such policies.
In 2011, California became the first state in the nation to enact legislation establishing a state
Seal of Biliteracy, a gold insignia awarded to high school graduates on their diploma or transcript
who attain a high level of proficiency in English and at least one other language. Since then,
other states have adopted similar policies in an effort to encourage students to study languages
and to honor those who become bilingual and biliterate. A state’s Seal of Biliteracy
24,25
also
serves as a credential that employers and college admissions offices can use to identify
individuals with high-level language skills. For instance, an interviewed state official from New
Mexico indicated that the state is collaborating with the state’s higher education department and
institutions of higher education on how to use its new Seal of Biliteracy to identify and recruit
future bilingual teachers. Other important objectives in adopting state Seal of Biliteracy policies
include recognizing the value of language diversity, strengthening intergroup relationships and
honoring the multiple cultures and languages within a community, and establishing criteria to
certify attainment of biliteracy skills. (Exhibit 3.3 shows the states that offer or are considering
offering a Seal of Biliteracy.)
24
North Carolina offers a “global languages endorsement,” which is similar to a Seal of Biliteracy.
25
For more information regarding states that offer a seal of biliteracy, see http://sealofbiliteracy.org.
Student Eligibility for and Placement Into Dual Language Programs 53 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Exhibit 3.3. States That Offered or Were Considering Offering a State Seal of Biliteracy in
Spring 2015
Exhibit Reads: In spring, 2015, dark-colored states offered a state Seal of Biliteracy, and light-colored states were considering
offering a state Seal of Biliteracy.
Notes: Includes 50 states
Source: Review of SEA websites; http://sealofbiliteracy.org/
To receive a state Seal of Biliteracy, students must satisfy state- or district-established criteria for
demonstrating proficiency in two languages. For example, in California, students are eligible to
receive the State Seal of Biliteracy if they (1) complete English language arts course
requirements for graduation with an overall grade point average of 2.0 or above in those courses,
(2) score proficient or above on the state English language arts assessment administered in Grade
11,
26
and (3) demonstrate proficiency in one or more languages in addition to English. Students
can demonstrate proficiency in languages other than English in one of four ways: (a) earning a
passing score on the world language Advanced Placement (AP) examination or International
Baccalaureate examination; (b) successfully completing a four-year high school course of study
in a world language, with a grade point average of 3.0 or above in the course; (c) scoring
proficient or above on a district language examination that assesses speaking, reading, and
writing in a language other than English; or (d) scoring 600 or higher on the Scholastic
Assessment Test II Foreign Language Examination. Students who have a primary language other
26
As California transitions to new Common Core-aligned assessments, the state has set interim criteria for fulfilling
the second requirement. These criteria include passing, at the “proficient” level, a locally determined assessment in
English language arts (ELA) administered at Grade 11, or using an existing score at the “proficient” level on the
California ELA Standards Test given in Grade 10.
Student Eligibility for and Placement Into Dual Language Programs 54 Dual Language Programming and Policies
than English in any of Grades 9–12 must satisfy an additional criterion: attaining the early
advanced proficiency level on the state ELP assessment, the California English Language
Development Test (CELDT). According to information on the California Department of
Education’s website, 24,513 students from the graduating class of 2014 earned the state’s Seal of
Biliteracy (California Department of Education, 2015b).
Two of the six case study states have developed opportunities for students in dual
language programs to earn university-level language credit.
As noted in Chapter II, Utah and Delaware have developed secondary course-taking pathways to
allow students in dual language programs to take the AP course in the partner language by Grade 9
and then proceed to take university-level courses in Grades 10 through 12. Through collaboration
with a consortium of seven universities in the state, Utah has arranged for students in Grades 10–
12 to take a sequence of three university-level “bridge courses,” which are taught by university
faculty and facilitated by a qualified high school language teacher. Students can receive up to
nine credits of upper division university course work for completing these courses, which would
allow them to enter college only two or three courses shy of earning a minor in their language of
study. Similarly, Delaware is currently working with its university partners to establish a dual
enrollment policy that will allow students in dual language programs to earn college course
credit for university-level courses taken in Grades 10 through 12.
Chapter Summary
The EL identification process marks an important first step in determining students’ eligibility
for and placement into dual language programs. The results of this process can determine
whether a student is eligible to participate in one-way dual language programs designed
specifically for ELs. The results also can inform how two-way dual language programs position
students within their two groups of predominantly English-speaking and predominantly partner-
language-speaking students. Although states’ procedures for identifying students as ELs
typically begin with a home language survey followed by an ELP assessment, states vary in the
ELP assessments and cut scores that they use. In addition, some states give districts more
discretion in the EL identification process by allowing them to select the assessment used or
consider additional factors when making EL identification and placement decisions.
Very few states appear to have established specific policies or eligibility criteria regarding EL or
English proficient students’ placement into dual language programs. However, a handful of
states have issued policies or guidelines about allowing students with varying backgrounds and
ability levels access to dual language programs or ensuring students who enter the program one
or two grades later than typical have the language skills they need to be successful. Arizona and
California require districts to confirm that parents of ELs have provided informed consent for
their child to be placed in a dual language program.
To support districts in recruiting and retaining students in dual language programs, several states
have provided materials or technical assistance to facilitate parent outreach efforts. States also
have created incentives that can make dual language programs more enticing for students. For
example, states are increasingly adopting policies to officially recognize students who attain
proficiency in two languages by the time they graduate high school by awarding them a Seal of
Biliteracy that can serve as a credential for college admissions and future employment
opportunities.
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 55 Dual Language Programming and Policies
IV. Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation
Practices
This chapter examines the standards and assessments that states have in place to guide
instruction and measure student progress toward acquiring proficiency in English and a partner
language, as well as learning academic content. The presence of standards and assessments in
both English and the partner language underscores the importance of learning both languages
and emphasizes the goal of additive bilingualism in dual language programs (Howard et al.,
2007; Hernandez, 2015).
Key Findings
• As of spring 2015, most states use English language proficiency (ELP) standards developed by one
of two multistate consortia: the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) English
Language Development Standards (36 states and the District of Columbia) or the English Language
Proficiency Assessment for the 21st Century (ELPA21) English Language Proficiency Standards
(nine states). Seven states use their own state-developed ELP standards. As of spring 2015, 34
states and the District of Columbia use the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs® ELP assessment, three
states use the English Language Development Assessment (ELDA), and the remaining 13 states
use a state-specific ELP assessment.
• Fifteen states and the District of Columbia define expectations for students’ annual progress on the
state ELP assessment as an increase in their overall score by a specified number of points. Twenty-
nine states and the District of Columbia define their expectations for attaining proficiency in
English in terms of an overall composite score on the state ELP assessment, and 15 states require
specific domain scores in addition to an overall composite score.
• Forty-two states and the District of Columbia have adopted world language proficiency standards,
and at least three of these states have used these standards to set grade-level partner language
proficiency expectations for students in dual language programs.
• Five states require dual language programs to regularly assess students’ partner language skills; 11
states recommend particular assessments or provide assessment resources to help programs monitor
students’ partner language development.
• As of spring 2015, five states have posted information on their websites about statewide partner
language arts standards.
• In 2012–13, 10 states reported allowing English learners (ELs) to take at least one Title I content
assessment in a language other than English for Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
accountability purposes. In spring 2015, officials from two of the six case study states mentioned
challenges associated with using content assessment data for ELs tested in English in ESEA
accountability or educator evaluation systems, particularly relating to concerns that the scores may
underestimate student learning.
• Two of the six case study states (Utah and Delaware) have engaged in program evaluation efforts
specific to the states’ dual language programs. Another two case study states (New Mexico and
Illinois) prepare annual state reports on state-funded bilingual education programs (which include
dual language programs) but do not specifically examine dual language programs.
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 56 Dual Language Programming and Policies
English Language Proficiency Standards and Assessments
For dual language programs that serve ELs, instruction must support ELs’ development and
attainment of English proficiency. To guide such instruction, Title III of the ESEA requires states
to implement ELP standards aligned to content standards, and to use valid and reliable ELP
assessments that measure the language skills students need for English proficiency. To ensure
that ELP standards and assessments support students in developing the English skills they need
to engage meaningfully with academic content, ELP standards and assessment systems
developed in response to Title III feature a strong emphasis on academic language. With regard
to academic language, Bailey (2007) defines being “academically proficient” as “knowing and
being able to use general and content-specific vocabulary, specialized or complex grammatical
structures, and multifarious language functions and discourse structures—all for the purpose of
acquiring new knowledge and skills, interacting about a topic, or imparting information to
others” (pp. 10–11).
English Proficiency Standards
Title III specifies that states must establish ELP standards (ESEA 3113(b)(2)) that are derived
from the domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Title III further requires that
states’ ELP standards align with the state’s academic content and performance standards.
27
As
states have transitioned to college- and career-ready content standards, such as the Common
Core, they have had to ensure that they have ELP standards in place that correspond to the
language demands inherent in those content standards.
As of spring 2015, most states use ELP standards developed by one of two multi-
state consortia: the WIDA English Language Development Standards (36 states and
the District of Columbia) or the ELPA21 English Language Proficiency Standards
(nine states). The remaining seven states use their own state-developed ELP
standards.
Exhibit 4.1 presents a full list of states’ ELP standards. The World-Class Instructional Design
and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium, established in 2003, released an amplification of its 2007
ELP standards in 2012. As part of that amplification process, the consortium took steps to ensure
that the standards addressed the language demands presented by the Common Core, Next
Generation Science Standards, and other college- and career-ready content standards. For
instance, WIDA’s English Language Development Standards Framework explicitly references
specific state content standards, with each sample topic or context for language use given in the
ELP standards (WIDA, 2012). The more recently established English Language Proficiency
Assessment for the 21st Century (ELPA21) consortium similarly developed its ELP standards to
address the language demands that students need to successfully meet college- and career-ready
standards in English language arts, mathematics, and science.
27
Although the Title III law uses the term “aligned” to describe the relationship between states’ ELP and content
standards, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) has recommended using the term “correspond” to
refer to relationships between standards because “align” and “linkages” are technical terms that often refer to the
relationship between standards and assessments (CCSSO, 2012).
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 57 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Seven states—Arizona, California, Connecticut, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, and Texas—use
their own state-developed ELP standards. For example, New York has developed a new set of
ELP standards as part of a statewide Bilingual Common Core Initiative launched in 2012. In
collaboration with a national advisory group of EL experts, the state created New Language Arts
Progressions to help teachers provide instruction that makes the state’s Common Core content
standards accessible to students with various English proficiency and literacy levels. The New
Language Arts Progressions identify the main academic and linguistic demands of each Common
Core standard, by grade level, and provide examples of linguistic demands used in content-
specific contexts, along with examples of strategies that teachers can use to develop the language
skills needed to meet those demands.
Sixteen states have posted on their websites monitoring protocols or rubrics that
are used to assess districts’ implementation of ELP standards.
States’ procedures for monitoring implementation of ELP standards tend to involve assessing
districts’ use of ELP standards through a structured protocol, which is used during periodic
monitoring visits. For instance, Colorado has developed an English Learner Walk Through and
Program Review Tool, which includes elements to evaluate (1) whether the district uses a
standards-based approach (i.e., follows the state’s academic content and ELP standards) focused
on what students should know and be able to demonstrate; (2) whether the district curriculum is
aligned with the state’s academic content and ELP standards and assessment frameworks; and
(3) whether districts and schools monitor implementation of the curriculum to ensure that ELs
have equitable access to a rigorous academic program. State education agency (SEA) monitoring
staff rate whether they observe “little or no evidence,” “some evidence,” or “substantial
evidence” that these elements are in place, justifying their ratings with supporting evidence and
observational notes. In addition to monitoring review tools, we found information indicating that
three states monitor programs’ implementation of ELP standards by reviewing plans that districts
submit detailing their services for ELs.
English Language Proficiency Assessments
As noted earlier, Title I and Title III require states to implement an annual ELP test that assesses
ELs’ English skills in the four domains of reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Title III also
requires that states hold Title III-funded districts accountable for achieving Annual Measurable
Achievement Objectives (AMAOs), which include performance goals for the number/percentage
of ELs making progress in learning English and attaining proficiency in English. In setting those
goals, states must define expectations for the amount of progress ELs should demonstrate on the
ELP assessment from one year to the next, as well as the cut score(s) ELs must achieve on the
ELP assessment to be considered proficient in English.
As of spring 2015, 34 states and the District of Columbia use the WIDA ACCESS for
ELLs
®
ELP assessment, three states use the English Language Development
Assessment (ELDA), and the remaining 13 states use a state-specific ELP
assessment.
Exhibit 4.1 displays each state’s choice of ELP assessment. The 2014–15 school year marked a
period of transition for the nine states belonging to the ELPA21 consortium as they prepared for
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 58 Dual Language Programming and Policies
the ELPA21 assessment to be field-tested during the 2015–16 school year. In addition, Idaho and
Florida were preparing to transition from their state-developed ELP assessments to the WIDA
ACCESS for ELLs assessment in 2015–16, having recently adopted the WIDA English
Language Development (ELD) Standards.
Exhibit 4.1. State English Language Arts Standards, English Language Proficiency
Standards, and English Language Proficiency Assessments, as of Spring 2015
State
English Language Arts
(ELA) Content
Standards
English Language
Development/ Proficiency
(ELD/ELP) Standards
English Language
Proficiency Assessment
Alabama Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Alaska Alaska ELA Standards WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Arizona
Common Core Arizona ELP Standards Arizona ELL Assessment
(AZELLA)
Arkansas
Common Core ELPA21 ELP Standards English Language
Development Assessment
(ELDA)
California Common Core California ELD Standards California ELD Test (CELDT)
Colorado Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Connecticut Common Core Connecticut ELL Framework LAS Links
Delaware Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
District of Columbia Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Florida
Common Core WIDA ELD Standards Comprehensive ELL
Assessment (CELLA)
Georgia Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Hawaii Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Idaho
Common Core WIDA ELD Standards Idaho English Language
Assessment (IELA)
Illinois Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Indiana
Indiana Academic
Standards
WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Iowa
Common Core ELPA21 ELP Standards Iowa English Language
Development Assessment (I-
ELDA)
Kansas Common Core ELPA21 ELP Standards KELPA
Kentucky Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Louisiana
Common Core ELPA21 ELP Standards English Language
Development Assessment
(ELDA)
Maine Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Maryland Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Massachusetts Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Michigan Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Minnesota
Minnesota K-12
Academic Standards
WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Mississippi Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Missouri Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Montana Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 59 Dual Language Programming and Policies
State
English Language Arts
(ELA) Content
Standards
English Language
Development/ Proficiency
(ELD/ELP) Standards
English Language
Proficiency Assessment
Nebraska
Nebraska College- and
Career-Ready Standards
ELPA21 ELP Standards ELDA
Nevada Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
New Hampshire Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
New Jersey Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
New Mexico Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
New York
Common Core New York New Language Arts
Progressions
New York State English as a
Second Language
Achievement Test
(NYSELAT)
North Carolina Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
North Dakota Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Ohio Common Core ELPA21 ELP Standards Ohio Test of ELP
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Academic
Standards
WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Oregon
Common Core ELPA21 ELP Standards Oregon English Language
Proficiency Assessment
Pennsylvania Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Rhode Island Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
South Carolina Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
South Dakota Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Tennessee Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Texas
Texas Essential
Knowledge and Skills
(TEKS)
Texas ELP Standards Texas ELP Assessment
System (TELPAS)
Utah Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Vermont Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Virginia
Virginia Standards of
Learning
WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Washington
Common Core ELPA21 ELP Standards Washington Language
Proficiency Test (WLPT)
West Virginia
Common Core ELPA21 ELP Standards West Virginia Test of English
Language Learning
(WESTELL)
Wisconsin Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Wyoming Common Core WIDA ELD Standards WIDA ACCESS for ELLs
Notes: At the time of our data collection in spring 2015, Florida and Idaho had adopted the WIDA ELD Standards and planned to
begin implementing the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs assessment in 2015−16.
Source: Review of SEA websites conducted in spring 2015
Most states (15 states and the District of Columbia) define expectations for
students’ progress in learning English as an increase in their overall score on the
state ELP assessment by a specified number of points.
Of the 33 states with publicly available information on their AMAO definitions for making
progress in learning English, 15 states and the District of Columbia identify a specific number of
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 60 Dual Language Programming and Policies
points that ELs need to gain from one year to the next. The point values vary considerable across
states. For example, among states that use the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs assessment, states’
annual growth expectations range from 0.2 points to 1 point, and two of these states set different
expectations for students depending on the amount of time they have spent participating in
language instructional educational programs.
Another 14 states define their annual growth expectations in terms of moving from one English
proficiency level or performance band to the next on the state ELP assessment. For instance,
Georgia has established a series of nine sequential performance bands based on the WIDA
ACCESS for ELLs’ 1.0–6.0 composite score range (i.e., 1.0–2.2, 2.3–3.3, 3.4–3.9, 4.0–4.3, 4.4–
4.6, 4.7–4.9, 5.0–5.2, 5.3–5.5, and 5.6 +). ELs are expected to move from one performance band
to a higher performance band over the course of the year.
Most states (29 states and the District of Columbia) define their expectations for
attaining proficiency in English in terms of an overall composite score on the state
ELP assessment; 15 states require specific domain scores in addition to an overall
composite score.
Of the 33 states and District of Columbia with publicly available information on their AMAO
definitions for attaining proficiency in English, 29 states and the District of Columbia require
ELs to achieve a minimum overall composite score on the state ELP assessment to qualify as
having attained English proficiency. These minimum scores vary, often reflecting differences in
the scoring scales of different ELP assessments. However, among WIDA states that use the same
ACCESS for ELLs assessment, the minimum scores range from 4.2 to 5.0.
Fifteen of these states use a “conjunctive minimum” approach
28
to measure students’ attainment
of English proficiency. Under this approach, students must achieve a specific overall composite
score combined with minimum scores in particular domains (e.g., listening, speaking, reading,
writing). For example, Vermont requires students to achieve an overall composite proficiency
level of 5.0 or higher on the ACCESS for ELLs, plus a minimum proficiency level of 4.0 on both
the reading and writing domains, in order to attain English proficiency. Vermont’s AMAO
guidance explains that it adopted this approach “in order to ensure that a high score in one
language domain does not have a compensatory effect on lower scores in another language
domain, resulting in a false impression of ‘proficiency’” (Vermont Department of
Education, 2010).
Partner Language Proficiency Standards and Assessments
Although not required under federal law, states may choose to adopt or recommend language
proficiency standards and assessments to guide and monitor students’ acquisition of languages
other than English. This applies to English speakers’ second language in two-way dual language
programs, as well as ELs’ native language in two-way and one-way dual language programs. For
example, states may establish generic world language proficiency standards that outline the
content and skills teachers should cover during world language instruction and/or define
language proficiency levels that delineate students’ progress in learning world languages. States
28
For more information about this approach, see Cook, Linquanti, Chinen, and Jung (2012).
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 61 Dual Language Programming and Policies
also might create language-specific proficiency standards analogous to their English proficiency
standards, which teachers can use to plan and deliver instruction in a particular language, such as
Spanish. Furthermore, states may develop policies or guidance for assessing students’
proficiency levels in world languages.
Most states (42 states and the District of Columbia) have adopted world language
proficiency standards; at least three of these states have used these standards to
set grade-level partner language proficiency expectations for students in dual
language programs.
A 2011 study by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) found
through a survey of state officials and reviews of SEA websites that 42 states had adopted world
or foreign language proficiency standards, and that in more than 40 states, these standards reflect
the National Standards for Foreign Language Learning, which have most recently been updated
as the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century in 2006 and the World-
Readiness Standards for Learning Languages in 2015 (Phillips & Abbott, 2011; National
Standards in Foreign Language Education Project, 2006; National Standards Collaborative
Board, 2015).
Our spring 2015 review of SEA websites located information from 14 states and the District of
Columbia about states’ world language proficiency standards. In each case, these state standards
were based on the National Standards for Foreign Language Learning, as well as the ACTFL
proficiency guidelines, which the ACTFL developed to be used in conjunction with the national
standards (ACTFL, 2012). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines describe the listening, speaking,
reading, and writing skills that students possess across a range of particular language proficiency
levels (e.g., Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, Superior, Distinguished) and sub-levels (e.g.,
Novice Low, Novice Mid, Novice High).
Three of the 14 states with world language standards posted on their websites (North Carolina,
Ohio, and Utah) have used the ACTFL proficiency scales to set grade-level or grade-span
language proficiency targets specific to Grades K/1–12 dual language programs. For example,
Utah has established language proficiency targets for individual grade levels from Grade 1
through Grade 12 for the partner languages used in its dual language programs. North Carolina
and Ohio have developed language proficiency expectations that identify the skill levels that
students in K–12 dual language programs should reach in interpretive listening, interpretive
reading, interpersonal person-to-person, presentational speaking, and presentational writing by the
end of Grade 2, Grade 5, Grade 8, and Grade 12. The states differentiate these expectations
depending on whether the dual language program uses an alphabetic partner language (e.g., Spanish,
French, Cherokee) or a logographic partner language (e.g., Mandarin Chinese, Japanese).
Illinois uses Spanish Language Development Standards developed by WIDA to
guide Spanish language instruction and assessment for students in dual language
and other bilingual education programs.
