Bilingualism encompasses an examination of both language and culture. To fully appreciate the remarkable strides made in the fields of linguistics and anthropology over the past century, it is helpful to review some key milestones. In the 1920s, the prevailing view of how children acquired language centered primarily on imitation and repetition, with only limited attention given to the role of context and social interaction. Language learning was often equated with broader patterns of behavioral development, and it was generally assumed that children would naturally acquire their first language under normal circumstances. However, the introduction of Noam Chomsky’s revolutionary linguistic theories in the 1950s marked a paradigm shift that transformed the study of linguistics. This shift, often referred to as a linguistic revolution, dramatically expanded the scope and depth of inquiry into language acquisition.
At the core of this new perspective was the idea that understanding how language develops requires examining not only contextual and social interactions but also the interplay between language production, cognitive processes, and verbal expression. In essence, language was no longer seen solely as a learned behavior but as a profoundly integrated aspect of human thought and cultural existence. Since this groundbreaking shift, researchers and practitioners have produced a wealth of scholarly work, thus, deepening our understanding of language learning, and shaping approaches to support children’s linguistic and academic development in both school and at home. This ongoing exploration continues to influence how we nurture language acquisition in young learners, highlighting the dynamic interplay between culture, cognition, and communication.
Cultural anthropology was similarly transformed by the groundbreaking work of trailblazing scholars who developed broad, conceptual frameworks for understanding culture. One of the most significant shifts in the field was the evolution of the perceptual lens through which cultures were studied. Early anthropological approaches often relied on ethnocentric assumptions, i.e., framing non-Western societies through a lens of superiority and inferiority. This reductionist perspective not only perpetuated biases but also yielded a narrow and distorted understanding of cultural diversity.
In contrast, contemporary anthropology has embraced a more open-ended, relativistic approach that prioritizes understanding cultures on their own terms. This perspective values the complexities and unique contexts of cultural practices, fostering a deeper and more nuanced comprehension. Recent anthropological studies have drawn from diverse viewpoints—incorporating elements of globalization, intersectionality, and post-colonial theory—to adapt and expand the concept of culture as a dynamic, fluid, and ever-evolving process.
These advancements hold profound implications for educators and practitioners, particularly in multicultural and linguistically diverse classrooms. By recognizing culture as both adaptive and relational, teachers can adopt more inclusive and culturally responsive approaches to education. This allows for the integration of students’ unique cultural backgrounds into pedagogy, creating learning environments where diversity is seen as an asset rather than a challenge. A modern anthropological lens, therefore, equips educators to not only educate but also celebrate the multiplicity of cultural perspectives, ultimately fostering equity and understanding in their interactions with students.
The contributions of numerous scholars, including Jim Cummins (as detailed in my article), have profoundly shaped the field of bilingual education, influencing both its theoretical foundations and practical applications. Over time, debates surrounding bilingual education became deeply intertwined with political and social discourses, often reflecting broader tensions around issues like identity, assimilation, and equity. Despite these contentious debates, a growing body of research and the experiences of practitioners—particularly bilingual educators working in diverse classrooms—have reinforced the value of bilingualism in academic development.
One of the most compelling insights to emerge from this body of work is that children learning English as their second language (ELLs) do not need to abandon their primary language or cultural identity to achieve academic success. On the contrary, research indicates that the development of a child’s primary language plays a critical role in facilitating the acquisition of English as a second language. This “additive bilingualism” approach underscores the importance of nurturing a student’s first language, not only as a means of linguistic transfer but also to honor their cultural heritage and bolster their overall cognitive development. In practice, this has led to a richer understanding of how bilingual education can serve as a bridge between home and school, fostering both academic achievement and cultural affirmation.
Our current understanding of how to effectively educate English Language Learners has been shaped by multidisciplinary research across linguistics—particularly in bilingualism—and the social sciences, especially cultural anthropology. One of the most transformative insights has been the recognition of bilingualism not as a hindrance, but as a significant cognitive advantage. This marks a complete reversal from outdated, prejudiced perceptions that linked bilingualism to learning disabilities or academic struggles. Many older generations in our communities still carry painful memories from an era when speaking a native language, such as Spanish, was met with punishment in schools. In my own Catholic school classroom, children were subjected to physical punishment—slapped on the palm of the hand with a ruler by nuns—if a single Spanish word accidentally slipped from our lips. This constant fear of reprisal fostered feelings of shame around our native language and identity.