With funding from a 2009 U.S. Department of Education Enhanced Assessment Grant, the
Illinois Department of Education collaborated with the WIDA Consortium to develop a
framework for Spanish language development standards, which serves as a resource for planning
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 62 Dual Language Programming and Policies
and delivering language instruction and assessments for students in dual language and other
bilingual programs who are learning academic content in Spanish. The standards framework is
similar to the one employed in WIDA’s ELD Standards but is tailored to be authentic to the
Spanish language and the demands of developing Spanish language skills within a U.S.
educational context.
The framework emphasizes features and examples of Spanish academic language, and it
references specific connections to state content standards, including the Common Core State
Standards and Next Generation Science Standards. Moreover, the introduction to WIDA’s
framework explains that because students transfer knowledge and skills between Spanish and
English, teachers in Spanish dual language or bilingual programs can use the framework in
conjunction with the WIDA ELD Standards to gain a clearer understanding of students’ language
skills. Moreover, by using both, teachers may be able to tailor instruction to promote transfer
from one language to another and identify areas where additional support is necessary because of
differences between the languages (WIDA, 2013).
In addition to Illinois, New Mexico has established a task force to review Spanish language
development standards frameworks for potential future implementation, according to an
interviewed New Mexico education official.
Five states require dual language programs to regularly assess students’ partner
language skills; 11 states recommend particular assessments or provide
assessment resources to help programs monitor students’ partner language
development.
Among the 16 states with information about partner language proficiency assessment policies on
their SEA website, we found evidence that five states (Delaware, Kentucky, New Mexico,
Oregon, and Utah) require state-funded dual language programs to assess students’ progress in
developing partner language proficiency at least annually. For example, Oregon requires that all
state-funded dual language programs administer the Stanford University Foreign Language Oral
Skills Evaluation Matrix (FLOSEM) for oral language development in both languages and that
all state-funded Spanish programs administer Riverside Publishing’s Logramos (Third Edition)
assessment to students in Grades 3–5.
New Mexico districts must annually measure the partner language development of students in
state-funded bilingual multicultural programs (including dual language programs) until they are
proficient in the partner language. For Spanish, districts may choose from the Woodcock-Muñoz
Language Survey, the Language Assessment Scales (LAS), or the Individualized Proficiency
Test (IPT). For Native American languages, students from local tribal communities are tested for
proficiency through formative and summative assessments approved by the local tribe.
Currently, there are state-funded bilingual multicultural education programs in the following
tribal languages: Jicarilla Apache, Keres, Navajo (Diné), Tewa, Tiwa, and Zuni.
In Utah, dual language program students in Grades 3–8 are tested annually using the ACTFL
Assessment of Performance Toward Proficiency in Languages (AAPPL) in the partner language,
and parents receive an annual student proficiency report created by the Utah State Office of
Education, which details their child’s progress in learning the partner language. Students in
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 63 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Grade 9 take the Advanced Placement (AP) assessment in the partner language, and the state is
currently working with the University of Utah to determine which assessments students will take
in Grades 10 through 12. According to an interviewed state official, the state is considering the
ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) assessment, OPI Computer Test (OPIc), and the
Writing Proficiency Test (WPT) for these three grade levels.
29
In addition, Utah students in
Grades 9–12 can enter performance-based assessment examples in the partner language in
Linguafolio—an online portfolio assessment tool.
The remaining 11 states with information on their websites about the state’s partner language
proficiency assessment policies do not explicitly require districts or dual language programs to
implement a particular assessment, but they do recommend or provide access to partner language
assessment tools. For example, North Carolina has developed prototypical performance
assessments (which can be used as formative or summative assessments) based on the state’s
world language proficiency standards, using the ACTFL proficiency scales. Districts may use
these assessments or vendor-produced assessments, or may create their own assessments, to
measure students’ proficiency in the partner language. Illinois, through its collaboration with
WIDA, has made the WIDA Prueba Óptima del Desarrollo del Español Realizado (PODER)
Spanish language development assessment available for students in kindergarten through Grade
2, and WIDA is currently developing new assessments for additional grade levels. Although
Illinois does not require the PODER assessment, it recommends that districts use it to monitor
students’ Spanish language development over time.
Academic Content Standards and Assessments
A core principle underlying Title I of the ESEA is that all students—including ELs—have access
to the same grade-level academic content, and that schools, districts, and states are held
accountable for ensuring that all students are successful in learning that content. Conforming to
this principle, dual language programs follow the same academic content standards as other
instructional programs and must support students in demonstrating proficiency in those standards
on the state’s annual content assessments.
Content Standards
Dual language programs follow the same academic content standards as other
instructional programs.
States use a variety of methods to ensure that dual language programs follow the state’s
academic content standards. Eight states have provided guidance on their SEA websites
indicating that content instruction in dual language programs must align with the state content
standards in reading/language arts, mathematics, and other content areas (i.e., dual language
programs must support students in learning the same grade-level skills as students in other
academic settings). Moreover, we located information for 15 states about state practices to
monitor whether dual language programs—and other programs that serve ELs—are
implementing the state content standards.
29
See http://www.languagetesting.com/general-test-descriptions for additional information about these ACTFL
assessments.
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 64 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Nine states have posted tools on their websites, such as monitoring protocols
and/or observation checklists, to monitor language instruction educational
programs’ implementation of the state content standards, and at least five of these
states use these tools to conduct on-site monitoring visits.
Typically, this monitoring occurs as part of a state process to ensure that districts are complying
with requirements tied to state and/or federal funding programs for language instruction
educational programs (LIEPs), such as Title III. In Illinois, for example, SEA staff visit districts
that receive state funding for LIEPs on a five-year cycle (50–60 districts per year) to review their
implementation of state and federal requirements for those programs, including whether the
programs’ content area curricula align with the Common Core State Standards.
30
Illinois also
examines programs’ alignment with state standards when SEA staff review districts’ applications
for state LIEP funding, and gives districts an optional District Self-Assessment Checklist and
formative assessments to monitor their schools and prepare for state monitoring visits. In
addition to providing monitoring tools and site visits, states also evaluate programs’ alignment
with state content standards by examining student test results on content area assessments.
Officials from four of the six case study states described how their state examines the extent to
which districts and schools are meeting state expectations for student performance on state
content area assessments in order to determine whether programs are appropriately covering the
state content standards.
Five states have posted information on their websites about statewide partner
language arts standards.
Information on Wisconsin’s website indicates that the state’s Spanish language arts standards are
designed for use with native-Spanish-speaking students and should be used to inform curriculum
development and lesson planning in Spanish bilingual programs, particularly those with a focus
on developing the native language in addition to English. Illinois uses the WIDA Consortium’s
Spanish Language Arts Standards, which were under revision in spring 2015, according to an
interviewed state official. A 2012 presentation created by the Illinois Resource Center—an
organization that provides technical assistance for the Illinois State Board of Education—
explains that having statewide Spanish language arts standards “recognizes Spanish language
arts as a valued content area, facilitates programmatic cohesion, sets uniform instructional and
assessment targets and benchmarks, encourages collaboration of teachers, [and] promotes
articulation between grade levels” (Hilliard, 2012, p. 7).
Texas also has developed Spanish language arts and reading standards, and it created these
standards to be authentic to the Spanish language rather than a Spanish translation of the state’s
English language arts standards. Texas’ standards documents describe the need for this
authenticity, noting how linguistic differences between the Spanish and English languages have
important implications for the sequencing of language arts and literacy skill development (Texas
Education Agency, 2010). The California Department of Education has worked in partnership
with the San Diego County Office of Education and the Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO) to develop Spanish language arts (SLA)/literacy standards based on the Common Core
30
Illinois also assesses districts’ implementation of state content standards through separate Title I monitoring visits.
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 65 Dual Language Programming and Policies
ELA/Literacy Standards. The developers of these standards sought to mirror the structure,
expectations, and level of rigor of the Common Core ELA/Literacy Standards but included
“linguistic augmentation” in the SLA/literacy standards “to address points of learning, skills and
concepts that are specific to Spanish language and literacy, as well as transferable language
learnings between English and Spanish as provided in educational settings where students are
instructed in both languages” (CCSSO, 2012, p. ii).
New York has recently replaced its Native Language Arts Learning Standards with new standards
known as Home Language Arts Progressions, as part of the state’s Bilingual Common Core
Initiative. The standards follow the same format as the state’s New Language Arts Progressions
(described above) and include examples of linguistic demands in content-specific contexts in the top
five languages in the state (Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, Bengali, and Haitian Creole).
In addition to these five states, an interviewed state official from New Mexico indicated that the state
has established a task force to review Spanish language arts standards for future implementation.
Texas and California have developed Spanish language versions of state standards
for content areas other than reading/language arts.
Texas has translated its content standards—the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)
standards— in mathematics, science, and social studies into Spanish for Grades K–6. In addition,
the California Department of Education’s partnership with the San Diego County Office of
Education and the CCSSO has generated a Spanish language translation of the Common Core
State Standards for mathematics for Grades K–8, and they are currently translating the
mathematics standards for Grades 9–12. The resulting standards documents follow the same
outline as the original English version of the mathematics standards and display the English and
Spanish translation of the standards side by side.
Officials from five of the six case study states indicated that dual language
programs, particularly those with a partner language other than Spanish, face
challenges locating instructional materials aligned with the state content standards.
These concerns echo challenges highlighted in recent case study research on dual language
programs. For example, a report examining a K–8 Hawaiian dual language program noted how a
lack of translated or original curricular materials in the Hawaiian language prompted the district to
develop its own materials at the local level (Pacific Policy Research Center, 2010). Similarly, a study
of a Korean dual language program in California described how the program relied on its Korean
language teachers to translate the English language arts curriculum into Korean to guide instruction
in Korean language arts (although linguistic differences between the two languages complicated this
translation process). Parents of the Korean students in the program also reportedly noted that many of
the Korean books in the library were outdated and used old Korean orthographic conventions that
were no longer used in modern Korean schools (Lee & Jeong, 2013).
Several states have taken steps to assist dual language programs in acquiring or developing
instructional materials for teaching state content standards in the partner language. For example,
a 2014 policy document from Kentucky indicates that the state is working with other states that
are striving to develop dual language programs—including Delaware, Georgia, Ohio, South
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 66 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Carolina, and Utah—to offer a curriculum and assessment template for participating schools. In
addition, Illinois has developed partnerships with Spain to facilitate the exchange of instructional
materials in Spanish and also is working with China to help Chinese dual language programs
implement the “Confucius Classroom” model. Wisconsin’s SEA website features sample tools to
help dual language programs develop lesson plans for teaching state content standards in Spanish.
Assessing Content Learning
To determine how well ELs and other students are meeting state content and performance
standards, Title I of the ESEA requires states to administer annual content assessments aligned
with the state’s standards in reading/language arts and mathematics in Grades 3–8 and at least
one high school grade. Additionally, states must administer annual science assessments aligned
with state science standards for each of the following grade spans: Grades 3–5, Grades 6–9, and
Grades 10–12. States also must hold districts and schools accountable for ensuring that all
students and designated student subgroups, such as ELs, participate in these assessments
31
and
meet annual state-defined performance goals.
For ELs who are still acquiring English, various factors—such as the student’s level of English
proficiency, as well as the linguistic complexity and cultural differences embodied in assessment
items—may hinder ELs’ ability to demonstrate their knowledge on state content assessments
administered in English (Abedi & Linquanti, 2012; Alvarez et al., 2014; Willner, Rivera, &
Acosta, 2008; Brisk & Proctor, 2012). Title I requires states to make every effort to develop
content assessments in students’ native language, although students must be assessed on the
reading/language arts test in English after three years or, in individual cases, after five years
(ESEA 1111(b)(6)).
32
For ELs in dual language programs, taking state content assessments in the
partner language may be particularly beneficial for content areas that are taught in the partner
language because, in such cases, students are likely more familiar with important content area-
specific academic vocabulary in the partner language than in English (Abedi & Linquanti, 2012;
August & Shanahan, 2006). However, not all states offer content assessments in languages other
than English.
The language of assessment in dual language programs is a complicated issue. In general,
assessments in content areas would be in the language of instruction, and second language learners of
that language might have access to some additional support, or accommodations, during the
assessment. In dual language programs, however, there are two languages of instruction, and all
students are learning some content through a second language. Ideally, assessments would align with
the goal of bilingualism and full mastery of two languages for content learning. This aim is
achievable at the local level, where various forms of formative and summative assessments help to
monitor student progress (see Alvarez et al. [2014] for a discussion of formative assessments for
ELs). However, at the large-scale standardized assessment level, this is a much more difficult
31
States have flexibility to exclude newly arrived ELs who have attended U.S. schools for less than 12 months from
one administration of the state English language arts assessment. These students must, however, participate in the
state mathematics assessment with appropriate accommodations.
32
After three years, states may allow ELs to take the reading/language arts content assessment in their native
language on a case-by-case basis for up to two additional years. There is no limitation on the number of years that
ELs can be tested in their native language for math or science.
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 67 Dual Language Programming and Policies
proposal, given the resources needed to produce valid and reliable content area assessments in many
languages. As a result, other options are generally pursued by states, with some opportunities for
testing in Spanish as well as English, but relatively few in other languages.
In 2012–13, 10 states reported allowing ELs to take at least one Title I content
assessment in a language other than English for ESEA accountability purposes.
Most of these states (nine out of 10) reported allowing Spanish-speaking ELs to take the state
mathematics assessment in their native language, and half of these states reported allowing
Spanish-speaking ELs to take the state reading/language arts assessment (five states) or state
science assessment (five states) in their native language (see Exhibit 4.2). In addition to offering
state content assessments in Spanish, Michigan indicated that it also allows ELs to take
mathematics and science assessments in Arabic, and New York indicated that it allows ELs to
take the mathematics assessment in Haitian-Creole, Russian, Chinese, or Korean.
Guidance located on SEA websites indicates that even when states offer a content assessment in
a language other than English, this option may only be available to ELs in certain grade levels.
For example, Colorado offers Lectura and Escritura (Spanish language reading and writing
assessments) to eligible third- and fourth-grade students. Similarly, Texas offers Spanish
language versions of the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR®) tests in
Grades 3–5. In Massachusetts, the state’s mathematics assessment is available in Spanish for ELs
in Grades 9 and 10.
Exhibit 4.2. Number of States That Reported Offering Title I Content Assessments in
Spanish, 2012–13
Exhibit Reads: Nine states reported offering the state mathematics content tests used for ESEA accountability determinations in
Spanish in 2012–13.
Notes: Includes 50 states and the District of Columbia. For simplicity, the District of Columbia is represented in the figure as a state.
Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs), 2012–13
As states begin to implement new content assessments aligned with college- and career-ready
standards, they have an opportunity to offer assessments in languages other than English. For
example, both the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
5
5
9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
State science content tests
State reading/language arts content tests
State mathematics content tests
Number of States
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 68 Dual Language Programming and Policies
and Smarter Balanced have developed Spanish versions of their mathematics assessments, which
states have the option of using if desired.
33
Moreover, in 2014–15, Hawaii piloted a new
Hawaiian language version of its state content assessments for use with third- and fourth-grade
students in the state’s Hawaiian dual language programs. (See text box, “Assessing Students in
Hawaiian to Support Native Language Development.”)
Assessing Students in Hawaiian to Support Native Language Development
Since 1987, the Hawaii Department of Education has implemented a K–12 dual language program known
as Ka Papahana Kaiapuni Hawaii, which aims to help the Hawaiian community revive and maintain its
native language and culture. Currently operating in 20 schools, the program emphasizes instruction in the
Hawaiian language in the early grades and does not introduce English instruction until Grade 5, with the
goal of helping students become bilingual in high school.
Given the program’s strong emphasis on the Hawaiian language prior to Grade 5, the Hawaii Department
of Education partnered with the University of Hawaii–Manoa to develop Hawaiian language arts and
mathematics assessments in Hawaiian that are aligned with the state’s Common Core standards. To
support a 2014–15 pilot test of these assessments among third- and fourth-grade students in the Hawaiian
dual language program, the state applied for and received a one-year waiver from the U.S. Department of
Education, allowing those students to take the pilot test in lieu of the statewide Smarter Balanced content
assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics that year (Delisle, 2015).
For ELs who take Title I content assessments in English, states and districts must provide
appropriate assessment accommodations to ensure the validity and reliability of the assessment
(Abedi, 2004; Francis & Rivera, 2007). Accommodations for ELs on such assessments may
involve changes to testing procedures, such as granting students extra time or reading test
directions or questions aloud; changes to testing materials, such as administering a modified
English version of the assessment or allowing use of the native language, English, pictures, or
bilingual glossaries; and/or changes to testing conditions, such as conducting the test in a small-
group setting or familiar environment with other ELs (Abedi & Ewers, 2013; Willner, Rivera, &
Acosta, 2008). Abedi and Ewers (2013) argue that five key issues must be considered when
selecting appropriate accommodations for ELs: the accommodations’ (1) effectiveness in making
the assessment more accessible to the recipient; (2) validity in measuring the assessment’s focal
constructs (i.e., the accommodations do not provide an unfair advantage to the recipient);
(3) differential impact on students with different background characteristics (i.e., one size may
not fit all); (4) relevance for the recipient; and (5) feasibility of being implemented in the
assessment setting.
ESEA Accountability Requirements
As noted earlier, Title I and Title III of the ESEA feature provisions that hold states, districts,
and schools accountable for ensuring that ELs meet annual state performance goals on academic
content assessments. In addition, under ESEA Flexibility, states are implementing principal and
33
According to their websites, PARCC offers both an online and paper version of its mathematics assessment in
Spanish, and Smarter Balanced offers a mathematics assessment that features stacked translations in Spanish (i.e., a
Spanish translation is presented directly above each item in English).
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 69 Dual Language Programming and Policies
teacher evaluation and support systems that use student growth on state content assessments as a
significant factor in measuring principal and teacher effectiveness.
Officials from two of the six case study states mentioned challenges associated with
using content assessment data for ELs tested in English in ESEA accountability or
educator evaluation systems, particularly relating to concerns that the scores may
underestimate student learning.
For example, an official from Massachusetts explained that when ELs in dual language or other
bilingual programs are assessed in English while they are still developing proficiency in English,
their scores may be depressed, and student assessment outcomes on state tests may not reflect
positively on meeting state grade-level learning goals. As a result, dual language programs may
not be perceived as being successful, and current state-level accountability requirements create a
disincentive for districts to implement them. A state official from New Mexico discussed similar
concerns expressed by educators within dual language programs with respect to the state’s new
evaluation system. For example, some educators have posited that if ELs in dual language
programs are being taught using a 90:10 model (with most of their instruction in the partner
language) and are then tested in English, interpretations of teacher effectiveness based on student
achievement growth may not provide a complete assessment of their effectiveness. To address
this, the New Mexico SEA is currently working on incorporating information on how to evaluate
teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students and ELs into the state teacher
evaluation framework.
Research findings also have indicated that Title I and Title III requirements that schools
demonstrate that ELs make adequate progress and meet the same content standards required of
native English-speaking students have caused some communities to rethink implementation of
dual language programs and consider implementing an English-only approach (Wright & Choi,
2006; Gandara & Rumberger, 2009; Warhol & Mayer, 2012; Lindholm-Leary, 2012; Menken &
Solorza, 2012). Further illustrating this point, Lindholm-Leary (2012) found that when ELs score
below the levels of their monolingual peers on standardized tests in English during the early
years of dual language programs, administrators may feel pressure to add more instruction in
English (which negatively affects fidelity of implementation of the program model) or eliminate
dual language programs altogether. To address this challenge, one recommendation is for dual
language programs to use multiple assessment measures in both languages that are aligned with
and include dual language programs’ vision and goals and measure students’ ongoing progress
toward meeting bilingualism and biliteracy benchmarks.
Program Evaluation Practices
Although all states use content assessment and ELP proficiency data to evaluate whether schools
and/or districts with dual language programs are meeting the state’s performance goals under
Title I and Title III, states also may choose to conduct more targeted evaluations to assess the
implementation and outcomes of dual language programs. Information collected from our state
interviews and website searches for the six case study states showed that four of the six case
study states were planning or had implemented program evaluation efforts related to dual
language or bilingual education programs (as of spring 2015).
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 70 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Two of the six case study states (Delaware and Utah) have engaged in program
evaluation efforts specific to the state’s dual language programs.
A state official from Utah explained that the state submits an annual report to the state legislature
on the progress and cost effectiveness of the state’s dual language program initiative. The report
presents analyses of dual language program students’ partner language proficiency, as well as
their performance on state content assessments. For example, Utah’s analyses of 2011–12
student performance data found that the state’s third-grade students in dual language programs
34
tended to outperform peers who were not in dual language programs in terms of the percentage
of students on reading level, the percentage of students scoring proficient in English language
arts, the percentage of students scoring proficient in mathematics, and the percentage of students
who are not chronically absent (Utah State Office of Education, 2013). The Utah official also
noted that the state’s cost analyses have shown that the dual language initiative is a cost-effective
program in the state, currently costing approximately $100 annually per participating student.
A state official from Delaware mentioned that the state has used an external evaluator in
previous years to conduct a primarily qualitative evaluation of its dual language programs, but is
now in the process of contracting with the Center for Applied Linguistics to conduct an external
quantitative evaluation. Additionally, the state compares disaggregated state assessment data on
students in dual language programs with students not in dual language programs.
Another two case study states (New Mexico and Illinois) prepare annual state
reports on state-funded bilingual education programs (which include dual language
programs), but do not specifically examine dual language programs.