Thankfully, one of the most significant shifts in recent years—alongside the growing acceptance of native languages—has been the integration and celebration of students’ native cultures in educational settings. Teachers are now encouraged to incorporate authentic cultural elements, such as traditional stories, songs, music, and other language-based activities, into their lessons. This cultural embrace fosters a sense of pride in students rather than alienation, creating a more inclusive and empowering learning environment. By affirming both their linguistic and cultural heritage, we enable students to thrive academically, socially, and emotionally.
In closing, I would like to add that having acquired two languages from a very early age has had an on-going effect on my life in ways which I’m still processing. My cognitive and language learning faculties have allowed me to access both the Spanish and English language worlds. Metaphorically speaking, it’s like living in two worlds, which from a global perspective is not an uncommon occurrence. The ability to speak fluently two, three, even four (or more) languages exists in our country, although to a greater extent in other parts of the world. The bilingual perspective has an added advantage of appreciating and understanding the enriched lived experiences of a bilingual world. It’s difficult to imagine a world without the spectrum of a richly imbued kaleidoscope that one is accustomed.
It’s crucial to understand why and how the Texas Education Agency makes available bilingual education programs for students whose primary language is not English. Although many different languages are represented among students, especially in highly populated urban and metro areas, most students in this subgroup, well over 80 percent, speak Spanish as their primary language. In this article I address some of the most relevant Questions and Answers regarding the Bilingual Education program models and their effectiveness as well as disadvantages in addressing the language and academic needs of the English Language Learner (ELs).
Which Laws Protect Bilingual Education?
The Bilingual Education Act of 1968. Persistent school failure among Spanish-speakers throughout the U.S. Southwest, including Texas, and facilitated by the civil rights movement, prompted a succession of debates among congress members. Despite intense, acrimonious battles, Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, also known as Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The law had as its core objective to transition Spanish-speaking students to an all-English curriculum. Thus, the term transitional bilingual education, which, even after almost six decades, remains the descriptive label for the program model in use today.
The Bilingual Education and Training Act of 1973. In Texas, the Bilingual Education and Training Act of 1973, signed by Governor Dolph Briscoe, ushered in an era of significant change in the curriculum for English Language Learners. Prior to the promulgation of the state law, schools expected ELs to succeed on their own in an English-only curriculum as required in a 1918 law.
Which program models are approved by the state?
There are essentially four bilingual education program models offered by the state agency, according to the information on TEA’s website: the Transitional Bilingual Program, which includes the Early-Exit and Late-Exit models; and the Dual Language Immersion Program, which includes the One-Way and Two-Way models. School districts have options in selecting the bilingual education model(s) and/or the English as a Second Language Program Models (ESL), based on which are deemed the best choice(s) by school officials. These may appear quite distinct from one another, even so, there are more similarities than differences between these programs.
The Transitional Early-Exit program is known as the “traditional” or rather, the “original” model. Admission to enroll in this program is the same as in the other three models whereby students qualify as participants if their home language is Spanish, and they have their parents’ approval. The students are also given a brief assessment that verifies that their dominant language is Spanish. According to the state agency website, in this program model, students are “served in both English and another language and are prepared to meet reclassification criteria to be successful in English-only instruction not earlier than two or later than five years after the student enrolls in school.”
The Transitional Late-Exit program is described the same as the Early-Exit model, except in the following: “… the students are served in both English and another language and are prepared to meet reclassification criteria to be successful in English-only instruction not earlier than six or later than seven years after the student enrolls in school.” Students in this program have an additional year (six years, no later than seven) as opposed to “two years, no later than five” in the Early-Exit model. The Late-Exit model, then, provides for more time for students to use their primary language as a “resource.” But the Late-Exit model may also allow students to continue their primary language development, allowing them to capitalize on the cognitive benefits provided by the interconnectedness between Spanish and English. In other words, the more opportunity to strengthen their primary language skills, the more developed are the language and cognitive skills that facilitate the learning of English.
The Dual Language Immersion Program consists of two models: the One-Way and Two-Way. Both share the same description, except that the Two-Way model includes the participation of “students proficient in English,” which requires a change in the curriculum to allow these students to acquire Spanish as their second language. English Language Learners are expected to progress along a timeframe that includes the acquisition of Spanish language literacy skills (primary language) as well as the wide range of academic English language skills. The percentage of English-proficient students in a Two-Way model generally makeup 30 to 50 percent of the classroom enrollment.
The description of the Two-Way model found on TEA’s website is as following:
A bilingual/biliteracy program model in which students identified as emergent bilingual students, are integrated with students proficient in English and are served in both English and another language and are prepared to meet reclassification criteria to be successful in English-only instruction not earlier than six or later than seven years after the student enrolls in school.