New Mexico submits an annual report to its state legislature that presents various data on state-
funded bilingual multicultural education programs (BMEPs). For example, the report features
analyses of the percentage of students in BMEPs who attain proficiency in Spanish or Native
American partner languages, the schools implementing BMEPs that earned an A or B grade
according to the state accountability system, and the percentage of American Indian and
Hispanic students scoring proficient or above on state content assessments, disaggregated by
students’ EL status and BMEP participation. New Mexico’s report also includes expenditure
data, including the amount of expenditures that BMEPs incurred in particular areas (e.g., direct
instruction, instructional support, administration). According to an interviewed New Mexico
official, one challenge in conducting evaluations of dual language programs in the state is that
districts and BMEPs use different assessments to measure students’ partner language proficiency
outcomes. This lack of a uniform assessment is one reason why the state has established a task
force working on adopting a set of standards and rethinking Spanish language assessment
options for BMEPs (moving toward a common language assessment).
Illinois also must prepare an annual statistical report on EL and bilingual education for its state
legislature and, although the report’s analyses of student outcomes (i.e., ELP and state content
assessment outcomes) currently focus on all ELs in the state, the SEA is discussing
34
Most of the dual language programs in Utah (91 out of 118 in 2014–15) are one-way programs that predominantly
serve native English speakers. However, Utah also has 27 two-way dual language programs that serve both native
English speakers and language minority students, including ELs.
Standards, Assessments, and Program Evaluation Practices 71 Dual Language Programming and Policies
disaggregating EL performance data by program type in the future, according to an interviewed
state official. This official further noted that the state is considering longitudinal analyses of
student outcomes by program type.
Chapter Summary
To guide instruction and evaluate student progress in developing English proficiency, all states
have established ELP standards and assessments under Title III, and have continued to refine
these systems to ensure that they reflect the academic language skills that students need to master
state content standards in English language arts, mathematics, and other content areas. Many
states also have implemented standards that can be used to support students’ acquisition of a
partner language, and several states provide guidance or recommendations on assessing student
proficiency in the partner language, although few states have set explicit requirements for such
assessments.
Most states are now implementing the Common Core State Standards in English language arts
and mathematics, but officials in all six case study states noted challenges associated with
finding instructional materials in the partner language that align with these standards. Two of the
case study states also mentioned concerns about the validity of performance results for ELs who
take content assessments administered in English, particularly when these results are used to
make high-stakes decisions relating to state accountability and as part of educator evaluation
systems. A minority of states allow ELs to take at least one of the state content assessments in
their native language.
Few states currently conduct program evaluations specifically for dual language education
programs. In most cases, the dual language programs are folded into general evaluations of
bilingual education or other programs for ELs in the state or district (CCSSO, 2008). However,
as the number of dual language programs grows, attention to program evaluation in states will
likely grow as well.
Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development 72 Dual Language Programming and Policies
V. Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development
This chapter explores state-level policies and practices regarding the qualifications of teachers
who serve students in dual language programs, as well as the professional development offered
to teachers in these programs. In some cases, where policies and practices for bilingual education
apply to teachers in dual language programs, the scope of the discussion will extend to bilingual
education. The chapter begins by examining state teacher certification or licensure requirements
for teachers in bilingual education (including specific language fluency assessments) and then
focuses on the requirements that some states have specifically for teachers in dual language
programs. The discussion then moves on to the guidance states have issued to districts on
qualities to look for when hiring teachers for these programs. It then highlights how a shortage of
qualified teachers is affecting implementation of dual language programs and outlines case study
states’ efforts to build the supply of teachers. The chapter concludes with a discussion of states’
approaches to providing professional development opportunities for teachers and principals in
schools and districts with dual language programs.
Key Findings
• According to data collected by the National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality (NCCTQ)
in 2009–10, all states and the District of Columbia offered an English as a second language (ESL)
teaching certificate.
• Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia have established certification requirements that
allow teachers to earn a teaching certificate in bilingual education. At least seven of these states
require teachers in dual language programs to earn a bilingual education certificate. One state
(Utah) has developed credentials specifically for teachers in dual language programs, and North
Carolina is currently developing such credentials.
• All 50 states and the District of Columbia require teachers who provide instruction in English in
any type of program to demonstrate their English fluency. Thirty-six states and the District of
Columbia require teachers to demonstrate fluency through the university certification or licensure
process, and 25 states require teachers to pass a specific English language fluency assessment.
• Thirty-nine states have established requirements for teachers who provide instruction in a language
other than English to English learners (ELs) to demonstrate fluency in this language: 19 states
require teachers to demonstrate fluency through a university certification or licensure process, and
16 of those states require teachers to pass a specific language assessment as part of that process.
• Teachers in dual language programs need specific characteristics to teach effectively. Eight states
issue guidance to districts on qualities to look for when hiring teachers for dual language programs.
• Interview respondents from all six case study states identified the shortage of qualified teachers as
a challenge to implementing dual language programs in the state.
• Five case study states have taken steps to build the supply of teachers qualified to teach in dual
language programs. The most prevalent actions are establishing alternative certification pathways
to allow teachers to become certified to teach in dual language programs (four states) and forming
partnerships with other countries to assist with building the supply of teachers.
• Among the 11 states with available information on the professional development offered or
recommended to dual language teachers, two states indicated that this professional development is
required.
• Among the 11 states with available information on the professional development offered or
recommended to dual language program teachers, nine states provide workshops or conferences
that cover dual language education topics. Six states sponsor, require, or encourage teachers to
attend summer institutes specifically designed for dual language program teachers.
Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development 73 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Qualifications of Dual Language Program Teachers
As general education practitioners, teachers in dual language education are expected to possess
the credentials and core competencies needed by all teachers for their grade level and/or subject
matter focus (knowledge of content, pedagogical practice, educational technology, and
assessment, among other topics, as well as all the required certifications). To be effective in the
dual language setting, however, they need additional knowledge, skills, and attitudes, some of
which may be demonstrated through certifications or endorsements for teaching ELs or using the
partner language as a medium of instruction, such as bilingual/ESL teacher requirements. A
major component of these teacher qualifications is a high level of proficiency in the languages in
which they teach (Lindholm-Leary, 2007), given that dual language education incorporates
instruction in and through English and a partner language. Furthermore, because all students in
dual language classrooms learn content through their second language (ELs learning English and
English speakers learning the partner language), it is important for teachers to understand
sheltered instruction and second language development. Finally, given the rigorous standards
related to text analysis and production in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation
Science Standards, teachers need to know how to support second language learners as they
encounter such texts, particularly in the language of the content areas (mathematics, science,
social studies, and so on) (Council of Great City Schools, 2008; Brisk & Proctor, 2012).
The research on effective teachers of ELs (as second language learners) is relevant to dual
language education, and a review of the research base revealed consensus that important teacher
skills and knowledge include understanding second language acquisition and how a student’s
first language interacts with learning a second language, knowledge of the cultural backgrounds
of the students, the ability to use specific strategies when teaching the subject matter so that
students learning through their second language can access that content, and skills in
differentiating instruction according to the language level and background knowledge of
individual students (August, Spencer, Fenner, & Kozik, 2012). Skills in differentiating
instruction are particularly important in two-way dual language classrooms because teachers may
work with mixed groups of proficient speakers and novices in the language of instruction. The
proficient speakers need to be challenged so that their native language development progresses,
and the novice speakers need to be accommodated to facilitate both language and content
learning (Lindholm-Leary, 2007). Positive attitudes toward bilingualism and culturally diverse
groups also are essential in order to create an environment conducive to productive interactions
and language learning (Brisk & Proctor, 2012). Effective teachers hold high expectations for
students, are receptive to suggestions, and are committed to culturally relevant pedagogy (Alanís
& Rodriguez, 2008).
States play an important role in establishing teacher certification and other qualification requirements
to help districts ensure that dual language teachers have the necessary expertise and appropriate
teaching certificates or credentials. From a federal policy standpoint, Title I and Title III of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) require states to set minimum requirements for
teacher qualifications. Under Title I, the highly qualified teacher requirements for teachers who
provide academic content instruction include possession of a bachelor’s degree, full/continuing state
certification (or licensure), and demonstrated subject-matter competence in the areas taught. In
addition, Title III (Title III, Part A, Section 3116(c)) requires teachers who teach in EL programs
Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development 74 Dual Language Programming and Policies
funded under Title III to be fluent
35
(including written and oral communication skills) in English and
any other language in which they provide instruction.
In 2009–10, all states and the District of Columbia offered an English as a second
language (ESL) teaching certificate, and 25 states and the District of Columbia
offered a teaching certificate in bilingual education.
According to data collected by the National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality
(NCCTQ) in 2009–10, all states and the District of Columbia offered an ESL teaching certificate,
and 25 states and the District of Columbia had established certification requirements for a
teaching certificate in bilingual education (NCCTQ, 2009) (see Exhibit 5.1). Our review of state
education agency (SEA) websites in spring 2015 indicated that New Mexico’s bilingual
certification requirements, for example, include 24 to 36 hours in bilingual education and a
passing grade in the Spanish Language Proficiency Exam (Prueba). (Bilingual education
addresses English language development, instructional methodology, community/family
involvement, and assessment.) Ohio’s requirements include competence in English; the target
language; cultural diversity; the historical, philosophical, legal, and theoretical underpinnings of
bilingual education; second language acquisition; instructional methodology; linguistics; and
assessment.
One state has developed credentials specifically for teachers in dual language
programs, and another state is currently developing credentials. Seven states
require dual language program teachers to hold a bilingual certificate or
endorsement.
A review of the SEA website indicated that Utah has developed credentials specifically for
teachers in dual language programs, and the state official from North Carolina indicated that
North Carolina is currently developing these credentials.
36
Utah has partnered with universities
in the state to develop world language and dual language immersion (DLI) endorsements in the
language of instruction, which teachers must acquire in addition to their state teaching certificate
to teach in both one-way and two-way dual language programs. Certification for dual language
immersion is provided in three ways in Utah: (1) completion of an approved DLI program; (2) an
ESL endorsement, a state-approved “foundations of dual language immersion” course, advanced-
mid or higher oral proficiency rating on the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages (ACTFL) scale, and one year of teaching in a dual language program; or (3) a state-
approved foundations of dual language immersion course, advanced-mid or higher oral
proficiency rating on the ACTFL scale, one year of teaching in a dual language program, and
three other courses (content-based curriculum instruction and assessment, second language
literacy, and methods of second language acquisition).
Among states with information available on their websites, seven states (California, Colorado,
Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, and Texas) require dual language program teachers
to hold a bilingual certificate or endorsement. In New Mexico, for example, teachers who teach
35
For the purposes of this study, we are using the term “proficiency” for students and the term “fluency” for
teachers, although they have the same meaning.
36
Rhode Island offers teaching certificates in “bilingual and dual language education.”
Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development 75 Dual Language Programming and Policies
in any of the bilingual program models (including dual language programs) must have a bilingual
endorsement for their target language or be licensed through a Native Language and Culture
Certificate (for Native American languages), in addition to possessing a New Mexico teaching
license for their level of instruction (e.g., elementary education). In Delaware’s dual language
programs, the partner-language teacher must hold a Delaware teacher’s license, an elementary
education certificate, and either a K–12 world languages certificate or K–12 bilingual certificate.
Exhibit 5.1. States That Offered Teaching Certificates in English as a Second Language
(ESL) and Bilingual Education, 2009–10
State Name
English as a
Second
Language
Bilingual
Education State Name
English as a
Second
Language
Bilingual
Education
Alabama x Montana x
Alaska x x Nebraska x
Arizona x x Nevada x x
Arkansas x New Hampshire x x
California x x New Jersey x x
Colorado x x New Mexico x x
Connecticut x x New York x x
Delaware x x North Carolina x
District of Columbia x North Dakota — —
Florida x x Ohio x x
Georgia x Oklahoma x
Hawaii x Oregon x
Idaho x x Pennsylvania x
Illinois x x Rhode Island x x
Indiana x x South Carolina x
Iowa x South Dakota x
Kansas x Tennessee x
Kentucky x Texas x x
Louisiana x x Utah x
Maine x Vermont x x
Maryland x Virginia x
Massachusetts x x Washington x x
Michigan x x West Virginia x
Minnesota x x Wisconsin x x
Mississippi x Wyoming x x
Missouri x
Total 50 26
Exhibit Reads: In 2009–10, Alabama offered a teaching certificate in English as a second language but does not offer a teaching
certificate in bilingual education.
Notes: Includes 49 states and the District of Columbia. Data were not available for North Dakota.
Source: National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality, 2009
Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development 76 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Most states (36 and the District of Columbia) require teachers who provide
instruction in English to ELs to demonstrate their fluency in English through the
university certification or licensure process. Twenty-five states require teachers to
pass a specific English language fluency assessment.
According to data collected in 2009–10 as part of the National Evaluation of Title III
implementation (Tanenbaum et al., 2012), all 50 states and the District of Columbia require
teachers who provide instruction in English in Title III-funded language instruction educational
programs (LIEPs) to demonstrate their English fluency. These data indicate that the majority of
states (36 states and the District of Columbia) require teachers to demonstrate their fluency in
English as part of the university certification or licensure process, and 25 of those states require
teachers to pass a specific assessment as part of that process. Another two states require a
specific assessment, but do not require university certification or licensure. Twelve states rely on
local assurances from school districts that teachers are fluent in English.
A review of SEA websites indicated that in Rhode Island, for example, teachers must achieve a
passing score of 64 on the Versant Pro Speaking and Writing English assessments. In Illinois,
teachers must demonstrate adequate speaking, reading, and writing skills (including grammar) in
English. This requirement may be fulfilled in one of the following ways: (1) The applicant
presents evidence that he/she graduated from an institution of higher education in which the
medium of instruction is English; or (2) the applicant successfully completes the English
Language Proficiency Test.
Massachusetts is one of 12 states that rely on local assurances from Title III districts to ensure
that teachers are fluent in English. The SEA website indicates that school district superintendents
are required to submit annual written assurance to the Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education that teachers of English language classrooms (as defined in M.G.L. c. 71A) are literate
and fluent in English.
Nineteen states require teachers who provide instruction in a language other than
English to demonstrate their fluency in that language through a specific language
fluency assessment.
The National Evaluation of Title III implementation found that, as of the 2009–10 school year,
only 39 states had established requirements for teachers in Title III-funded LIEPs who provide
instruction in a language other than English to demonstrate their fluency in that language.
Nineteen states require teachers to demonstrate their fluency in such languages through a
university certification or licensure process, and 16 of those states require teachers to pass a
specific language assessment as part of that process. For example, a review of SEA websites
indicated that, in New Jersey, teachers who provide instruction in a language other than English
in Title III-funded LIEPs are required to pass oral and written language proficiency tests (Oral
Proficiency Interview [OPI] and Writing Proficiency Test [WPT]) in the relevant language(s).
Both tests must be passed with at least a score of “Advanced Low.” In Rhode Island, such
teachers are required to score at different levels, depending on the language: a passing score of
146 on the ETS English to Speakers of Other Languages test; a passing score of 162 on the
French World Language test; a passing score of 163 on the German World Language test; a
passing score of 168 on the Spanish World Language test; and, for all other languages, a passing
Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development 77 Dual Language Programming and Policies
score of “Advanced Low” on the OPI. The National Evaluation of Title III implementation found
that three states require a specific assessment outside of the university certification or licensure
process. A review of the states’ websites indicated that Georgia, for example, administers a
specific assessment designated at the state level, while in North Dakota, fluency in a native
language is determined by local native tribes.
Another 12 states rely solely on assurances from local districts. A review of SEA websites
indicated that in Alaska, for example, districts that receive Title III-A funds must determine that
teachers are fluent and in possession of both written and oral communication skills in English
and any other language used for instruction (and they must report the process/criteria for
determining this in the Plan of Service for Limited English Proficient [LEP] students). The
District of Columbia uses monitoring tool checks to make sure that the district has determined
teacher fluency in the language other than English.
In addition to establishing formal teacher qualification requirements, eight states
have issued guidance to districts on qualities to look for when hiring teachers for
dual language programs.
Eight states have provided specific guidance on their websites about the qualities that teachers
should have to teach students in these programs. A search of these SEA websites revealed a
range of guidance, from minimal guidance on what constitutes a high-quality teacher to the Five
Discriminating Characteristics of Effective DLI Teachers (see Exhibit 5.2) that Utah provides to
district administrators and school leaders. New York indicates that dual language teachers need
to provide quality instruction in both languages in all content areas for an effective two-way dual
language program and that teachers must use a variety of teaching approaches to address first
and second language development. Teachers should have the skills to incorporate learning
strategies and be effective in mastering content through purposeful language learning.
Rhode Island maintains that, like all teachers, teachers in dual language programs should possess
high levels of knowledge relating to the subject matter, curriculum and technology, instructional
strategies, and assessment. This SEA indicates that, for effective dual language programs, dual
language teachers also should have a high level of knowledge in their content area(s), as well as
native-like academic language proficiency in the partner language and/or English, depending on
the model used. Louisiana has provided guidance on what to look for in an exemplary world
language classroom, which can be applied to hiring teachers for one-way dual language
programs where students are acquiring a world language. For example, questioning candidates
about the strategies they use in their classrooms can help to identify teachers who use promising
practices, such as conveying meaning through visuals, objects, and gestures; adopting a
situational approach to teaching (the teacher gives the student a reason for learning); presenting
several activities in one lesson; and using little or no English.
Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development 78 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Exhibit 5.2. What to Look for When Hiring Dual Language Immersion Teachers: Five
Discriminating Characteristics of Effective DLI Teachers
Characteristic Evidence Criteria of Evidence
Language proficiency OPI
Oral proficiency
• Advanced mid-target language
• Proficient in English
Coachable disposition Demo lesson
Reference checks
Interviews
• Give a coaching tip during the demo lesson and observe
how well the candidate is able to incorporate the
suggestion
• Genuine and specific accounts of how the teacher
benefitted from coaching are evident during the
interviews and reference checks
Collaborative disposition Reference checks
Interviews
• Genuine and specific accounts of how the teacher has
been collaborative in previous settings are evident during
interviews and from references
Strong pedagogy Demo lesson
• What strategies does the teacher use to make the
content comprehensible to the students?
• Does the teacher incorporate activities where the
students have to interact with each other?
• How is the teacher collecting evidence that the students
understand?
Classroom management Demo lesson
• How many times does the teacher have to refocus
students during the lesson?
• How does the teacher handle the off-task students?
• How many students are on/off task?
Source: Utah Dual Language Immersion, DLI Advisory Council, March 23, 2015, Utah State Office of Education. What to Look for
When Hiring DLI Teachers. http://utahdli.org/images/March%2023%202015%20DLI%20Advisory.pdf
Building the Supply of Qualified Teachers
Hiring qualified and skilled teachers with appropriate levels of language proficiency is essential
to the effectiveness of any dual language program. However, the rising number of programs
around the country and a scarcity of teachers with the necessary language skills has led to a
shortage of qualified dual language teachers (similar to the problem faced by all forms of
bilingual education) (Liebtag & Haugen, 2015). Dual language teacher shortages also impact
dual language programs serving Native American students because the majority of teachers are
second language learners (Hermes 2004; Slaughter, 1997).
Interview respondents from all six case study states identified shortages of qualified
teachers as a barrier to implementing dual language programs in the state.
These responses echo reports that identify locating sufficient teachers with the requisite expertise
as one of the most common barriers to implementing dual language programs. The U.S.
Department of Education notes that bilingual education is a “high-need field,” and federal reports
on teacher preparation under Title II of the Higher Education Act (cited by Liebtag & Haugen,
2015) found that 32 states and the District of Columbia need more bilingual teachers. (The
specific needs of dual language education are not tracked nationally, but bilingual education
requirements are similar.) A report issued by the U. S. Department of Education’s Office of
Postsecondary Education (2015) indicates that 16 states identified bilingual or dual language
education as a teacher shortage area for the 2015–16 school year.
Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development 79 Dual Language Programming and Policies
A variety of strategies can be employed to increase the supply of qualified teachers for dual
language education, many of which parallel those used in other forms of bilingual education. The
beginning of the supply chain lies in pre-service teacher preparation programs, but, as noted by
the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition in a review of resources on
language immersion (cited by Liebtag & Haugen, 2015), the field is not a priority in university-
level teacher education and remains relatively small. Often, districts rely on in-service
professional development to build the specialized skills needed for dual language instruction. For
example, districts may recruit personnel who already possess partner language proficiency
(internationally or domestically) and offer them training to gain the necessary pedagogical skills
and/or fulfill credential requirements. In some cases, alternative certification routes may be
established, particularly to allow partner language speakers to join a program (Casey, Dunlap,
Brister, Davidson, & Starrett, 2013).
Officials from five of the six case study states noted that they had taken steps to
help build the supply of teachers qualified to teach in dual language programs.
Of these five case study states, four have established alternative certification pathways to allow
teachers to become certified to teach in dual language programs (see Exhibit 5.3). For example, a
state official from North Carolina indicated that the SEA has a “lateral entry” alternative
certification route, in which teacher candidates must have a B.A. degree and at least a 2.5 GPA
from their university to receive a provisional teaching license, which enables them to teach while
they work on meeting the remainder of the certification requirements. Additionally, a candidate
with an existing North Carolina teaching license (for example, in general elementary education
or secondary education) can take a Praxis II examination or the ACTFL OPI and WPT
assessment in a target language and, with passing scores, add a world languages K–12
endorsement in that language.