How does the state establish policy statements?
The most important distinction between the Transitional and the Dual Language Models lies in the instructional focus of language and literacy development. Students in the Dual Language Model programs are expected to develop their literacy skills in both languages throughout the program, usually from kindergarten to 5th grade. The Transitional Models are not designed to provide students with literacy instruction in the students’ primary language beyond the third grade, after which the instruction is shifted toward an English-only emphasis.
The Transitional Early-Exit program model makes clear in its description that the Spanish language literacy instruction for ELs is part of the curriculum for “two years, no later than five.” This statement contradicts the current research that strongly suggests that students require beyond the time frame of five to seven years to reach an optimal level that yields sufficient or grade-level, cognitive results.
How does a state policy based on inaccurate data affect the outcomes?
In published documents we find that the Texas Education Agency uses research data incorrectly thereby creating a false narrative. This misinformation is incorporated into the policy and its extensions, establishing invalid measures by which to determine the overall achievement performance of ELs. Additionally, the policy establishes incorrectly a procedure for measuring the English language development performance progress and for determining how ELs are exited from the language-based program, either bilingual education or ESL.
“All Texas ELs are expected to exit the EL program after four or five years, which is challenging but achievable timeframe for second language acquisition based on currently available second language acquisition research.”
The currently available second language acquisition research from which the TEA information was extracted was from an article by K. Hakuta, Y.G. Butler, and D. Witt, titled, How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? The article, published in 2000, reports on data from four school districts with specific demographics, each one with distinct characteristics: two of the schools were from the San Francisco Bay area in California, and two others from Canada. The authors make the following conclusion, stated in the abstract:
The clear conclusion emerging from these data sets is that even in two California districts that are considered the most successful in teaching English to LEP students, oral proficiency takes 3 to 5 years to develop, and academic English proficiency can take 4 to 7 years.
Since the publication of the article almost 25 years ago, many other research articles have surfaced, adding substantial knowledge and understanding about how ELs best achieve achievement results. The first author of the article, Kenji Hakuta provides further details on the study’s conclusions in an updated 2011 article and explains how research should continue to provide better information. An excerpt from Hakuta’s article, Educating Language minority Students and Affirming Their Equal Rights: Research and Practical Perspectives is the following:
I do have to admit that the evidence in 1998 was quite thin with respect to time expectations for second language acquisition. In 2000, I threw together some existing evidence with the cooperation of a small school district with good data and a strong record of academic progress with ELLs, and I drew the conclusion that it could take 4 to 7 years for most students (80%) to attain proficiency in English, depending on whether it was oral proficiency or included academic criteria (Hakuta, Butler, Witt, 2000). And now, as school district and state data systems become more sophisticated in tracking English language proficiency development, to be discussed later, we can expect much more robust estimates of expected time frames for development. (167)
Although Hakuta and his colleagues are respected researchers, it’s unlikely that their intentions were to influence school district policy that can have consequential outcomes. Indeed, school policies are carefully vetted for their accuracy and the inclusion of high academic standards.
What does the current research strongly suggests?
The most current research attests to the difficulty in determining the length of time students should participate in bilingual education programs. Research strongly suggests that a standardized time for acquiring academic English language should be replaced with a comprehensive model that includes several areas of learning and development. Certainly, the quality of the program largely matters: the optimal development of literacy in the student’s primary language, capitalizing on their ability to use both Spanish and English to enhance their learning yield the best achievement scores according to experts. The Dual Language Immersion Programs, which have been well-researched, are highly regarded as the best and most effective models for the instruction of ELs, mostly because students are expected to continue their primary language literacy and their academic English development throughout the duration of the program.
How are ELs exited out of Bilingual Education and ESL?
Reclassification. According to the state’s policy ELs are expected to exit the bilingual or the ESL program called reclassification within the established timeframe of four or five years. Every year, school officials document student progress based on an established criterion. A special committee called the Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC) consisting of teachers, administrators, and parents, oversee the exiting procedures of each student. They rely on achievement and assessment data, including results on the STAAR. The LPAC also considers the data from a language survey-assessment instrument called the TELPAS, that includes skills and abilities in listening, speaking, reading and writing. The TELPAS (Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System) is used to monitor the ELs’ progress along a 4-point scale. The main objective of the committee is to use available information to determine whether the ELs should remain in the language-base program or exit, which automatically allows them to be placed in an English-only instructional program with the parents’ permissions. Parents may want their students to enroll in all-English classroom or prefer that their students remain in the language-based programs.