Four of the case study states have established partnerships with other countries to assist with
building the supply of teachers. For example, the state official from Utah indicated that Utah has
created a special international guest teacher license, which provides teachers from abroad with a
J-1 visa to temporarily teach in Utah (for up to three years). This has been offered to recruit
teachers from China, Taiwan, Spain, Mexico, France, Brazil, and soon Germany. The program
also provides housing for the first week of the teacher’s stay until he or she has obtained
permanent housing. Professional development on the Utah dual language immersion model and
cultural training also are offered to these teachers from abroad. A search of the SEA website
indicated that the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) has partnered with Spain’s Ministry
of Education and Culture and Mexico’s Office of the Secretary of Public Education to administer
an exchange visitor program. ISBE offers school districts the opportunity to recruit highly
qualified teachers from Spain to teach in dual language, bilingual education, and Spanish as a
world language programs. English-speaking teachers from Spain with appropriate licenses and
an international visiting teacher license come to the United States to teach for a few years and
then return to Spain.
Three case study states indicated that they have job fairs or postings for dual language teachers.
For example, the state official from Utah indicated that there are university-level job fairs
throughout the state, and a review of Illinois’ website indicated that there is a statewide job fair
for ESL, bilingual, and dual language teachers; aides; and administrators at the Illinois Resource
Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development 80 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Center. The state official from North Carolina reported that jobs are posted statewide on the
state’s website.
Three case study states are engaging in partnerships with teacher preparation programs to
enhance the supply of qualified teachers. A state official from Delaware indicated that the SEA
has collaborated with the University of Delaware to develop a “4 + 1” program and cohort
model, in which graduates obtain both an elementary education certificate and a Spanish
certificate within five years. Additionally, the state of Delaware advised La Salle University as it
developed a four-year dual major program, in which graduates obtain an elementary education
certificate and a Spanish certificate in four years.
Three case study states also are providing financial incentives for teachers to add certification. In
Illinois, for example, the state official indicated that in order to increase the number of available
teachers, the SEA reimburses tuition for early childhood teachers to add on a bilingual
endorsement. The state official from Utah indicated that although the state is not currently
providing incentives, some districts may provide incentives and some individual universities may
provide tuition assistance to teacher candidates working on dual language immersion
endorsement.
Exhibit 5.3. Strategies Used by Case Study States to Build the Supply of Teachers
Qualified to Teach in Dual Language Programs
Exhibit Reads: Four of the case study states have established alternative certification routes to help increase the supply of teachers
qualified to teach in dual language programs.
Notes: Includes six case study states
Source: Review of SEA websites and state interviews conducted in spring 2015
Professional Development for Teachers in Dual Language Programs
Professional development for practicing teachers is an essential vehicle for improving their
capacity to meet the goals of any instructional program. It can address any existing gaps in
teachers’ knowledge and keeps them abreast of any new developments in the field. In-service
3
3
3
3
4
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Other State Activities/ Policies
Financial Incentives for Teachers to Add Certification
Partnerships With Teacher Preparation Programs
Job Fairs or Postings
Partnerships With Other Countries
Alternative Certification Routes
Number of States
Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development 81 Dual Language Programming and Policies
training is particularly important for dual language education, given the scarcity of pre-service
teacher preparation programs that focus on this approach. According to Lindholm-Leary (2007),
professional development in dual language education should align with the objectives of the
instructional program, providing specific training in aspects of pedagogy, curriculum, and
assessment, including ways of delivering instruction to help students increase their proficiency in
the languages of instruction. Others have stressed the usefulness of professional development
that extends teachers’ knowledge of the language of instruction, particularly for partner-language
teachers (Fortune, Tedick, & Walker, 2008). Furthermore, because dual language program
teachers must often create curriculum and materials locally to address instructional objectives,
and monitor student learning on an ongoing basis, professional development in curriculum
writing and assessment, particularly formative assessment, is often desirable (Alvarez et al.,
2014; Fortune, Tedick, & Walker, 2008). In areas where the Common Core State Standards are
being implemented, professional development is helpful to address the rigorous standards for
academic discourse and analysis of advanced texts in both English and the partner language, as
well as to meet other academic demands (Santos, Darling-Hammond, & Cheuk, 2012). This may
be particularly important for teachers who provide instruction in the partner language, given that
many bilingual individuals have not had opportunities for advanced academic discourse in that
language (Santos, Darling-Hammond, & Cheuk, 2012).
Given the objectives of dual language education, professional development that was not
specifically designed for this context but was designed to help teachers shelter content taught in
English to ELs (Hart & Lee, 2003; August & Calderón, 2006) might be helpful in these
programs. Teachers in dual language programs, where bilingualism is a key goal, can modify
sheltered instruction techniques to be more effective for students in this context (Howard,
Sugarman, & Coburn, 2006). For example, when setting language objectives for lessons,
teachers can take both languages into consideration to promote cross-linguistic connections and
build on knowledge gained in one language (such as the concept of nouns) to help learning in the
other (Howard, Sugarman, & Coburn, 2006).
Several research studies have highlighted specific areas of professional development that are
necessary for program staff working with dual language learners. For example, one report argued
that teachers need to be better trained to work with and enhance language and literacy among
dual language learners in order to support students in becoming multilingual—a central goal of
dual language education that may not be adequately addressed in pre-service teacher preparation
(McCabe, et al., 2013). Another report cited “a continuing need” for teachers in a Hawaiian
language immersion program “to receive in-service training in effective teaching methods and
new curriculum,” and “in assessing student achievement… in second language settings” (Pacific
Policy Research Center, 2010, p. 11). In a study of a Korean-English two-way dual language
program, Lee and Jeong (2013) found that teachers would have benefited from more training on
bilingual language development and second language acquisition. This training was reported as
necessary not only for teachers’ effective implementation of the dual language program in the
classroom, but also to enable teachers to help parents of children in the program understand these
processes and have reasonable expectations about students’ bilingual development (Lee & Jeong,
2013). Providing ongoing, high-quality professional development for dual language program
staff is thus considered an important tool for meeting the specific challenges of program
implementation (Warhol & Mayer, 2012; Lee & Jeong, 2013; McCabe et al., 2013).
Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development 82 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Two states (Kentucky and Utah) require dual language teachers to participate in
professional development on dual language education.
A review of SEA websites and interviews with state officials also indicated that teacher
professional development is encouraged to effectively implement dual language programs.
Among the 11 states with available information on the professional development offered or
recommended to teachers in dual language programs, two states indicated that this professional
development is required. Utah holds mandatory training for first- and second-year teachers
through a week-long Annual Utah Dual Immersion Institute (AUDII) in August. Kentucky
requires teachers of dual language programs to attend the summer institutes in Utah, as well as
the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) Immersion Conference
and/or the ACTFL Convention.
States were most likely to offer professional development to dual language teachers
through workshops or conferences (nine states) or summer institutes (six states).
Among the 11 states with information on professional development, nine states provide
workshops or conferences that cover dual language education topics (see Exhibit 5.3). A review
of SEA websites indicates that in Illinois, for example, the Illinois Resource Center and the
Illinois Association for Multilingual Multicultural Education have convened the annual
Statewide Conference for Teachers Serving Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students, in
cooperation with ISBE, for the past 35 years. The Illinois SEA also sponsors two-day
workshops: Introduction to Biliteracy and the Bridge; Biliteracy and the Bridge (Grades 6–12);
and Biliteracy and the Bridge (Grades K–5). A state official from Delaware stated that the SEA
offers four full-day professional development opportunities quarterly for all immersion teachers
in the state (currently 31 teachers; projected to be 48 teachers next year), as well as two full days
of professional development for English teachers in dual language programs. In addition, all K–
12 world languages teachers are encouraged to participate in the Delaware Statewide World
Language Three-Year Professional Learning Plan, which incorporates summer institutes,
professional learning communities, face-to face professional development, and online and hybrid
courses and workshops. Teachers are provided stipends and recertification credit as incentives.
Six states sponsor, require, or encourage teachers to attend summer institutes specifically
designed for dual language program teachers (see Exhibit 5.4). A review of SEA websites
indicated that Georgia convenes the Georgia Dual Language Immersion Institute (GADII) in July
and encourages new and experienced dual language immersion teachers in the state to learn best
practices from experienced immersion teachers, with the intention that the teachers will
implement the strategies the following school year. In Illinois, the Illinois Resource Center
convenes its five-day Teaching for Biliteracy Summer Institute, which focuses on biliteracy in
Spanish and English. Illinois also has partnered with Literacy Squared to provide professional
development focused on biliteracy for districts with bilingual and dual language programs.
Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development 83 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Exhibit 5.4. Number of States That Provide Professional Development for Dual Language
Program Teachers in Particular Formats
Exhibit Reads: Nine states use conferences or workshops to provide professional development to dual language program teachers.
Notes: Includes 11 states.
Source: Review of SEA websites and case study state interviews conducted in spring 2015
At least six states provide professional development and/or tools to school leaders
to develop their expertise in (and commitment to) supporting teachers implementing
dual language programs.
A review of SEA websites indicated that Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, and Utah provide
professional development on dual language education to school leaders. In Delaware, principals
of immersion programs receive four half-days of professional development each year, and two
and a half additional days of professional development are provided for principals of new
immersion programs. In Utah, school principals and dual language immersion district
administrators are required to attend the AUDII new administrators’ strand once and the Dual
Language Immersion Advisory Council’s semi-annual meetings (in September and March).
Georgia also encourages new and experienced administrators to attend the GADII summer
institute (discussed above).
Some states provide classroom observation tools to school leaders to help them support teachers.
For instance, North Carolina has developed a teacher feedback tool drawing on the work of the
Teacher Effectiveness for Language Learning (TELL) initiative for world language programs,
which school administrators can use to record commendations and recommendations related to
20 different indicators that are tied to specific teaching standards within the state’s teacher
evaluation system. New Mexico has enhanced the observation tool for its teacher evaluation
system. The New Mexico 2013–14 annual report on bilingual multicultural education programs
(BMEPs) notes that the state’s Bilingual Multicultural Education Bureau “encourages reflective
instructional practices and tools—such as the NMTEACH Classroom Observation Protocol—to
support rigorous, culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning in BMEPs” (New
Mexico Public Education Department, 2014, p. 29). According to an interviewed state official,
the enhanced classroom observation protocol explicitly mentions use of the state’s English
language development (ELD) standards, culturally and linguistically responsive teaching
practices, and sheltered instruction practices.
37
37
Additional information about the state’s classroom observation tool is available at
http://ped.state.nm.us/ped/NMTeach_Toolbox.html
3
4
6
9
0 2 4 6 8 10
Collaboration Time or PLCs
Online Courses or Webinars
Summer Institutes
Conferences or Workshops
Number of States
Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development 84 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Chapter Summary
States and districts face challenges finding qualified teachers because of the rising number of
dual language programs and the lack of teachers with the required expertise.
Teaching in dual language programs requires a unique set of skills. In addition to the credentials
and core competencies needed by all teachers, dual language teachers need additional knowledge
and skills. Qualifications include a high level of proficiency in the both English and the partner
language, for teachers teaching in that language; an understanding of students’ cultural
backgrounds and second language development; and an ability to shelter content delivered in
students’ second language.
Some states are establishing teacher certification and other qualification requirements to help
districts ensure that dual language teachers have the necessary expertise and appropriate teaching
certificates and credentials. Some states also have a requirement that teachers pass assessments
that measure their English and/or partner language fluency.
Because dual language teacher shortages are a barrier to implementing dual language programs,
states are taking steps to increase the supply of teachers. The most common actions implemented
by case study states to build the supply of teachers include establishing alternative certificate
pathways to allow teachers to become certified to teach in dual language programs and
establishing partnerships with other countries to recruit highly qualified teachers. Other actions
include job fairs or postings for dual language teachers, partnerships with teacher preparation
programs, and providing financial incentives for teachers to add certification.
Professional development for practicing teachers is an important vehicle for improving their
capacity. States are most likely to offer professional development to dual language teachers
through workshops, conferences, or summer institutes. Three states require dual language
teachers to participate in these professional development opportunities. Some states also provide
professional development and/or tools to school leaders to develop their expertise in supporting
teachers who are implementing dual language programs.
State Support for Dual Language and Bilingual Programming 85 Dual Language Programming and Policies
VI. State Support for Dual Language and Bilingual
Programming
In this chapter, we examine state policies and actions to support dual language or bilingual
programming. Specifically, we highlight state policy contexts that endorse or restrict the use of
dual language or bilingual education programs. We then investigate sources of funding for dual
language programs and the associated challenges. Finally, we discuss technical assistance and
networking opportunities that our six case study states have provided to help districts and schools
implement dual language programs.
Key Findings
• Seven states have broadcast specific goals or value statements supporting dual language programs
or bilingual education more generally.
• Five states have laws that require districts to offer bilingual education programs when they serve a
minimum number of English learners (ELs) with the same language background. In contrast, four
states have laws constraining the use of bilingual education, typically by requiring parents to sign
consent forms or waivers.
• Between 2013–14 and 2015–16, six states have offered funding specifically to support the
development and implementation of dual language programs, and three states have offered funding
for bilingual education programs that can be used to support dual language programs.
• As of 2014–15, most states (46) provide additional funding to districts and schools to support ELs,
which also can be used to pay for dual language programming. However, dual language programs
that serve English proficient students (e.g., native English speakers and/or former ELs) may need to
identify other sources of funding for costs associated with those students.
• Officials from the six case study states reported challenges related to limited funding for dual
language programs (four states), limited state education agency (SEA) capacity to support dual
language programs (four states), insufficient local support for dual language programs (three
states), and high demand for dual language programs (one state).
• Officials from five of the six case study states reported providing technical assistance to support
districts and schools in implementing dual language programs, and officials from four case study
states described creating networking opportunities for teachers and administrators to collaborate on
dual language programming.
The development, implementation, and sustainability of dual language programs depend heavily
on the policy environment in which they function—at the local district level (Dorner, 2010) and
at the state level (where the range of allowable program types, support mechanisms, and funding
is generally defined for schools and districts in the state). A supportive context leads to funding,
but also technical assistance, teacher training, materials, and intellectual leadership, all of which
contribute to program success for students (Lindholm-Leary, 2007). State and federal laws,
regulations, and judicial decisions determine the “implementation spaces” in which district
educators may work to design programs to meet the needs of students in their communities
(Johnson, 2010). Given the intersection of dual language education with bilingual and second
language education, there are a variety of policy influences that may come into play, including
general language policy, language education policies, and EL education policies. When states
State Support for Dual Language and Bilingual Programming 86 Dual Language Programming and Policies
encourage dual language education, through policies and action, local schools and districts have
a much stronger basis on which to build their programs (Menken & Garcia, 2010).
State Policies Toward Bilingual Programming
The history of policies toward the use of languages other than English as a medium of instruction
is one of controversy and intense debate. As discussed in Chapter I, forms of bilingual education
have existed in this country since its founding. A variety of social and political forces led to
concerns about these practices, and bilingual programming became a topic of debate in many
states, particularly in response to increasing linguistic diversity in schools. States varied in their
response to the needs of ELs, with some enacting policies that required bilingual education and
others opting for specially-designed English language programs as needed (Combs et al., 2005;
Crawford, 2004; Gandara & Rumberger, 2009). As dual language education approaches were
proposed for adoption, state policies related to bilingual education became an important part of
the policy context in which they needed to operate. In some states, new policies were enacted, or
existing policies modified, to address dual language education specifically.
Seven states have broadcast specific goals or value statements supporting dual
language programs or bilingual education more generally.
Our review of state websites in spring 2015 uncovered seven states (Delaware, Georgia, New
Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington) that had issued explicit goals or
value statements promoting the use of dual language or bilingual education programs. For
example, Article 12, Section 8 of the Constitution of New Mexico recognizes the value of
bilingualism as an educational tool. The state of Washington’s SEA website explicitly indicates
that the state values bilingual education and describes a commitment to developing language
proficiency in an environment where language and cultural assets are recognized as valuable
resources for learning.
In Rhode Island, dual language instruction is included as part of the state’s strategic plan, which
includes specific goals for the percentage of ELs enrolled in dual language programs and the
percentage of students who will graduate with Seals of Biliteracy. In North Carolina, the state’s
Preparing Students for the World: Final Report of the State Board of Education’s Task Force on
Global Education Report includes support for “leading-edge language instruction,” including a
plan for statewide access to dual language programs beginning in elementary school and
continuing through high school.
Utah, Delaware, and Georgia have established special dual language initiatives. In Utah, this
initiative emerged when key state leaders—including the governor, state superintendents, and
state senators—established legislation and issued goals for developing dual language programs
throughout the state. (See text box, “Scaling Up Statewide: Dual Language Education in Utah.”)
Delaware’s dual language initiative includes goals such as maximizing students’ proficiency in a
world language in order to develop advanced-level language skills in secondary school;
providing a rich academic environment in both English and dual language classrooms;
developing students’ abilities to work successfully in multiple cultural settings; and offering a
rich, culturally diverse experience for the entire school community. (See text box, “Expanding
Dual Language in Delaware.”)
State Support for Dual Language and Bilingual Programming 87 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Georgia also has undertaken its Dual Language Immersion Program Initiative. In 2012, the state
superintendent proposed that Georgia would have at least 20 dual language immersion programs
by the end of the 2019–20 school year. The goal of the initiative is to create a K–12 language
instruction roadmap for Georgia that will address the need for language skills in business,
government, and education.
Scaling Up Statewide: Dual Language Education in Utah
Although Utah has a long history of dual language programs beginning in 1979, the environment changed
in 2008 when Utah passed Senate Bill 41, “The International Education Initiative—Critical Languages
Programs,” which created funding for schools in the state to begin dual language programs in Chinese,
French, and Spanish. Portuguese was added in the 2012–13 school year, and German was added the
following year. The Senate Bill was the result of the efforts of then State Governor Jon Huntsman Jr.,
State Senator Howard Stephenson, World Language Specialist Gregg Reports, and then Deputy
Superintendent for the Utah State Office of Education Larry Shumway. The bill stated that the dual
language programs would offer 50 percent of instruction in English and 50 percent in the partner
language, beginning in kindergarten or Grade 1, with the intention of adding one grade each year.
In 2009, the Utah Language Roadmap for the 21st Century was created as a collaborative effort by public
education, higher education, and the business community in Utah. This language education plan for the
state was supported and promoted by state leaders, including the state governor, the state superintendent
of education, and the president/CEO of the World Trade Center Utah. These entities aimed to address the
need for language skills in business, government, and education. The roadmap included a vision for a K–
16 articulation for language study, in which Utah students would enroll in a dual language program as
kindergarteners and continue with a vertically articulated progression of language study through the
university level to prepare them to enter the global economy.
In 2010, current Utah Governor Gary Herbert and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Larry
Shumway issued a challenge to Utah educators to implement 100 dual language programs throughout the
state by 2015, with a goal of enrolling 30,000 students. Reflecting the early success of the programs and
public demand, Governor Herbert and State Superintendent Shumway moved the target completion date
to 2014, with a continuing goal of mainstreaming dual language programs throughout the Utah public
school system. As of fall 2014, 25,000 students were enrolled in dual language programs at 118 schools
in 22 districts in Utah. The dual language programs in Utah include both one-way dual language
programs that serve one group (consisting predominantly of native English speakers with limited to no
proficiency in the second language) and two-way dual language programs (which serve English speakers
and speakers of a second language). In 2014–15, Utah had 91 one-way programs for predominantly
English speakers (i.e., world language immersion programs) and 27 two-way dual language programs (all
of which had Spanish as the partner language).
To date, seven universities in Utah have partnered with the Utah State Office of Education to identify and
train future dual language program teachers: Brigham Young University, Dixie State University, Southern
Utah University, the University of Utah, Utah State University, Utah Valley University, and Weber State
University. At each university, the colleges of education and the humanities have come together to offer
the world language and dual language immersion (DLI) endorsements to future dual language program
teachers.
State Support for Dual Language and Bilingual Programming 88 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Expanding Dual Language in Delaware
Delaware Governor Jack Markell, who is an advocate of world languages other than English, sponsored
the World Language Expansion Initiative in 2011. The initiative supports and funds the development of
dual language programs, with the intention of equipping students across the state with advanced-level
language skills to compete in the multilingual global economy. The 10-year initiative currently includes
dual language programs that serve 10,000 students across Delaware. Four Delaware Department of
Education staff members support the development of these programs, and field agents support dual
language program teachers at a ratio of one field agent per 15 teachers.
The state’s World Language Immersion Program curriculum model engages students, beginning in
kindergarten, in two different languages throughout their K–12 learning experience: English and either
Mandarin Chinese or Spanish. Delaware offers both one-way dual language programs (which include
predominantly native English speakers) and two-way dual language programs (which include two
language groups, for a balance of native English and native Spanish speakers). In 2014–15, Delaware had
four two-way dual language programs and 11 one-way dual language programs. Students benefit from the
instruction of two highly qualified teachers, one of whom teaches them for half the day in English, while
the other teaches them for half the day in the partner language. In the classroom, the partner language
teacher speaks only in that language and communicates using a wide range of strategies to engage
students, including pictures, songs, games, body language, expressions, pantomime, drama, and so on.
Students also are encouraged to speak only in the partner language during that portion of the day.
Delaware World Language Immersion Programs are open to all Delaware students of varying
backgrounds and abilities. All school districts in Delaware with dual language programs have identified a
K–12 pathway for students to continuously build toward an advanced level of language proficiency.
According to the Delaware Department of Education, enrolling in this program places students on a
pathway to read, write, speak, and listen in the partner language at “high intermediate” proficiency levels
by Grade 9. By continuing to study the same language in high school, they can achieve advanced
language proficiency skills and possibly earn credit toward a language minor at Delaware colleges and
universities.
Five states have laws that require districts to offer bilingual education programs
when they serve a minimum number of ELs with the same language background.
Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas mandate that districts with 20 or more
ELs in the same grade level from the same language background provide bilingual education
programs. In New York and Texas, districts are able to select from different types of bilingual
programs, including dual language programs. In Connecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey, districts
are required to provide a transitional bilingual program, but schools can choose to implement
dual language programs to meet this requirement. Connecticut’s state law considers the
requirement to provide bilingual instruction to have been met if a two-way dual language program
is implemented; however, other types of dual language and bilingual education programs are
subject to a state mandate that ELs must be exited from bilingual programs within three years. ELs
who have not met the EL redesignation criteria by that time must transition to receiving Language
Transition Support Services (LTSS). A state policy document indicates that, as a result of this
mandate, one-way dual language programs for predominantly language minority students (i.e.,
developmental bilingual programs) may not be a feasible model in the state.
State Support for Dual Language and Bilingual Programming 89 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Four states have laws constraining the use of bilingual education programs, often
by requiring parents to provide written consent for their child to participate in such
programs.
Arizona, California, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire have explicit laws that limit the
conditions under which students can be placed in bilingual education programs. In Arizona,
students may only participate in a bilingual education program if prior, written, informed consent
is documented annually by the child’s parents or legal guardian. Informed consent requires the
parent or legal guardian to personally visit the school to apply for the waiver. At the school, the
parent or guardian must be provided a full description of the educational materials that are used
in various program options and must be made aware of other educational opportunities available
to the child. Individual schools in which 20 students or more in a given grade level receive a
waiver are required to offer a bilingual class; in all other cases, such students must be permitted
to transfer to a public school in which such a class is offered.
Parents of ELs in California must sign yearly waivers of consent prior to placement of their child
in a two-way immersion program. Massachusetts law limits bilingual education programs in a
similar manner but has created an exception for two-way dual language and world language
programs. Nevertheless, an interviewed state official from Massachusetts indicated that the state
has diminished capacity and infrastructure to support its dual language programs as a result of
the overall restriction. For example, prior to the state law limiting bilingual education,
Massachusetts had established numerous state certifications for bilingual teachers, which are no
longer in use. New Hampshire state law requires English-only instruction for all students,
although bilingual programs are permitted with prior approval from the state board and local
school district.
State officials in three of the six case study states mentioned challenges garnering
local support for dual language programming; in contrast, state officials in Utah
noted challenges associated with high demand for dual language programming at
the local level.
Interviewed state officials from Illinois, New Mexico, and Massachusetts described state and
local challenges in obtaining local support for dual language programs. An official from Illinois
noted that districts have local autonomy over the selection of instructional programs. Although
the SEA recognizes the value of (and recommends implementation of) the dual language model
for serving ELs, the SEA cannot mandate implementation of this type of program in its districts,
which have the prerogative to choose from a variety of SEA-approved models for serving ELs.
Additionally, some districts lack buy-in and support for dual language programs from upper level
administrators who make decisions about program model implementation. To meet this
challenge, a working group has been formed at the state level. New Mexico reported that, in
some parts of the state, there seems to still be a lack of support from some local education
agency (LEA)-level administrators for bilingual multicultural education programs (which include
dual language programs), and Massachusetts reported a lack of support and belief in the dual
language program philosophy.
In contrast, high demand for dual language programs in Utah has led to some scale-up
challenges. A state official from Utah explained that dual language programs are in demand and,
State Support for Dual Language and Bilingual Programming 90 Dual Language Programming and Policies
as a result, there is a need to create more programs. At present, when demand is greater than the
number of spaces available at an existing dual language program school, the LEA conducts a
lottery allocating admittance to the school.
Funding for Dual Language Programs
Lara-Alecio, Galloway, and Mahadevan (2005) analyzed surveys from 48 school districts in
Texas that were implementing dual language programs and compared implementation costs
between dual language programs and the more traditional transitional bilingual programs. One
additional cost for dual language programs—which made these programs more expensive than
traditional transitional bilingual programs—was the need for more extensive staff development
to ensure that the programs were implemented with fidelity to the program model across grade
levels (Lara-Alecio, Galloway, & Mahadevan, 2005). Textbooks, assessments, and other
materials in the partner language also were reported to add costs (both start-up and ongoing) to
dual language programs (Lara-Alecio, Galloway, & Mahadevan, 2005).
Six states have recently offered funding opportunities specifically for dual language
programs.
Our review of SEA websites in spring 2015 found information from six states—Delaware,
Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, and Utah—that indicated that these states offer funds
specifically to support the development of dual language programs. In these states, the funds tend
to be administered through the world languages office (rather than a state EL/bilingual education
or Title III office), and they tend to be used for one-way foreign language programs (for
predominantly English speakers) and two-way dual language programs.
For example, the major source of funding for Utah’s dual language programs is state funding
(Utah Administrative Code R277-488-5, USOE Responsibilities and Funds), enacted by state
legislation (S.B. 41) in 2008. State funding provides for the addition of new dual language
programs in approximately 20 to 25 schools per year. Districts apply to request program funding
and receive a base of $10,000 (plus additional funding for some critical languages) and, if
necessary, additional funding for cost-sharing staff in particular instances where it is necessary
and would be cost effective. Districts that apply and agree to the state’s implementation fidelity
assurances are eligible to receive funding as long as the total for the districts requesting funding
does not exceed the total annual allocation from the legislature. In addition, the SEA funds
professional development that is required for state-funded dual language programs, as well as
curriculum development projects. According to an interviewed Utah official, the appropriation
for dual language programs for the 2014−15 school year was $2.3 million. The state secured
additional funding through the U.S. Department of Defense totaling $500,000.
The dual language programs that Delaware districts are implementing are funded and
administered through the state’s World Languages Immersion Program. The program provides
seed money specifically to launch dual language programs. Interested districts may apply for
funding, which includes $10,000 for grade-level start-up (including all core and resource
materials) and an additional $10,000, which can be used for teacher recruitment and retention.
The goal is to provide funding for five programs per year, for four years. Additional funding is
provided for middle and high school programming and professional learning opportunities for
State Support for Dual Language and Bilingual Programming 91 Dual Language Programming and Policies
teachers. Funding also is allocated for state purchase of core instructional materials in the
immersion language, consultants to help guide program development, and language assessments.
Some districts use state funding received through the governor’s initiative to recruit and retain
highly qualified teachers.
In Georgia, six new dual immersion elementary schools were awarded start-up grants to support
the purchase of materials and professional development in the 2013–14 school year. These
elementary schools receive grants of $15,000 each (for start-up and training costs) to implement
dual-immersion instruction in languages deemed vital to the economic development of the state
and region.
Dual Language Immersion Pilot Program grants have been made available in Indiana for the
2015–16 school year. School corporations or charter schools may receive assistance to establish
a new dual language immersion pilot program in up to two eligible grades (for example,
kindergarten in Year 1 and Grade 1 in Year 2), or to introduce a new language in a school
corporation or charter school within an existing dual language program in up to two eligible
grade levels. Individual schools are to receive no more than $100,000 per year. Schools may
reapply for grant funding of no more than $100,000 in Year 2 to fund the continuation of the
pilot program for the subsequent grade level for the following school year.
Kentucky made World Language Immersion Planning/Implementation Grants available in 2014
to elementary schools. According to the state’s Request for Proposal (RFP) for these grants, the
state was to award a $10,000 planning grant to up to two schools for one year. Schools that
received a planning grant in 2013–14 would then be eligible to apply for a one-year, $31,050
implementation grant the following year to put their plans into action, provided that the Arts &
World Languages Elementary School Grant continued to receive legislative funding. The state’s
RFP further noted that a $31,050 implementation grant was to be awarded to up two schools for
one year. Any elementary school was eligible to submit a proposal. Elementary schools with
existing world language programs were considered better positioned to plan for and implement a
language immersion program, but this was not a requirement. Schools with high populations of
students whose heritage or home language reflected a world language to be taught in the
immersion program were to be given strong consideration.
In Oregon, the Dual Language/Two-Way Bilingual Grant is available to assist districts, charter
schools, or consortia with the design, implementation, and improvement of dual language/two-
way bilingual programs across the state. Based on the availability of state resources, the three-
year grant program was to begin August 29, 2013, and end July 15, 2016. Grantees were to assert
their intent to continue these programs once the grant funding was expended and had to secure
from their district board chair, superintendent, and building principal assurances that the dual-
language bilingual program would continue after the grant period ended.
Connecticut, Michigan, and New Mexico specifically fund bilingual education
programs, including dual language programs.
In Connecticut, state funding supports bilingual programs required under the state’s bilingual
education statute. Annually, the board of education for each local and regional school district that
is required to provide a program of bilingual education (pursuant to section 10-17f) applies to the
State Support for Dual Language and Bilingual Programming 92 Dual Language Programming and Policies
State Board of Education and receives a grant. The grant amount is based on the proportion of
eligible students in the state who are served in that district. In Michigan, the state provides
formula-based funding for evidence-based bilingual programs—including dual language
programs as well as transitional bilingual programs—through its State Section 41 Bilingual
Education Grant. The minimum per pupil allocation for the 2014–15 school year was $149.
In New Mexico, state bilingual-multicultural education program (BMEP) funding exists to
support implementation of five bilingual models: two-way dual language, maintenance,
enrichment, heritage, and transitional. (See text box, “Promoting Bilingualism and Biliteracy in
New Mexico.”) Funding is discretionary and based on the number of students participating in the
programs. Priority is given to K–3 students wishing to participate. The total BMEP funds
allocated to districts and charters in 2013–14 was $36.5 million.
Promoting Bilingualism and Biliteracy in New Mexico
In 1973, New Mexico passed the Bilingual Multicultural Education Act of 1973, becoming the first state
in the United States to implement such a law. The law was expanded in 2004 (known as the Bilingual
Multicultural Education Act of 2004), and the state of New Mexico now provides funds to school districts
and charter schools to implement bilingual multicultural education programs (BMEPs) for all students,
including ELs. The New Mexico Public Education Department’s Bilingual Multicultural Education
Bureau (BMEB) oversees and has set the following goals for the BMEPs: (1) for all students to become
bilingual and biliterate in two languages—English and a second language, including Spanish, a Native
American language, or another language (usually a student’s home or cultural language); and (2) for all
students to meet state academic content standards and benchmarks in all subject areas. Consequently,
New Mexico is known as an “English-Plus” state, both in policy and in practice.
As of December 2014, approximately two thirds of the 89 school districts in New Mexico were
implementing BMEPs and serving 58,074 students, representing 17 percent of the entire student
population in public schools participating in the programs. More than 500 schools in over 60 percent of
all school districts in New Mexico provide Spanish or Native American language BMEPs. Hispanic or
Latino students represent the largest ethnic group participating in BMEPs (45,287 students or 78 percent
of all BMEP students) and Native American students represent 15 percent of students in BMEPs.
In addition to ELs, BMEPs include students who are fluent English proficient/primary home language
other than English (FEP/PHLOTE) students and native English speakers (non-PHLOTE). BMEPs consist
of the following five models:
38
Dual Language Programs
• Dual Language: designed to develop bilingualism and biliteracy in English and another language for
both English-speaking students and students with a home language other than English
• Maintenance: designed to develop and maintain proficiency and literacy in the student’s home
language and English
• Enrichment: designed to further develop the home language of fully English proficient students and
teach the cultures in New Mexico
• Indigenous Language Revitalization (or Heritage): designed to support and revitalize a student’s
native language and culture through oral and/or written language instruction with tribal approval
38
The terms used to refer to the five invidual program models described here are the state’s own; they do not reflect
the terminology suggested by this study.
State Support for Dual Language and Bilingual Programming 93 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Other Bilingual Programs
• Transitional: designed to transfer students from instruction in their home language to an all-English
curriculum
The model(s) chosen by the school district or individual school must be specified to receive state BMEP
funding. Districts or individual schools may select one or more model(s) to implement, depending on
each student’s needs. Student needs are determined by student performance on language proficiency
assessments and achievement assessments. Districts are to engage their Parent Advisory Committees and
the community to make decisions about what programs may benefit the students served.
In 2014–15, most states (46) provided additional funding for ELs, which could be
used to support dual language programs that serve ELs.
In 2014–15, according to data collected by the Education Commission of the States (ECS), 46
states
39
had mechanisms to channel additional funds to districts and/or schools that serve ELs
through formula funding (34 states), categorical funding (nine states), or reimbursement (three
states) (Millard, 2015). For example, available data show that North Carolina allocates per-
student funding based on EL student enrollment, and that funding is distributed through the
state’s primary funding formula. The SEA provides 60–70 percent of LEA costs, including
almost all teacher positions. Although there is no specific funding dedicated to dual language
programs, SEA and LEA funding can be used for dual language programs. State funds provided
for teachers can be used to hire bilingual teachers for dual language programs.
Funding for EL services is determined by formula in Massachusetts. The state does not provide
funding specifically for dual language programs, but state funding for EL services can be used
for dual language programs. Texas’ state formula funding for ELs, called the Bilingual
Education Allotment, is provided for each student in average daily attendance in a bilingual
education or special language program; a district is entitled to an annual allotment equal to the
adjusted basic allotment multiplied by 0.1.
For two-way dual language programs and one-way dual language programs that serve English
proficient students, an important consideration (and potential challenge when using state EL
funding for dual language programming) is that funding might be limited to support for EL
students only, meaning that the program would need to identify other sources of funding for
costs associated with English proficient students. A study of dual language program costs in
Texas—where state EL funding can only be used for EL students—found that Spanish dual
language programs incurred additional curriculum and assessment costs for native English
speakers. On average, these costs ranged from a total of about $5,000 per program in small dual
language programs to more than $17,000 in large dual language programs (Lara-Alecio,
Galloway, & Mahadevan, 2005).
39
The ECS study did not include data on the District of Columbia.
State Support for Dual Language and Bilingual Programming 94 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Eligible districts and schools also might leverage federal Title III and/or Title I funds
to support dual language programs.
Districts or consortia of districts that serve a sufficient number of ELs to qualify for federal Title
III funds might choose to use such funds to pay for supplementary services and materials for ELs
in dual language programs. Indeed, a nationally representative survey of Title III-funded districts
conducted in 2009–10 found that 29 percent of such districts were implementing two-way dual
language programs and that at least 44 percent were implementing other types of language
instruction educational programs that incorporated native language instruction (Tanenbaum et
al., 2012).
40
However, like many state EL funding streams, Title III funds can only be used to
support EL students. Thus, Title III districts need to draw on other funds for services and
materials provided to English proficient students (e.g., native English speakers and former ELs)
in dual language programs.
Federal Title I, Part A, funds may constitute another useful funding source for dual language
programs in schools and districts that serve large populations of students from low-income
backgrounds. ELs are often concentrated in high-poverty schools, and many qualify for Title I
support. For example, according to states’ Consolidated State Performance Reports, 75 percent
of the nation’s ELs
41
were served under Title I, Part A, in 2012–13. North Carolina has issued
guidance on using Title I, Part A, funds for schoolwide programs to support the implementation
of dual language programs. This guidance outlines how the state’s dual language programs
address many Title I schoolwide components, including effective and innovative instructional
strategies, professional development, parental involvement, and comprehensive needs
assessment (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2014).
Officials from four of the six case study states identified challenges associated with
funding for dual language programs.
Representatives from Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and North Carolina reported
challenges associated with insufficient funding for dual language programs. The New Mexico
spokesperson also noted a lack of comprehensive understanding at the local level with regard to
appropriate uses of state bilingual education funding. The Illinois representative voiced the
difficulties inherent in fully funding dual language programs that include non-ELs, given that
non-ELs do not receive the alternative language program funding received by ELs.
40
For example, 44 percent of surveyed Title III districts reported providing instruction in ELs’ native language arts,
and another 44 percent reported providing content area instruction (mathematics, science, social studies) involving
significant (at least 25 percent) use of ELs’ native language (Tanenbaum et al., 2012).
41
Includes ELs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
State Support for Dual Language and Bilingual Programming 95 Dual Language Programming and Policies
State Technical Assistance and Support for Dual Language
Programming
Officials from five of the six case study states reported that their state provides
technical assistance to support districts and schools in implementing dual language
programs.
The states chiefly deliver technical support by providing information to leaders and teachers who
work in dual language schools. This is done in a number of ways. The New Mexico SEA
organizes meetings in which LEA leadership may learn from partner organizations (who lend
their expertise on program implementation) and sponsors quarterly technical assistance meetings
with LEA bilingual administrators. The state also procures professional development for districts
serving ELs and/or implementing BMEPs (e.g., World-Class Instructional Design and
Assessment [WIDA] training on English language development (ELD) standards and
differentiation, data analysis, family engagement for ELs, and WIDA’s Spanish language
development [SLD] standards), and hosts a state-wide culturally and linguistically responsive
instruction conference.
The Illinois SEA has an annual contract with the Illinois Resource Center (IRC) to assist in
providing technical assistance to state programs for ELs, including dual language programs. The
IRC has worked directly with districts to help schools develop and implement dual language
programs. The North Carolina SEA sponsors a Dual Language Educators Listserv (for both
teachers and administrators), which provides a vehicle for disseminating information and
resources related to dual language programs. North Carolina also is planning to establish a dual
language advisory group and is developing a dual language program implementation guide for
publication in 2015–16.
Utah provides presentations at Dual Immersion Advisory Council semi-annual meetings, which
are attended by representatives from all schools implementing dual language programs. The state
has posted various videos on the SEA website and state dual language initiative websites. It also
has provided tools to dual language schools, such as a program component checklist and teacher
interview questions.
Some case study states also described having state-level staff dedicated to supporting dual
language programs. In Delaware, there are currently four SEA staff members supporting the
development of dual language programs, as well as field agents supporting immersion teachers at
a ratio of one field agent per 15 immersion teachers.
Four of the six case study states provide networking opportunities to facilitate
collaboration among administrators and/or teachers in the state who are
implementing dual language programs.
The four states that provide networking opportunities mainly do so by connecting dual language
staff with one another at annual conferences and/or establishing a listserv. The Illinois SEA
provides sessions on dual language programs at its annual required meeting in September, at
which dual language staff can meet. North Carolina’s Dual Language Educators Listserv for
teachers and administrators is open to all educators to facilitate networking and resource sharing.
State Support for Dual Language and Bilingual Programming 96 Dual Language Programming and Policies
In Delaware, all principals of dual language programs meet four times per year as part of the
state’s Immersion Principal and Administrator Council (IPAC). Similarly, the Dual Language
Immersion Advisory Council in Utah—an organization that consists of principals and
administrators from every school and district involved in the state’s dual language program
initiative—provides opportunities for adminstrators to network during semi-annual meetings and
trainings.
Officials in four of the six case study states described state capacity issues that
limited the SEA’s ability to support implementation of dual language programs.
Illinois and Massachusetts reported the need for additional state-level expertise and personnel,
while North Carolina and New Mexico reported the need for additional state-level personnel.
New Mexico, for example, stated that the SEA has only five staff members to provide assistance
to more than 500 programs in the state. The state official from Illinois explained that the state
contracts with external consultants and organizations to help improve its capacity to support dual
language and bilingual education in the state.
Chapter Summary
Recognizing the benefits that dual language programs can yield in promoting bilingualism and
academic achievement, some states are taking steps to actively support and expand dual language
opportunities for students in the state. Several states have goals and initiatives that promote dual
language programs or bilingual education programs more broadly. In many of these states, high-
level state leaders—including governors, state legislators, and/or state superintendents of
education—have been involved in establishing dual language education as a statewide priority.
In addition, a number of these states have offered grant opportunities to encourage the expansion
of dual language programs by offsetting some of the start-up costs associated with these
programs. Some states also are supporting dual language programs by providing technical
assistance and/or networking opportunities to facilitate the exchange of information and
instructional resources among local practitioners.
However, states themselves face challenges that may hamper their ability to support dual
language program development and implementation. Limitations in funding, SEA capacity (e.g.,
number of staff members and expertise), and political support can constrain states’ ability to
foster the development and sustainability of these programs. To address such limitations, some
states are leveraging external resources. For example, Illinois contracts with external consultants
and organizations to improve its capacity to provide technical assistance. Utah has received U.S.
Department of Defense grants to provide additional funding that supports dual language
education initiatives.
Conclusion 97 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Conclusion
Benefits to Students and Society
There are, without doubt, many benefits—for students and society—that come from having
command of more than one language, and from the interaction between cultures that language
learning brings. Developing proficiency in more than one language enhances career
opportunities, promotes cross-cultural understanding, and improves communication skills
(Tochon, 2009; Rumbaut, 2014). Students benefit cognitively as well; numerous studies have
shown the cognitive benefits associated with bilingualism (Esposito & Baker-Ward, 2013; Ball,
2010; Espinosa, 2013; Sandhofer & Uchikoshi, 2013; Barac et al., 2014).