What are the expectations for ELs according to the state’s accountability system?
The state’s accountability system expects English Learners to progress annually along TELPAS’ 4-point scale. However, once the student acquires “oral proficiency” English, their progress may be hampered due the difficulty in acquiring the advanced levels of academic English. Their progress may continue but not at the same rate as the oral proficiency skills. Research studies have repeatedly confirmed that while oral or social English skills are initially acquired in a steady and gradual rate, the academic skills are more intensely and rigorously attained and require more time. The long-term, Bilingual Education models such as the Dual Language programs are best equipped to offer students the most effective resources.
What if parents want their children to continue in Bilingual Education?
Even if parents want their children to continue participating in a language-based program, their schools may not offer these programs. Decisions concerning the distribution of funds for programmatic and instructional use are often made by administrators without sufficient parental and community input. Thus, exiting ELs from the language-based programs using the reclassification process may indicate progress on limited measurements, however, there’s a lack of procedural information that addresses the fact that students continue to perform at lower levels academically after they exit the language-based programs.
If Dual Language Program models are the most effective, why don’t more schools offer these?
Promoting Bilingualism. Dual Language programs were implemented because of the newly extended Bilingual Education Act passed by Congress in 1994. The law specified bilingual development as part of a rigorous academic standards curriculum, which countered the concern that successful programs should replace student’s primary language with English. Thus, Two-Way Dual Language programs were designed to serve English-proficient as well as language-minority students. The programs were revamped in the wake of significant policy change based on research findings that proved how language diversity was not a problem, but instead, was a potential asset to be valued for reasons beyond its cognitive benefits. It appears that policymakers recognized the value of promoting bilingualism as part of innovation and change in a global economy, quite a turn-around from the 1960’s era when English was perceived as the principal world language. The model design, which originally included approximately 50 percent of non-bilingual, English-proficient children, per classroom, had an added effect of satisfying English-proficient parents who recognized that childhood bilingualism is essential in acquiring fluency in Spanish.
Thirty years later, the dream of educational programs that produce academic bilingualism among all children, which include those that possess Spanish as their primary language, along with their English-proficient, non-bilingual peers, remains just that – a dream. Although, the Texas state agency adheres to a policy of allowing schools to develop Dual Language programs and offer these as choices for parents and their children, there are several issues of concern that particularly affect English Language Learners.
How does the Two-Way Dual Language Program work?
The quality of Two-Way Dual Language (DL) programs is crucial. In these classrooms, English-proficient and Spanish-proficient students share a curriculum that expects both groups to acquire language and content-area skills in both languages. For the ELs, this task requires learning literacy in their primary language, and gradually and precisely transferring the skills in the process of acquiring literacy in English. The English-proficient students learn Spanish orally but focus on literacy development in English. Essentially, a dual curriculum exists, and a teacher has an immense challenge in organizing instructional tasks. The teacher or teachers in a paired situation, must ensure that the ELs learn to read and write in their primary language as well as in English as their second language. The teacher must also address the academic needs of the English-proficient student in English and in Spanish as their second language. These classrooms require multi-tasking and efficiency to meet the exigencies of the dual curriculum. However, the language priorities are clearly pre-determined. Both groups of students, the English-proficient and the ELs are expected to achieve a passing score on the state-mandated (English) STAAR exam starting in third grade and continuing to the eighth grade. Although a Spanish version of the STAAR is available, schools generally choose the English version for the ELs.
What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of Dual Language Programs (DL)?
Thus, the curricula of the DL programs are often altered or adjusted so that English language proficiency becomes a major goal. English-proficient students maintain a high level of achievement in English but may not acquire Spanish beyond a basic level. They are not required to test in Spanish, whereas the ELs have a greater challenge in passing the STAAR in English, a (second) language they’re in the process of learning. Additionally, although both groups may have a common homeroom, they are re-grouped for instructional purposes, separating the two groups by language, subject matter, and sometimes by two different teachers. The ELs continue to underperform in state-mandated STAAR exam. The only group of students that gain an “advantage” are the English-proficient students who acquire some basic Spanish oral and literacy skills, but perhaps, as much as they would have in a Spanish language enrichment class.
The Dual Language Models are more closely aligned with the research on the most effective curriculum for English Language Learners than the Transitional Model. The most effective for ELs is the One-Way Dual Language Model. An important question to raise is why schools opt for the Transitional Models over the Dual Language designs when there is a clear choice between the two in terms of effectiveness.
Bilingual Frontera 