Research also shows that English learners (ELs) benefit from continuing to learn in their native
language (Ball, 2010; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014). Oral proficiency and literacy in a
student’s first language, for example, can facilitate English literacy development (August &
Shanahan, 2006). Moreover, ELs are less likely to fall behind in core subject areas if they are
able to continue learning grade-level content in their home language while acquiring proficiency
in English (Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014).
In our country, we have a valuable yet untapped resource within the estimated 4.6 million
students who come to school already speaking a variety of home languages, most commonly
Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabic, or Hmong. These languages are significant not only to
our economic competitiveness, but also to our nation’s security (Duncan & Gil, 2014).
Terminology
Examining states’ dual language programming and policies is challenging because states vary
considerably in how they name their programs. Inconsistent naming of programs not only poses
challenges for this study, but also creates a great deal of confusion in the field. One contribution
this report makes is to suggest some standard terminology. We suggest that the field use the term
“dual language” to refer to programs in which instruction is provided in two languages, with the
goal of promoting proficiency in both. We suggest that the term “two-way” should be used to
describe dual language programs in which roughly equal numbers of students from two language
groups (e.g., English speakers and partner language speakers) participate, with the goal of both
groups learning both languages. We suggest that the term “one-way” should be used for
programs in which predominantly one language group (e.g., language minority students, native
English speakers, heritage language learners) participates, with the goal of learning two
languages. In the case of native English speakers, the second language is a world language. In
the case of heritage language learners, the second language is a heritage or Native American
language. The use of standard terminology would allow better aggregation of data and
experience across states and programs so that researchers and educators could more easily
examine how dual language programs work and how they could be improved.
Conclusion 98 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Program Development and Sustainability Challenges
Districts and schools may face a variety of challenges when developing and implementing dual
language programs. Teaching in dual language programs requires a unique set of skills. Teachers
must not only serve as competent language models, but also must know how to teach language
while teaching content. One of the greatest challenges faced by states and districts is finding
qualified teachers to teach in dual language programs.
Moreover, dual language programs can incur additional costs relative to other instructional
programs, particularly during the start-up phase. Textbooks and other materials in the partner
language were reported to add costs to dual language program, as did the need for specialized
professional development to ensure fidelity to the program model (Lara-Alecio et al., 2005).
Additionally, although state EL/bilingual funding and federal Title III funds can be used to
support services and materials for ELs, these funds are not designated for English proficient
students. Funding can therefore be adversely affected when two- or one-way programs include
large numbers of ELs, and EL funding is no longer available when their English proficiency
status changes from limited to proficient.
Acquiring instructional materials in the partner language is often a challenge as well, even when
funding is available. For example, officials from five of the six case study states indicated that
dual language programs, particularly those with a partner language other than Spanish, find it
difficult to locate instructional materials aligned with the state content standards.
There also are concerns related to accountability. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
accountability system requires students to master content delivered in English. In two-way dual
language programs, both ELs and English proficient students acquire two languages
concurrently, and it may take these students longer to reach benchmarks in English than students
instructed in English only. However, current accountability systems predicated on mastery in one
language or another do not take this into account.
Addressing the Challenges: State Support for Dual Language
Programs
To help address some of the challenges faced by districts and schools as they implement dual
language programs, some states are providing support for dual language programs and are doing
so in a number of ways. For example, several states are taking steps to increase the supply of
teachers and provide professional development to teachers of dual language programs. These
states are establishing alternative certification pathways to teach in dual language programs, as
well as partnerships with other countries to help recruit highly qualified teachers (even if they are
hired temporarily).
To support districts in recruiting and retaining students in dual language programs, some states
have provided materials or technical assistance to facilitate parent outreach efforts. States also
are creating incentives that can make dual language programs more enticing for students. For
example, states are increasingly adopting policies to officially recognize students who attain
proficiency in two languages by the time they graduate from high school by awarding them a
Seal of Biliteracy, which can serve as a credential for college admission and future employment
opportunities.
Conclusion 99 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Furthermore, a few states have announced goals, statements, and initiatives that value the
development of dual language programs. A number of these states are offering start-up grant
opportunities in an effort to expand the number of dual language programs. Some states are
supporting dual language programs by providing technical assistance and/or networking
opportunities that may help to facilitate the exchange of information and resources among local
practitioners. However, state education agencies may face capacity challenges due to limited
state-level expertise and a lack of staff to provide technical support.
The Need for Further Research
As more and more states begin to implement and support these programs, there will be an
increased need for information to ensure their success. One recommendation for the future is to
survey all the states (once the various program types are accurately named and described) to
determine, among other things, the actual number and types of programs in existence, and to
collect demographic information about the populations enrolled in these schools. Potential
research questions might explore student learning trajectories in dual language programs and
how individual, contextual, and programmatic factors influence these trajectories. Specific
research questions include the following:
42
• How do student-level factors (such as level of first-language literacy skills and
knowledge, level and quality of prior schooling, age, and time since arrival in the United
States) influence learning in these programs?
• How does context (home and community language use) influence outcomes?
• Should EL and English proficient students learn together in literacy classes from the
beginning, or should each group be separated for a portion of time to acquire a more solid
foundation in their native language and more oral language development in their second
language before plunging into English instruction with native speakers of the partner
language? Would these needs vary based on student-level factors?
• What features of the program model (e.g., student ratios of English speakers to partner
language speakers in two-way programs, number of instructional hours allotted to each
language, proportion of school staff and leadership that is bilingual, use of target
languages within and across content areas) influence successful acquisition of language
and content?
• What programs currently exist in which students are excelling, and what factors
contribute to this success?
• How do short-term hiring practices (e.g., of international teachers who must depart the
country after their temporary visas expire) affect program success?
• How do successful dual language programs equalize the status between languages to
ensure the successful development of both?
42
See Tedick and Bjorklund (2014) and Parkes and Ruth (2009) for additional discussion on important research
agendas related to dual language programs.
References 100 Dual Language Programming and Policies
References
Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and
accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4–14.
Abedi, J., & Ewers, N. (2013). Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium: Accommodations for
English language learners and students with disabilities: A research-based decision
algorithm. Los Angeles, CA: Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium.
Abedi, J., & Linquanti, R. (2012, January). Issues and opportunities in strengthening large scale
assessment systems for ELLs. Paper presented at the Understanding Language
Conference, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Retrieved from
http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academic-papers/07-
Abedi%20Linquanti%20Issues%20and%20Opportunities%20FINAL.pdf
ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Alanís, I., & Rodríguez, M. (2008). Sustaining a dual language immersion program: Features of
success. Journal of Latinos and Education, 7(4), 305–319.
Alaska Department of Education and Early Development. (2014). Guidance for Limited English
Proficient (LEP) student identification, assessment, and data reporting. Retrieved from
http://www.eed.alaska.gov/tls/assessment/elp/WIDA/LEP_IdentificationGuidance_2014.
pdf
Alvarez, L., Ananda, S., Walqui, A., Alvarez, L., Sato, E., & Rabinowitz, S. (2014). Focusing
formative assessment on the needs of English language learners. San Francisco, CA:
WestEd.
Arizona Department of Education. (2014). English language learner guide for local education
agencies. Retrieved from http://www.azed.gov/english-language-
learners/files/2014/03/identification-assessment-federal-and-state-compliance.pdf
August, D., & Calderón, M. (2006). Teacher beliefs and professional development. In D. August
& T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the
National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahway, NJ:
Erlbaum.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children: A
research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners:
Report of the National Literacy Panel for Language-Minority Children and Youth. New
York, NY: Routledge.
August, D., Spencer, S., Fenner, D. S., & Kozik, P. (2012). The evaluation of educators in
effective schools and classrooms for all learners. Washington, DC: American Federation
of Teachers.
Bailey, A. (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
References 101 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Ball, J. (2010, February). Educational equity for children from diverse language backgrounds:
Mother tongue-based bilingual or multilingual education in the early years. Presentation
to UNESCO International Symposium: Translation and Cultural Mediation, Paris,
France. Retrieved from http://www.ecdip.org/docs/pdf/UNESCO%20Summary%202010-
1.pdf
Barac, R., Bialystok, E., Castro, D. C., & Sanchez, M. (2014). The cognitive development of
young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
29(4), 699–714.
Block, N. (2011). The impact of two-way dual-immersion programs on initially English-
dominant Latino students’ attitudes. The Journal of the National Association for
Bilingual Education, 34(2), 125–141.
Brisk, M., & Proctor, P. (2012). Challenges and supports for English language learners in
bilingual programs. Paper presented at the Understanding Language Conference,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Retrieved from
http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academic-papers/11-
Brisk%20Bilingual%20Programs%20FINAL_0.pdf
Burger, S., Weinberg, A., Hall, C., Movassat, P., & Hope, A. (2011). French immersion studies
at the University of Ottawa: Programme evaluation and pedagogical challenges. In D. J.
Tedick, D. Christian, & T. W. Fortune (Eds.), Immersion education: Practices, policies,
possibilities (pp. 123–142). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
California Department of Education. (2015a). Two-way language immersion program FAQ.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/ip/faq.asp
California Department of Education. (2015b). Procedures for awarding the State Seal of
Biliteracy. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/ssb15ltrtofield.asp
Casey, P., Dunlap, K., Brister, H., Davidson, M., & Starrett, T. (2013). Sink or swim? Throw us
a life jacket! Novice alternatively certified bilingual and special education teachers
deserve options. Education and Urban Society, 45(3), 287–306.
Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir., 1981).
Center for Applied Linguistics. (n.d.). Two-way immersion. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from www.cal.org/twi
Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant English
language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis of research. Review of
Educational Research, 82(4), 351–395.
Christian, D. (1996). Two-way immersion education: Students learning through two languages.
The Modern Language Journal, 80(1), 66–76.
Christian, D. (2011). Dual language education. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in
second language teaching and learning, volume II (pp. 3–20). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2005). The beauty of dual language education. The TABE
Journal, 8(1), 1–6.
References 102 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Combs, M., Evans, C., Fletcher, T., Parra, E., & Jiménez, A. (2005). Bilingualism for the
children: Implementing a dual-language program in an English-only state. Educational
Policy, 19(5), 701–728.
Cook, H. G., Linquanti, R., Chinen, M., & Jung, H. (2012). National evaluation of Title III
implementation supplemental report: Exploring approaches to setting English language
proficiency performance criteria and monitoring English learner progress. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Development.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Common Core State Standards English/Spanish
language version. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://commoncore-
espanol.sdcoe.net/CCSS-en-Espa%C3%B1ol/SLA-Literacy
Council of Great City Schools. (2008). Raising the achievement of English language learners in
the Seattle Public Schools. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505337.pdf
Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners. Language diversity in the classroom (Fifth
Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services, Inc.
de Jong, E. (2004). L2 proficiency development in a two-way and a developmental bilingual
program. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 77–108.
de Jong, E. J. (2014). Program design and two-way immersion programs. Journal of Immersion
and Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 241–256.
de Jong, E. J., & Bearse, C. I. (2014). Dual language programs as a strand within a secondary
school: Dilemmas of school organization and the TWI mission. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(1), 15–31.
de Jong, E. J., & Howard, E. (2009). Integration in two-way immersion education: Equalising
linguistic benefits for all students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 12(1), 81–99.
Delaware Department of Education. (n.d.). Delaware World Language Immersion Programs.
Retrieved from http://www.doe.k12.de.us/Page/1090
Delisle, D. (2015, February 12). Letter to Superintendent of Education, Hawaii Department of
Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/secretary-
letters/hiassessltr22015.pdf
Dorner, L. (2010). Contested communities in a debate over dual-language education: The import
of “public” values on public policies. Educational Policy, 25(4), 577–613.
Duncan, A., & Gil, L. S. (2014, February 19). English learners an asset for global, multilingual
future. Los Angeles Daily News. Retrieved from
http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20140219/english-learners-an-asset-for-global-
multilingual-future-arne-duncan-and-libia-gil
Equal Educational Opportunities Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1703(f)
References 103 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Espinosa, L. (2013). Early education for dual language learners: Promoting school readiness
and early school success. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from
http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/DualLanguageLearners.pdfhttp://fcd-
us.org/sites/default/files/DualLanguageLearners.pdf
Esposito, A., & Baker-Ward, L. (2013). Dual-language education for low-income children:
Preliminary evidence of benefits for executive function. Bilingual Research Journal,
36(3), 295–310.
Faulkner-Bond, M., Waring, S., Forte, E., Crenshaw, R. L., Tindle, K., & Belknap, B. (2012).
Language Instruction Educational Programs (LIEPs): A review of the foundational
literature. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning,
Evaluation and Policy Development; Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html
Feinauer, E., & Howard, E. (2012). Attending to the third goal: Cross-cultural competence and
identity development in two-way immersion programs. Journal of Immersion and
Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 257–272.
Fortune, T., Tedick, D., & Walker, C. (2008). Integrated language and content teaching: Insights
from the immersion classroom. In T. Fortune & D. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to
multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 71–96). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Francis, D. J., & Rivera, M. O. (2007). Principles underlying English language proficiency tests
and academic accountability for ELLs. In J. Abedi (Ed.), English language proficiency
assessment in the nation: Current status and future practice (pp. 13–31). Davis, CA:
University of California, Davis School of Education.
Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for
the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for the
use of accommodations in large-scale assessments. (Under cooperative agreement grant
S283B050034 for U.S. Department of Education). Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research
Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Gándara, P., & Rumberger, R. (2009). Immigration, language, and education: How does
language policy structure opportunity? Teachers College Record, 111, 750–782.
Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Gómez, D. S. (2013). Bridging the opportunity gap through dual language education.
Unpublished manuscript, California State University, Stanislaus. Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.csustan.edu/bitstream/handle/011235813/658/GomezD%20Summer
%202013.pdf?sequence=1
Gómez, L., Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2005). Dual language education: A promising 50-50
model. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 145–164.
Graves, M. F., August, D., & Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2013). Teaching vocabulary to English
language learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
References 104 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Hakuta, K. (2011). Educating language minority students and affirming their equal rights;
Research and practical perspectives. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 163–174.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain
proficiency? University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute Policy
Report 2000–01. Retrieved from
http://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/Publications/%282000%29%20-
%20HOW%20LONG%20DOES%20IT%20TAKE%20ENGLISH%20LEARNERS%20
TO%20ATTAIN%20PR.pdf
Hart, J. E., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve the science and
literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3),
475–501.
Hermes, M. (2004). Starting an indigenous immersion school: The gut-wrenching start-
up years. In F. Ibáñez-Carrasco & E. Meiners (Eds.). Public acts: Disruptive
readings on making curriculum public. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Hernandez, A. (2015). Language status in two-way bilingual immersion. Journal of Immersion
and Content-Based Education, 3(1), 102–126.
Hilliard, J. F. (2012). Spanish language standards: Spanish language arts vs. Spanish language
development standards and their impact on literacy. Arlington Heights, IL: Illinois
Resource Center. Retrieved from http://www.isbe.net/bilingual/conf/prog-dir/fy13/john-
h.pdf
Howard, E., & Christian, D. (2002). Two-way immersion 101: Designing and implementing a
two-way immersion program at the elementary level. Education Practice Report #9. Santa
Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Retrieved from
http://mas-link.net/Additional/Bilingual/PAC%20PDFs/%282%29EPR9.pdf
Howard, E., & Sugarman, J. (2007). Realizing the vision of two-way immersion: Fostering
effective programs and classrooms. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Rogers, D. (2007).
Guiding principles for dual language education (2nd Ed.). Washington, DC: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Howard, E., Sugarman, J., & Coburn, C. (2006). Adapting the Sheltered Instruction Observation
Protocol (SIOP) for two-way immersion education: An introduction to the TWIOP.
Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from
http://www.cal.org/twi/TWIOP.pdf
Johnson, D. (2009). The relationship between applied linguistic research and language policy for
bilingual education. Applied Linguistics, 31, 72–93.
Johnson, D. (2010). Implementational and ideological spaces in bilingual education language
policy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(1), 61–79.
Kay, K. (2010). 21st century skills: Why they matter, what they are, and how we get there. In J.
Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. xiii–
xxxi). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
References 105 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Kelleher, A. (2010). Who is a heritage language learner? Heritage Briefs. Washington, DC:
Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from
http://www.cal.org/heritage/pdfs/briefs/Who-is-a-Heritage-Language-Learner.pdf
Lambert, W. E., & Cazabon, M. (1994). Students’ views of the Amigos program. Research
Report No. 11. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and
Second Language Learning.
Lara-Alecio, R., Galloway, M., Mahadevan, L., Mason, B., Irby, B. J., Brown, G. et al. (2005).
Texas dual language program cost analysis. The TABE Journal, 8, 64–86.
Large Countywide and Suburban District Consortium. (2014). 21st century education
accountability: Recommendations for a new federal framework. Retrieved from
http://successatscale.com/docudepot/Consortium%20-
%20Recommendations_for_a_New_Federal_Accountability_Framework.pdf
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
Lee, J. S., & Jeong, E. (2013). Korean–English dual language immersion: Perspectives of
students, parents and teachers. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26(1), 89–107.
Liebtag, E., & Haugen, C. (2015, April 29). Shortage of dual language teachers: Filling the gap.
Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/global_learning/2015/05/
shortage_of_dual_language_teachers_filling_the_gap.html
Lindholm, K. J. (1994). Promoting positive cross-cultural attitudes and perceived competence in
culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. In R. A. DeVillar, C. J. Faltis, & J. P.
Cummins (Eds.), Cultural diversity in schools: From rhetoric to practice (pp. 189–206).
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2003). Dual language achievement, proficiency, and attitudes among
current high school graduates of two-way programs. NABE Journal, 26, 20–25.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2007). Effective features of dual language education programs: A review
of research and best practices. In E. R. Howard, J. Sugarman, D. Christian, K. J.
Lindholm-Leary, & D. Rogers (Eds.). Guiding principles for dual language education
(pp. 5–50).
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2011). Student outcomes in Chinese two-way immersion programs:
Language proficiency, academic achievement, and student attitudes. In D. J. Tedick, D.
Christian, & T. W. Fortune (Eds.), Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities
(pp. 81–103). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2012). Success and challenges in dual language education. Theory Into
Practice, Special Issue: Rethinking Language Teaching and Learning in Multilingual
Classrooms, 51(4), 256–262.
Lindholm-Leary, K., & Block, N. (2010). Achievement in predominately low SES/Hispanic dual
language schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(1),
43–60.
Lindholm-Leary, K., & Genesee, F. (2014). Student outcomes in one-way, two-way, and
indigenous language immersion education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based
Language Education, 2(2), 165–180.
References 106 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Lindhom-Leary, K. J., Hardman, L., & Meyer, P. (2007). Sharing success. Language Magazine,
6(5), 20–23.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Hernandez, A. (2011). Achievement and language proficiency of
Latino students in dual language programmes: Native English speakers, fluent
English/previous ELLs, and current ELLs. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 32(6), 531–545.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Howard, E. R. (2008). Language development and academic
achievement in two-way immersion programs. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.),
Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 177–
200). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Lopez, F. (2010). Identity and motivation among Hispanic English language learners in disparate
educational contexts. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(16), n16.
Lopez Estrada, V., Gómez, L., & Ruiz-Escalante, J. (2009). Let’s make dual language the norm.
Educational Leadership, 66(7), 54–58.
Marian, V., Shook, A., & Schroeder, S. R. (2013). Bilingual two-way immersion programs
benefit academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 36, 167–186.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (n.d.).Coordinated program
review procedures: English Learner Education (ELE) in public schools (School district
information package for school year 2014–2015). Springfield, MA: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/cpr/
McCabe, A., et al. (2013). Multilingual children: Beyond myths and toward best practices. Social
Policy Report, 27(4). Retrieved from www.srcd.org/publications/social-policy-report
Menken, K., & Garcia, O. (Eds.). (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as
policymakers. New York, NY: Routledge.
Menken, K., & Solorza, C. (2014). No child left bilingual: Accountability and the elimination of
bilingual education programs in New York City schools. Educational Policy, 28(1), 96–
125.
Millard, M. (2015). State funding mechanisms for English language learners. Denver, CO:
Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from
http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/16/94/11694.pdf
Mitchell, C. (2015, June 10). New York expanding dual language to help its English learners.
Education Week, 34(34), 7.
Montague, N. S. (2005). Essential beginnings for dual language programs. The TABE Journal, 8,
18–25.
Montone, C. L., & Loeb, M. I. (2000). Implementing two-way immersion programs in secondary
schools. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Moughamian, A. C., Rivera, M. O., & Francis, D. J. (2009). Instructional models and strategies
for teaching English language learners. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation,
Center on Instruction.
References 107 Dual Language Programming and Policies
National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. (2009). Certification and licensure for
teachers of English language learners, by state. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543820.pdf
National Standards Collaborative Board. (2015). World-Readiness Standards for Learning
Languages (4th ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.actfl.org/publications/all/world-readiness-standards-learning-languages
National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. (2006). Standards for foreign
language learning in the 21st century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press, Inc.
Native American Languages Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C.2903.
Nevada Administrative Code ch. 388 § 630. Special Instructional Services and Programs. 10
December 1997.
New Mexico Public Education Department. (2014). Bilingual education annual report for school
year 2013–2014. Santa Fe, NM: Author. Retrieved from
http://ped.state.nm.us/ped/BilingualDocs/2013-
2014%20%20BMEP%20ANNUAL%20REPORT%20V1%202_12%2016%202014.pdf
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2014). Dual language/immersion (DLI) &
Title I funds. Raleigh, NC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/ccsa/conference/2015/presentations/165.1.pdf
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2015). Developmental bilingual models.
Raleigh, NC: Author. Retrieved from
http://wlnces.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/Developmental+Bilingual+Programs
Pacific Policy Research Center. (2010). Successful bilingual and immersion education
models/programs. Honolulu, HI: Hamehameha Schools, Research & Evaluation Division.
Retrieved from http://www.ksbe.edu/spi/reports
Paciotto, C., & Delany-Barmann, G. (2011). Planning micro-level language education reform in
new diaspora sites: Two-way immersion education in the rural Midwest. Language
Policy, 10(3), 221–243.
Palmer, D. (2007). A dual immersion strand programme in California: Carrying out the promise
of dual language education in an English-dominant context. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(6), 752–768.
Palmer, D. (2010). Race, power, and equity in a multiethnic urban elementary school with a
dual-language “strand” program. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 41(1), 94–114.
Parkes, J., & Ruth, T. (with Angberg-Espinoza, A., & de Jong, E.). (2009). Urgent research
questions and issues in dual language education. Albuquerque, NM: Dual Language
Education of New Mexico. Retrieved from
http://www.dlenm.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11:dual-
language-researcher-convocation&catid=42:general-articles&Itemid=9
Parkes, J., & Ruth, T. (2011). How satisfied are parents of students in dual language education
programs? ‘Me parece maravillosa la gran oportunidad que le están dando a estos niños.’
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(6), 701–718.
References 108 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Phillips, J. K., & Abbott, M. (2011). A decade of foreign language standards: Impact, influence,
and future directions. Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages. Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/national-
standards-2011.pdf
Porras, D. A., Ee, J., & Gandara, P. C. (2014). Employer preferences: Do bilingual applicants
and employees experience an advantage? In R. M. Callahan & P. C. Gándara (Eds.), The
bilingual advantage: Language, literacy, and the labor market (pp. 234–257). Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ragan, A., & Lesaux, N. (2006). Federal, state, and district level English language learner
program entry and exit requirements: Effects on the education of language minority
learners. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14, 20. Retrieved from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n20/
Rhode Island Department of Education. (2014). Rhode Island Dual Language Standards
Elementary Level. Providence, RI: Author.
Rodríguez, M., & Alanís, I. (2011). Negotiating linguistic and cultural identity: One
borderlander’s leadership initiative. International Journal of Leadership in Education,
14(1), 103–117.
Rosado, L. A. (2005). The state of Texas: Breaking new ground in dual language instruction. The
TABE Journal, 8(1), 7–17.
Rumbaut, R. G. (2014). English plus: Exploring the socioeconomic benefits of bilingualism in
southern California. In R. M. Callahan & P. C. Gándara (Eds.), The bilingual advantage:
Language, literacy, and the labor market (pp. 182–205). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2440950 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2440950
Sandhofer, C., & Uchikoshi, Y. (2013). Cognitive consequences of dual language learning:
Cognitive function, language and literacy, science and mathematics, and social-emotional
development. In F. Ong & J. McLean (Eds.), California’s best practices for young dual
language learners: Research overview papers (pp. 51–89). Sacramento, CA: California
Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ce/documents/dllresearchpapers.pdf - search=Research
overview&view=FitH&pagemode=none
Sandy-Sanchez, D. (2008). Secondary dual language guiding principles: A review of the process.
Soleado, 8. Retrieved from
http://www.dlenm.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=426
Santos, M., Darling-Hammond, L., & Cheuk, T. (2012). Teacher development appropriate to
support ELLs. Stanford, CA: Understanding Language.
Saunders, W., & O’Brien, G. (2006). Oral language. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W.
Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners: A synthesis of
research evidence (pp. 14–63). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Scanlan, M., & Palmer, D. (2009). Race, power, and (in) equity within two-way immersion
settings. The Urban Review, 41(5), 391–415.
References 109 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Short, D. J., & Echevarria, J. (2015). Developing academic language with the SIOP model.
Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Slaughter, H. (1997). Indigenous language immersion in Hawai’i: A case study of Kula Kaiapuni
Hawai’i. In R. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International
perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tanenbaum, C., Boyle, A., Soga, K., Carlson Le Floch, K., Golden, L., Petroccia, M., et al.
(2012). National evaluation of Title III implementation: Report on state and local
implementation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning
Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-iii/state-local-implementation-report.pdf
Tedick, D. J., & Bjorklund, S. (Eds.). (2014). Language immersion education: A research agenda
for 2015 and beyond. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2,
2.
Texas Education Agency. (2010). 19 TAC chapter 128. Texas essential knowledge and skills for
Spanish language arts and reading and English as a second language (§128.10–128.32).
Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter128/index.html
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d
Title III, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C.
§§ 6801-6871
Tochon, F. V. (2009). The key to global understanding: World Languages Education—Why
schools need to adapt. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 650–681.
Torres-Guzmán, M., Kleyn, T., Morales-Rodríguez, S., & Han, A. (2005). Self-designated dual-
language programs: Is there a gap between labeling and implementation? Bilingual
Research Journal, 29(2), 453–474.
Umansky, I., & Reardon, S. F. (2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English learner
students in bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms. American
Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 1–34.
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). ESEA flexibility. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/approved-requests/flexrequest.doc
U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, Language
Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students.
(2013). The biennial report to Congress on the implementation of the Title III state
formula grant program, school years 2008–10. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2015). Teacher shortage
areas nationwide listing 1990–1991 through 2015–2016. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, and U.S. Department of Justice, Civil
Rights Division. (2015). Dear colleague letter, English learner students and limited
English proficient parents. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-el-201501.pdf
References 110 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Utah State Office of Education. (2013). Critical languages: Dual language immersion education
appropriations report. Salt Lake City, UT: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.schools.utah.gov/legislativematerials/2013/Critical_Language_Dual_Immersi
on_Legislative_Repor.aspx
Utah State Office of Education. (n.d.a.). Utah dual language immersion: Frequently asked
questions. Retrieved from http://www.utahdli.org/faq.html
Utah State Office of Education. (n.d.b.). Utah dual language immersion: Providing a world of
opportunities for students. Utah’s Statewide Dual Language Immersion Initiative.
Retrieved from
http://www.schools.utah.gov/CURR/dualimmersion/Home/UtahLanguageRoadmap.aspx
Valentino, R. A., & Reardon, S. F. (2015). Effectiveness of four instructional programs designed
to serve English learners: Variation by ethnicity and initial English proficiency.
Retrieved from http://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Valentino_Reardon_EL
Programs_14_0326_2.pdf
Varghese, M. M. (2008). Using cultural models to unravel how bilingual teachers enact language
policies. Language & Education: An International Journal, 22(5), 289–306.
Vermont Department of Education. (2010). Memorandum RE: Amendment to Vermont’s
definition of English language learner (ELL), exit criteria from Title III and Title I
language support programs; and Title III annual measurement achievement objectives
(AMAOs). Retrieved from http://education.vermont.gov/documents/
educ_ell_memo_120710_amendment_amao.pdf
Warhol, L., & Mayer, A. (2012). Misinterpreting school reform: The dissolution of a dual-
immersion bilingual program in an urban New England elementary school. Bilingual
Research Journal, 35(2), 145–163.
WIDA. (2012). 2012 amplification of the English Language Development Standards,
Kindergarten–Grade 12. Madison, WI: WIDA Consortium. Retrieved from
https://www.wida.us/standards/eld.aspx
WIDA. (2013). The Spanish Language Development Standards Kindergarten–Grade 12 (2013
Ed.). Madison, WI: Author. Retrieved from https://www.wida.us/standards/sld.aspx
Willner, L. S., Rivera, C., & Acosta, B. D. (2008). Descriptive study of state assessment policies
for accommodating English language learners. Washington, DC: The George
Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.
Wilson, J. A. (1988). Foreign language program articulation: Building bridges from elementary
to secondary school. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages
and Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-929/bridges.htm
Wright, W. E., & Choi, D. (2006). The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on
elementary school English language learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 14, 13.
Wu, J. (2005). A view from the classroom. Educational Leadership, 62(4), 40–44.
Yang Su, E. (2012). Dual-language lessons growing in popularity. Emeryville, CA: California
Watch.
Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretative policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Appendix A 111 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Appendix A. Index of Studies With a Primary Focus on Dual
Language Policies and Programming
Citation
Publication
Type Topic Study Characteristics
Alanís, I., and
Rodríguez, M. (2008).
Sustaining a dual
language immersion
program: Features of
success. Journal of
Latinos and Education,
7(4), 305–319.
Journal
article
Presents the need for
pedagogical equity,
qualified bilingual
teachers, and engaged
parents in bilingual
elementary education.
Case study of one administrator and 10 dual
language teachers at a dual language, urban,
inner-city elementary school in south central
Texas, which served 321 students. Eighty-five
percent of students were classified as
economically disadvantaged, 87.8 percent
were Mexican American, and 29.4 percent
spoke Spanish as a home language. The
study included an analysis of observation,
interview, and student assessment data.
Block, N. (2011). The
impact of two-way dual-
immersion programs on
initially English-dominant
Latino students’
attitudes. The Journal of
the National Association
for Bilingual Education,
34(2), 125–141.
Journal
article
Examines English-
dominant Latino
students’ attitudes
toward Spanish and
Spanish-dominant
individuals after
participating in a dual
language program.
Case study of 40 initially English-dominant
students in four 90:10 Spanish two-way dual-
immersion programs and 62 of their peers in
mainstream English programs from two
different school districts in Los Angeles
County. The study included an analysis of
students’ responses to questionnaires.
Cheung, A. C., & Slavin,
R. E. (2012). Effective
reading programs for
Spanish-dominant
English language
learners (ELLs) in the
elementary grades: A
synthesis of
research. Review of
Educational Research,
82(4), 351–395.
Journal
article
Examines the role of
language of instruction,
as well as the quality of
instruction, in reading
programs for Spanish-
dominant ELs. Overall,
evidence favors the
use of bilingual
approaches. Finds that
quality of instruction is
at least as important as
language of instruction
alone in reading
programs for ELs.
Research synthesis on English reading
outcomes for all types of programs for
Spanish-dominant ELs in elementary schools.
Some of the programs include two-way
bilingual programs.
Christian, D. (1996).
Two-way immersion
education: Students
learning through two
languages. The Modern
Language Journal, 80,
66-76.
Journal
article
Summarizes the state
of two-way immersion
programs during the
early 1990s. Highlights
similarities and
differences in
programmatic features,
implementation,
instruction, and
outcomes.
Data collected between 1991 and 1994 from
169 schools with two-way immersion
programs.
Christian, D. (2011). Dual
language education. In
E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of research in
second language
teaching and learning,
volume II (pp. 3–20).
New York, NY:
Routledge.
Book
chapter
Summarizes dual
language models,
including
developmental
bilingual, two-way
immersion, heritage
language immersion,
and foreign language
immersion.
Provides a rationale for dual language
instruction, summarizes research on dual
language program models, and details
directions for future development.
Appendix A 112 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Citation
Publication
Type Topic Study Characteristics
Combs, M., Evans, C.,
Fletcher, T., Parra, E., &
Jiménez, A. (2005).
Bilingualism for the
children: Implementing a
dual-language program
in an English-only state.
Educational Policy,
19(5), 701–728.
Journal
article
Examines the effects of
the Structured English
Immersion law in
Arizona
Case study of 36 teachers, administrators,
and other school staff and 27 students and
parents at an elementary school in Loma
Vista School District in Arizona with 730
students. Ninety-two percent of students were
Mexican American, 94 percent were eligible
for free or reduced-price lunch, 70 percent
were English language learners, and 6
percent were homeless. The study included
an analysis of teacher, administrator, staff,
student, and parent semi-structured interview
data.
Council of Great City
Schools. (2008). Raising
the achievement of
English language
learners in the Seattle
Public Schools.
Technical
report
Reviews policies and
practices in Seattle
Public Schools,
identifies the need for
clearly defined goals
for addressing the
instructional needs of
ELs, and provides
recommendations to
improve services,
including expanding a
network of dual
language programs
across the district.
Report on the Seattle Public School District’s
programs to teach students who are learning
English as a second language. A Council of
Great City Schools Strategic Support Team
observed 14 schools and 100 classrooms and
conducted interviews with central office
administrators, school staff, teachers, parents,
and others. The report included a summary of
an analysis of school observations and
interviews and proposed strategies for
improvement.
de Jong, E. (2004). L2
proficiency development
in a two-way and a
developmental bilingual
program. NABE Journal
of Research and
Practice, 2(1), 77–108.
Journal
article
Examines the English
oral and literacy
development of U.S.-
born ELs in two-way
immersion (TWI) or
developmental
bilingual (DBE)
programs since
kindergarten. Finds
that students in TWI
settings appeared to
have greater access to
literature-rich English
environments and
better literacy
outcomes than those in
developmental
programs.
Longitudinal, quantitative case study of
students in three cohorts (Grades K–3, K–4,
or K–5) in two programs (two-way immersion
or developmental bilingual) in a medium-sized
school district with approximately 8,000
students in the northeastern United States.
The study included an analysis of students’
test results to examine English oral and
literacy development of U.S.-born ELs who
had attended these programs since
kindergarten.
de Jong, E. J. (2014).
Program design and two-
way immersion
programs. Journal of
Immersion and Content-
Based Language
Education, 2(2), 241–
256.
Journal
article
Examines extant
research to understand
how effective two-way
immersion programs
are for different
populations of students
and what role the
school context plays in
program effectiveness.
Reviews existing literature on two-way
immersion programs.
Appendix A 113 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Citation
Publication
Type Topic Study Characteristics
de Jong, E. J., & Bearse,
C. I. (2014). Dual
language programs as a
strand within a
secondary school:
Dilemmas of school
organization and the TWI
mission. International
Journal of Bilingual
Education and
Bilingualism, 17(1), 15–
31.
Journal
article
Examines how the
organizational context
of a middle school
impacts a dual
language program.
Finds that it was
challenging to give
equal weight to both
languages within a
middle school structure
Survey data from 172 6-12th grade students,
focus group data from 24 students, and
interview data from 9 two-way immersion
teachers.
de Jong, E., & Howard,
E. (2009). Integration in
two-way immersion
education: Equalising
linguistic benefits for all
students. International
Journal of Bilingual
Education and
Bilingualism, 12(1), 81-
99.
Journal
article
Examines integration,
language status, and
the differential
outcomes for students
in two-way immersion
programs by language
status. Calls for a
deeper examination of
the ways in which
integration may
constrain and/or enrich
students’ outcomes in
two-way programs.
Reviews existing literature on two-way
immersion programs.
Dorner, L. (2010).
Contested communities
in a debate over dual-
language education: The
import of “public” values
on public policies.
Educational Policy,
25(4), 577–613.
Journal
article
Examines how public
debate can shape
school district policy
and concludes that
language policy
implementation is a
value-laden process in
which public
deliberation reflects
dominant cultural
“discourses,” which can
shape what a policy
ultimately becomes.
Three-year ethnographic project in a Chicago-
area school district. The study included an
analysis of semi-structured interviews with
various stakeholders, field work at policy and
planning meetings, participant observations
with six Mexican immigrant families, e-mail
messages posted on a public school listserv,
public comments recorded in school board
meeting minutes, and articles on bilingual
education from two local newspapers.
Espinosa, L. (2013).
Early education for dual
language learners:
Promoting school
readiness and early
school success.
Washington, DC:
Migration Policy Institute.
Retrieved from
http://fcd-
us.org/resources/early-
education-dual-
language-learners-
promoting-school-
readiness-and-early-
school-success
Technical
report
Examines early care
and education
approaches that have
been shown to support
higher levels of
language and literacy
development and
achievement for young
dual language learners
(DLLs), namely the use
of both languages, use
of learning strategies,
and promoting home
language maintenance.
Report synthesizes research on the features
of early childhood education that most
effectively support dual language learners and
provides policy recommendations.
Appendix A 114 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Citation
Publication
Type Topic Study Characteristics
Esposito, A., & Baker-
Ward, L. (2013). Dual-
language education for
low-income children:
Preliminary evidence of
benefits for executive
function. Bilingual
Research Journal, 36(3),
295–310.
Journal
article
Shows the benefits of
bilingual exposure
across different
ethnicities in the
context of elementary
school programs.
Case study of 120 ethnically diverse students
in kindergarten and Grades 2 and 4 from both
dual language education programs and
traditional all-English programs in high-
poverty elementary schools in a rural county
in eastern North Carolina. A quasi-
experimental design was used to analyze the
performance of students in the dual language
program compared with students in a
traditional all-English program on executive
function (EF) tasks.
Gómez, D. S.
(2013). Bridging the
opportunity gap through
dual language
education. Unpublished
manuscript, California
State University,
Stanislaus. Retrieved
from
http://scholarworks.csust
an.edu/bitstream/handle/
011235813/658/GomezD
%20Summer%202013.p
df?sequence=1
Doctoral
Dissertation
Identifies contributing
factors that led to high
academic achievement
for all learners,
including ELs, as
perceived by the
students, parents, and
teachers, and how
these factors helped to
bridge the “opportunity
gap.”
This qualitative dissertation study analyzed
data from students, teachers, and parents
from a small school in Hollister, California.
The study included an analysis of interviews
with teachers, a focus group interview with
seven students, and 15 questionnaires
completed by parents.
Gómez, L., Freeman, D.,
& Freeman, Y. (2005).
Dual language
education: A promising
50-50 model. Bilingual
Research Journal, 29(1),
145–164.
Journal
article
Presents a dual
language education
model that can be used
in schools where the
student population is
predominantly of one
language background.
Description of the Gómez and Gómez dual
language program model and case study of
more than 240 students from five schools in
two school districts in Texas. Ninety-nine
percent of the students were Hispanic (all
Mexican American), 91 percent were from
economically disadvantaged families, and 35
percent were limited English proficient. The
study included analyses of student
assessment data.
Hermes, M. (2004).
Starting an indigenous
immersion school: The
gut-wrenching start-
up years. In F. Ibáñez-
Carrasco & E. Meiners
(Eds.). Public acts:
Disruptive
readings on making
curriculum public. New
York, NY:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Book
chapter
Describes the
formation of an Ojibwe
language immersion
school in Wisconsin.
Description of challenges and successes in
the school’s early years, including very few
speakers of the language and lack of a written
curriculum. Author details her personal
struggles in working with the program.
Hernandez, A. (2015).
Language status in two-
way bilingual immersion.
Journal of Immersion and
Content-Based
Education, 3(1), 102–
126.
Journal
article
Examines peer
interactions in two
90/10 two-way
immersion schools.
Finds that emphasis on
standardized
assessments promotes
English as a higher
status language during
classroom interactions.
Qualitative data included lesson observations,
interviews, focus groups, and teachers’
reflections. Study participants included nine
Grade 1–6 teachers and their students.
Appendix A 115 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Citation
Publication
Type Topic Study Characteristics
Howard, E., & Christian,
D. (2002). Two-way
immersion 101:
Designing and
implementing a two-way
immersion program at
the elementary level.
Education Practice
Report #9. Santa Cruz,
CA: Center for Research
on Education, Diversity &
Excellence. Retrieved
from
http://mas-
link.net/Additional/Bilingu
al/PAC%20PDFs/%282
%29EPR9.pdf
Technical
report
Provides an overview
of important
considerations for
planning successful
elementary-level two-
way immersion
programs.
Recommendations are based upon 15 years
of research by the Center for Applied
Linguistics on two-way immersion programs.
Howard, E. R.,
Sugarman, J., Christian,
D., Lindholm-Leary, K. J.,
& Rogers, D. (2007).
Guiding principles for
dual language education.
Washington, DC: Center
for Applied Linguistics.
Retrieved from
http://www.cal.org/twi/gui
dingprinciples.htm
Technical
report
Provides guiding
principles for dual
language programs
and a tool for planning,
self-reflection, and
growth based on
principles established
by the Dual Language
Program Standards,
developed in New
Mexico.
Review of research focusing on the
characteristics of dual language programs that
are considered effective in promoting
language proficiency and achievement among
ELs, as well as research-based guiding
principles for dual language programs.
Sources include articles published in peer-
reviewed journals, research-based reviews of
the literature, studies written in published
chapters and books, and reports prepared for
the U.S. Department of Education.
Howard, E., Sugarman,
J., & Coburn, C. (2006).
Adapting the Sheltered
Instruction Observation
Protocol (SIOP) for two-
way immersion
education: An
introduction to the
TWIOP. Washington DC:
Center for Applied
Linguistics. Retrieved
from
http://www.cal.org/twi/TW
IOP.pdf
Technical
report
Presents the two-way
immersion observation
protocol (TWIOP), a
modification of the
sheltered instruction
observation protocol
(SIOP) for dual
language instruction.
Builds off of the SIOP model to present
modifications to account for learning two
languages and content simultaneously. In
addition, TWIOP also includes specific cultural
objectives that are not part of SIOP.
Appendix A 116 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Citation
Publication
Type Topic Study Characteristics
Johnson, D. (2010).
Implementational and
ideological spaces in
bilingual education
language policy.
International Journal of
Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 13(1), 61–
79.
Journal
article
Examines language
policy and practice for
bilingual learners in the
Philadelphia School
District and focuses on
how top-down
language policies are
implemented at the
local level.
Three-year ethnographic study of language
policy and bilingual program (including dual
language program) development in the School
District of Philadelphia (SDP), Pennsylvania.
Ethnographic data were collected from
bilingual education teachers and
administrators in a variety of different
contexts, including observation and field note
collection. For the purpose of triangulation,
multiple formal and informal interviews also
were held with key teachers and
administrators. Ethnographic data were then
contextualized by comparing “top-down”
policy texts, including (1) the former Title VII
of the ESEA and the current Title III of the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act; (2) political
discourse on Title III and the NCLB; and (3)
interviews with administrators of the U.S. and
Pennsylvania Departments of Education.
Johnson, D. (2009). The
relationship between
applied linguistic
research and language
policy for bilingual
education. Applied
Linguistics, 31, 72–93.
Journal
article
Focuses on how
beliefs about applied
linguistics research
influence the
interpretation and
appropriation of federal
language policy in one
U.S. school district.
Study is part of a three-year, multi-sited
ethnography of bilingual education language
policy, which examined language policy
creation, interpretation, and appropriation for
bilingual learners in the Philadelphia School
District. Ethnographic data, including
participant observation and field-note
collection, were collected from a series of
action-oriented research projects on language
policy and bilingual program development with
bilingual education teachers, administrators,
and outside researchers.
Lara-Alecio, R.,
Galloway, M.,
Mahadevan, L., Mason,
B., Irby, B. J., Brown, G.,
et al. (2005). Texas dual
language program cost
analysis. The TABE
Journal, 8, 64–86.
Journal
article
Analyzes costs in dual
language programs
and provides
recommendations
based on these
analyses.
Descriptive study that analyzed 83 cost
surveys received from bilingual education
directors and dual language coordinators from
48 Texas school districts.
Lee, J. S., & Jeong, E.
(2013). Korean–English
dual language
immersion: Perspectives
of students, parents and
teachers. Language,
Culture and Curriculum,
26(1), 89–107.
Technical
report
Examines the
experiences of Korean-
American students,
parents, and teachers
in a newly instituted
50/50 Korean–English
dual language
immersion program.
One-year case study of six first-grade
students and their parents and two Korean
dual language teachers in a newly established
Korean 50/50 dual language immersion
program in an elementary school in Southern
California. The study included an analysis of
semi-structured interviews, school
observations, home observations, and field
notes.
Appendix A 117 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Citation
Publication
Type Topic Study Characteristics
Lindholm-Leary, K. J.
(2003). Dual language
achievement, proficiency,
and attitudes among
current high school
graduates of two-way
programs. NABE
Journal, 26, 20–25.
Journal
article
Examines the influence
and impacts of
participation in two-way
bilingual elementary
school programs on
current high school
students. Highlights
students’ perceived
levels of bilingualism
and positive attitudes
about being bilingual.
Analysis of survey data from 142 students
who attended dual language programs
beginning in kindergarten or first grade.
Lindholm-Leary, K.
(2012). Success and
challenges In dual
language education.
Theory Into Practice,
51(4), 256–262.
Journal
article
Discusses dual
language program
challenges focusing on
program design,
accountability,
curriculum, and
instruction related to
biliteracy and bilingual
language development.
Summary and analysis of research from more
than 30 articles focusing on successes and
challenges of dual language education.
Lindholm-Leary, K., &
Block, N. (2010).
Achievement in
predominantly low
SES/Hispanic dual
language schools.
International Journal of
Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 13(1), 43–
60.
Journal
article
Examines how
Hispanic students in
dual language
programs in
segregated or
predominantly
Hispanic/low socio-
economic status
schools are performing
on standardized tests
compared to other
schools and statewide
in California.
Case study of 659 Hispanic students from four
schools in three school districts in two distinct
geographic areas in California. The study
included an analysis of student assessment
data.
Lindholm-Leary, K.
(2011). Student
outcomes in Chinese
two-way immersion
programs: Language
proficiency, academic
achievement, and
student attitudes. In D. J.
Tedick, D. Christian, & T.
W. Fortune (Eds.),
Immersion education:
Practices, policies,
possibilities (pp. 81–
103). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Book
chapter
Demonstrates that
students participating
in two Chinese two-
way immersion
programs in California
made progress in
learning both
languages, performed
at or above grade level
in English, performed
comparably and often
superior to their peers
who were not in such
programs, and
reported having an
interest in and
knowledge about
Chinese culture.
Analyses of language proficiency, academic
achievement, and student attitudinal data for
320 fourth- through eighth-grade students
who were enrolled in Chinese two-way
immersion programs.
Appendix A 118 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Citation
Publication
Type Topic Study Characteristics
Lindholm-Leary, K., &
Genesee, F. (2014).
Student outcomes in
one-way, two-way, and
indigenous language
immersion education.
Journal of Immersion and
Content-Based
Language Education,
2(2), 165–180.
Journal
article
Examines outcomes for
native majority and
minority language
speakers in indigenous
language programs.
Finds that students in
these programs
consistently
demonstrate
achievement at or
above the levels of
peer groups in
monolingual programs.
Reviews international research on language
competence and math achievement in one-
and two-way indigenous language immersion
programs.
Lindhom-Leary, K. J.,
Hardman, L., & Meyer, P.
(2007). Sharing success.
Language Magazine,
6(5), 20–23.
Journal
article
Describes key features
of two-way bilingual
immersion programs in
a California elementary
and middle school.
Descriptive case studies of two Spanish two-
way immersion programs operating in a
California school district.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J., &
Hernandez, A. (2011).
Achievement and
language proficiency of
Latino students in dual
language programmes:
Native English speakers,
fluent English/previous
ELLs, and current ELLs.
Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural
Development, 32(6),
531–545.
Journal
article
Demonstrates that
Latino students who
attend dual language
programs achieve at
higher levels than their
Latino peers in
English-only programs,
and former ELs in dual
language programs
close the achievement
gap with English
speakers in
mainstream programs.
Analyses of language proficiency and
achievement data for 732 fourth- through
eighth-grade Latino students with varying
levels of English proficiency who were all
enrolled in dual language programs.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J., &
Howard, E. R. (2008).
Language development
and academic
achievement in two-way
immersion programs. In
T. W. Fortune & D. J.
Tedick (Eds.), Pathways
to multilingualism:
Evolving perspectives on
immersion education (pp.
177–200). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Book
chapter
Summarizes research
on language, literacy,
and math outcomes for
children in two-way
immersion programs.
Highlights that two-way
immersion students,
regardless of language
background, perform at
or above the levels of
their peers in
monolingual programs.
Reviews existing research on the outcomes
associated with two-way immersion programs
for native English- and Spanish-speaking
children.
Appendix A 119 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Citation
Publication
Type Topic Study Characteristics
Lopez, F. (2010). Identity
and motivation among
Hispanic English
language learners in
disparate educational
contexts. Education
Policy Analysis Archives,
18(16), n16.
Journal
article
Examines the degree
to which the perception
of scholastic
competence and the
perception of
educational
opportunity, motivation,
and acculturative
stress accurately
predict student group
membership for ELs in
two districts in Texas
and Arizona with
disparate language
acquisition methods:
bilingual education
(BE) and structured
English immersion
(SEI).
Case study of 288 Hispanic ELs in elementary
school, ages 9–11, in two demographically
comparable districts—one with bilingual and
dual language programs in Texas, and the
other with SEI programs in Arizona. The
study, using McCaslin’s (2009) co-regulation
of emergent identity model as a theoretical
framework, included an analysis of results
from student instruments (e.g., The Self-
Perception Profile for Children) and
questionnaires.
Lopez Estrada, V.,
Gómez, L., & Ruiz-
Escalante, J. (2009).
Let’s make dual
language the norm.
Educational Leadership,
66(7), 54–58.
Journal
article
Provides a description
of literature on the
effectiveness of dual
language programs,
with a focus on
supporting
bilingualism, biliteracy,
and academic
achievement for ELs
and native English
speakers alike.
Description of research countering
misconceptions about ELs. Includes
recommendations for implementation of dual
language programs, with a focus on the
Gómez and Gómez dual language program
model.
Marian, V., Shook, A., &
Schroeder, S. R. (2013).
Bilingual two-way
immersion programs
benefit academic
achievement. Bilingual
Research Journal, 36,
167–186.
Journal
article
Demonstrates that both
language minority and
language majority
children in two-way
immersion programs
outperform their peers
in transitional or
monolingual programs
in reading and math.
Examines reading and math performance
data from 2,009 third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade
students in the Chicago area. Students were
enrolled in two-way immersion, transitional
(mainstream + ESL), or mainstream classes.
Montague, N. S. (2005).
Essential beginnings for
dual language
programs. The TABE
Journal, 8, 18–25.
Journal
article
Provides an overview
of designing and
implementing dual
language education
and two-way
immersion programs,
and provides guidance
on developing and
maintaining strong and
effective dual language
programs.
A synthesis of research on best practices for
developing and implementing dual language
education programs effectively, including
selecting a model, cultural aspects, phasing in
the program, quality materials, long-term
commitment, administrative support, and
vertical articulation to the secondary level.
Appendix A 120 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Citation
Publication
Type Topic Study Characteristics
Montone, C. L., & Loeb,
M. I. (2000).
Implementing two-way
immersion programs in
secondary schools.
Santa Cruz, CA: Center
for Research on
Education, Diversity &
Excellence.
Technical
report
Provides an overview
of the challenges in
instituting a secondary
two-way immersion
program.
Telephone interviews with project
coordinators from seven two-way immersion
programs serve as the basis for data
collection.
Pacific Policy Research
Center. (2010).
Successful bilingual and
immersion education
models/programs.
Honolulu, HI:
Kamehameha Schools,
Research and Evaluation
Division.
Technical
report
Describes successful
bilingual and
immersion language
programs, with an
emphasis on heritage
language programs
and regional
differences.
Paper describes case studies of four bilingual
and dual language programs: (1) Oyster-
Adams Bilingual Elementary School,
Washington, DC; (2) Hawaiian Language
Immersion Program (state program); (3) Maori
heritage language programs in New Zealand;
and (4) Quechua Heritage bilingual immersion
programs in Peru. An analysis is provided,
based on a collection of information and
literature on each program, and on descriptive
information on bilingual and immersion
program characteristics and models.
Paciotto, C., & Delany-
Barmann, G. (2011).
Planning micro-level
language education
reform in new diaspora
sites: Two-way
immersion education in
the rural Midwest.
Language Policy, 10(3),
221–243.
Journal
article
Shows the top-down
policy-making effects in
a rural school district
and the juxtaposition
between policies and
teachers’ professional
experiences and
educational
approaches.
Case study of 17 two-way immersion (TWI)
teachers, two Title I reading instructors, five
mainstream teachers, six administrators, 25
Spanish-speaking Latino parents, and five
White parents from a rural district in Illinois.
The study used an ethnographic approach
and a personal narrative analysis framework
to analyze and interpret interview data.
Palmer, D. (2010). Race,
power, and equity in a
multiethnic urban
elementary school with a
dual-language ‘strand’
program. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly,
41(1), 94–114.
Journal
article
Discusses a dual
language “strand”
(school within a school)
program that attracts
middle-class White
students to a
predominately Black
and Latino community.
Case study of a principal, former principal, two
resource teachers, two Grade 2 TWI teachers,
one Grade 3 teacher, one instructor in a
schoolwide science magnet program, and
parents of four Spanish-speaking and three
English-speaking students in the “strand” TWI
program at a multiethnic, urban elementary
school with approximately 350 students in
northern California. The study included an
analysis of ethnographic observation and
interview data collected over the course of
one year.
Palmer, D. (2007). A dual
immersion strand
programme in California:
Carrying out the promise
of dual language
education in an English-
dominant context. The
International Journal of
Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 10(6), 752–
768.
Journal
article
Examines discourses
related to language,
race, and power in
order to construct a
biliterate, bilingual,
equitable academic
program for Latino
language minority
students.
Case study of a principal, former principal, two
resource teachers, two Grade 2 TWI teachers,
one Grade 3 teacher, one instructor in a
schoolwide science magnet program, and
parents of four Spanish-speaking and three
English-speaking students in the “strand” TWI
program at a multiethnic, urban elementary
school with approximately 350 students in
northern California. The study included an
analysis of ethnographic observation and
interview data collected over the course of
one year.
Appendix A 121 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Citation
Publication
Type Topic Study Characteristics
Parkes, J., & Ruth, T.
(2011). How satisfied are
parents of students in
dual language education
programs? ‘Me parece
maravillosa la gran
oportunidad que le están
dando a estos niños.’
International Journal of
Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 14(6), 701–
718.
Journal
article
Discusses parents’
satisfaction with their
child’s academic skills
in dual language
programs, as well as
program
characteristics.
Case study of 724 parents of students at eight
dual language schools in one large district in
the southwestern United States. The
percentage of ELs at each school ranged from
25 percent to 80 percent, and the percentage
of students who were eligible for free and
reduced-price lunch ranged from 60 percent
to 100 percent. The study included an
analysis of surveys given to parents of
students in dual language programs.
Rodríguez, M., & Alanís,
I. (2011). Negotiating
linguistic and cultural
identity: One
borderlander’s
leadership initiative.
International Journal of
Leadership in Education,
14(1), 103–117.
Journal
article
Focuses on
components of
effective educational
leadership in the
principal’s role in
meeting academic
needs and accepting
and integrating all
linguistic and cultural
groups in high-poverty
and high-language
minority populations.
Case study of two administrators and 10 dual
language teachers at a dual language urban
elementary school in south central Texas with
321 students from prekindergarten to Grade
5. Eighty-five percent of students were
classified as economically disadvantaged,
87.8 percent were Mexican American, and
29.4 percent spoke Spanish as a home
language. The study included an analysis of
semi-structured interviews, school documents
(e.g., school improvement plans), and student
assessment data.
Rosado, L. A. (2005).
The state of Texas:
Breaking new ground in
dual language
instruction. The TABE
Journal, 8(1), 7–17.
Journal
article
Examines the growth,
characteristics, and
history of two-way
immersion programs in
the United States, and
includes an analysis of
current initiatives in
Texas to support their
implementation.
Synthesis of research on the history and
components of two-way immersion programs
in the United States and in Texas, focusing on
the need for qualified dual language teachers.
Scanlan, M., & Palmer,
D. (2009). Race, power,
and (in) equity within
two-way immersion
settings. The Urban
Review, 41(5), 391–415.
Journal
article
Investigates issues of
diversity in two-way
immersion programs.
Notes that a two-way
program model alone is
insufficient to promote
diversity; rather,
concerted efforts must
be made by staff to
assure that diverse
populations are
adequately served.
Cross-case comparison of interview,
observation, and archival data from two
schools with dual language programs.
Slaughter, H. (1997).
Indigenous language
immersion in Hawai’i: A
case study of Kula
Kaiapuni Hawai’i. In R.
Johnson & M. Swain
(Eds.), Immersion
education: International
perspectives.
Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University
Press.
Book
chapter
Describes the history of
an initiative to promote
native language
instruction in Hawai’i
through the Hawaiian
Language Immersion
program.
Case study of the legislative, historical, and
cultural factors that influenced the creation of
the first immersion preschool programs and
continue to impact the sustainability of
programs today.
Appendix A 122 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Citation
Publication
Type Topic Study Characteristics
Tedick, D. J., &
Bjorklund, S. (Eds.).
(2014). Language
immersion education: A
research agenda for
2015 and beyond.
Journal of Immersion and
Content-Based
Language Education, 2,
2.
Special
journal
issue
Establishing a research
agenda.
This collection of articles lays out an agenda
for research on language immersion.
Torres-Guzmán, M.,
Kleyn, T., Morales-
Rodríguez, S., & Han, A.
(2005). Self-designated
dual-language programs:
Is there a gap between
labeling and
implementation?
Bilingual Research
Journal, 29(2), 453–474.
Journal
article
Investigates the
difference between the
dual language program
labels and fidelity of
program
implementation.
Case study of all prekindergarten to Grade 8
teachers in 56 elementary and four middle
schools with dual language programs in New
York City (85 percent return rate on surveys).
The study included a content analysis of
survey responses, classroom visits, and
observation notes.
Umansky, I., & Reardon,
S. F. (2014).
Reclassification patterns
among Latino English
learner students in
bilingual, dual immersion,
and English immersion
classrooms. American
Educational Research
Journal, 51(5), 1–34.
Journal
article
Examines
reclassification among
Latino ELs in a variety
of instructional
environments and
concludes that
students who are
enrolled in two-way
dual language
programs have higher
overall reclassification,
English proficiency,
and academic passage
by the completion of
high school than
students in English-
only programs.
Case study of 5,423 EL Latino students, as
well as teachers and administrators, from a
large, diverse, urban school district in
California. The study included discrete time
event history analysis of longitudinal student
reclassification data (which followed nine
cohorts of students for up to 12 years) and an
analysis of teacher and administrator
interview data.
Valentino, R. A., &
Reardon, S. F. (2015).
Effectiveness of four
instructional programs
designed to serve
English learners:
Variation by ethnicity and
initial English proficiency.
Retrieved from
http://cepa.stanford.edu/
sites/default/files/Valenti
no_Reardon_EL
Programs_14_0326_2.p
df
Technical
report
Investigates the
differences in
academic achievement
trajectories from
elementary through
middle school in
English immersion,
transitional bilingual,
developmental
bilingual, and dual
immersion programs.
Case study of 13,750 students from a large
school district. The study included an analysis
of longitudinal student-level assessment data
from elementary through middle school.
Appendix A 123 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Citation
Publication
Type Topic Study Characteristics
Warhol, L., & Mayer, A.
(2012). Misinterpreting
school reform: The
dissolution of a dual-
immersion bilingual
program in an urban
New England elementary
school. Bilingual
Research Journal, 35(2),
145–163.
Journal
article
Discusses
Connecticut’s bilingual
education policies, the
language education
policies of the school,
and how these policies
are interpreted and
enacted by teachers.
Case study of school staff, students, and
community and district representatives of a
large, urban, K–6 elementary school in
Connecticut, with more than 800 students and
a large Hispanic/Latino population. One
hundred percent of students receive free or
reduced-price lunch. The study draws from an
ethnographic case study, using Yanow’s
(2000) framework of interpretative policy
analysis and qualitative research methods to
analyze interviews, surveys, policy
documents, and observations.
Wu, J. (2005). A view
from the classroom.
Educational Leadership,
62(4), 40–44.
Journal
article
Discusses the
difference between
English-only instruction
and dual language
education, and
highlights the
advantages of dual
language programs.
Description of a teacher’s experience teaching
ELs in different program models. Summarizes
the benefits of dual language programs for
student achievement outcomes.
Notes: This appendix includes studies that predominantly focus on dual language programs. The terms used in this appendix reflect
the terms used in the studies cited.
Appendix B 124 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Appendix B. Overview of Extant Data Sources Relevant to the
Guiding Questions
Data Source
Most
Recent
Years
Available
Overview of Data Source as It Pertains
to Task 20
Data Elements That Answer the
Guiding Questions
Colorín
Colorado
Variable This database offers a compilation of state-
level resources and links to states’
websites on EL policy. It will serve as a
starting point for the website searches.
Education
Commission of
the States
(ECS) Policy
Database
2014 ECS hosts the ELL/bilingual database. In
its current form, it is a listing of legislation
and statewide policies for ELs, organized
by date, which provides information about
state-level data on legislation,
rules/regulations, and executive orders
related to EL and bilingual education,
including whether states have signed
legislation to officially designate English as
the language of instruction. In its new form,
the database provides data in 15
categories and is responsive to several of
the guiding questions.
Program types authorized by states
(Q1b)
Type of funding and per-pupil
spending (Q1c)
Measures for reclassification (Q2c)
Teacher certification requirements
(Q4a)
Consolidated
State
Performance
Reports
(CSPRs)
2012–13 Mandated annual reporting tool to collect
K–12 education performance data for all 50
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Part
I provides data on the five Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) goals,
and Part II provides data on state activities
and ESEA program outcomes used to
assess program performance, monitor
program requirements, and fulfill other
reporting requirements.
Elements that could be useful for
background information include:
• Proportion of limited English proficient
(LEP) students scoring proficient on
English language proficiency (ELP)
assessments
• Proportion of LEP students meeting
annual measureable achievement
objectives
• LEP student participation in state
assessments, disaggregated by
race/ethnicity and LEP status
Academic content standards (Q3e)
Whether schools in the state offer
particular instructional programs,
including dual language, two-way
immersion, transitional bilingual, or
developmental bilingual (Q1a)
Whether the state offers native
language assessments in
reading/language arts, mathematics,
or science, and in which native
languages the state offers such
assessments (Q3c)
Variables related to teacher
professional development for LEP
students (Q4c)
Civil Rights
Data Collection
(CRDC)
2011–12 The CRDC database is searchable and
provides information on eligibility for and
enrollment in LEP services by state,
district, and school. It does not give any
information on program type.
Appendix C 125 Dual Language Programming and Policies
Appendix C. Sample Data Capture Matrix for State Policy
Scan
State Name
Teacher Qualification Requirements Method Through
Which State
Determines
Teacher
Proficiency in
English
(description)
Bilingual
Certification
Proficiency
in English
Proficiency
in Partner
Language
Subject
Matter
Competency
Other
(description)
Totals Yes = 4 Yes = 2 Yes = 4 Yes = 6 Other = 6
Illinois X
[text
response]
Assessment
New Jersey X X
[text
response]
Certification process
New Mexico X X X X
[text
response]
Certification process
North
Carolina
X X X
[text
response]
Assessment
Texas X X X X
[text
response]
Certification process
Utah X x
[text
response]
Certification process
