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.
In this five-part article, I explore the ways in which Texas schools contribute to the achievement failure of English Language Learners (ELs) and how students often internalize this blame. I discuss the systemic barriers and biases that ELs face in the education system and argue for a more equitable and supportive approach to ensure their academic success.
Toward an Understanding of Inequality in our Schools
In my recent post on the Texas School Lawsuit I discuss how several school districts rallied against the Texas Education Agency’s handling of what is alleged as an unfair and punitive accountability system. I used information from local news’ articles to re-construct the lawsuit’s main protestations from school leaders and/or their legal team members. Regarding their core arguments, I pointed out how the lawsuit doesn’t mention anything about the dismal academic failure among students whose primary language is Spanish (English Language Learners) and for whom Texas schools have been consistently ineffective in addressing their academic needs. In the state-mandated test scores, Hispanic students, who comprise 53 percent of total student population in Texas, consistently reflect higher academic failure rates compared to their White peers, who make up 26 percent of the total enrollment. However, English Language Learners (for whom Spanish is their primary language) are distributed amongst the lowest academic levels in all subject areas.
According to the state agency’s Division of Research and Analysis, amongst the total number of students in Texas public schools of about 5.5 million, 1.3 million Emergent Bilinguals (formerly known as Limited English Proficient or LEP) are listed as enrolled in Bilingual Education/ESL programs, or approximately 23.2 percent (according to the state’s 2023 Snapshot webpage). However, stakeholders such as educators, parents, and community members, are cognizant of the language and cultural diversity that characterize a huge swath of the Hispanic student population. Many of these students are broadly termed English Language Learners (ELs), and they constitute 23.1 percent of the total student population (2023 Snapshot). Thus, ELs, whether enrolled in language-based programs such as bilingual education/ESL or not, have disproportionately higher academic failure rates that strongly suggest a serious problem with how schools are disingenuously ineffective.
How Did We Get Here?
As former, current students, or “products” of public educational institutions in Texas, we know that many of our schools have profound challenges. We’re also well-aware that the voucher-for-private-schools movement seeks to separate public schools along racial and ethnic lines. Thus, it appears that efforts toward increasing racial divisions in our society persist, even at the state government level.
Early Experiences in Texas Schools
I believe that my early schooling experiences are familiar to many Texans. I began my education as a first grader in a public school in a small town in central/south Texas where my father had obtained a Visa with his employer. We spoke Spanish at home, and of course, we were expected to speak only in English at school. Once I became accustomed to my school surroundings, I soon realized the racial divisions that existed among students and teachers, I, along with my Hispanic peers, became members of a social group for which we had no choice. We were Hispanic or Mexican American, and we spoke Spanish as our native or primary language. We were poor; it was commonly known that we would wear the clothes and shoes that our White peers had discarded. In reflection, I think we were perceived as outsiders; that my White peers had never previously socialized with persons like us, except maybe with housemaids and yard or farm laborers. I eventually learned English – without any ESL instruction, and later, as a teenager and with my mother’s help, I acquired literacy in Spanish. My neighborhood was separated along economically defined, geographic areas but we all attended the only available schools. Although we were integrated, within the educational curriculum we were segregated; we were culturally different, and we spoke Spanish as our primary language. The social and racial/ethnic divisions persisted; we maintained our social group membership status, regardless of our relatively few academic successes. Some of us who excelled in the academic subjects were unable to obtain a grade average above a B; many of my peers dropped out of school before graduating. I was awarded a $50 scholarship check as part of my high school graduation from a community organization, which I was very proud of.
My educational experiences weighed heavily on my decision to become a bilingual teacher. I realized I could teach children literacy skills in their primary language (Spanish) and be able to facilitate their English development at levels that could accelerate their learning and improve their efforts in their educational pursuits. The teaching position afforded me with a possibility that I could make a difference in their lives; after all, I had experienced the kind of education that taught me the wrong way to educate children.
Thinking Beyond the Racial/Ethnic Divisions
Despite the landmark court decision in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) making racial segregation illegal, schools continue to uphold unwritten, illegal segregation policies. Student groups are often divided socially along racial/ethnic lines with little choice, and despite efforts to un-label themselves, they are ultimately forced to do so. Decades of research has yielded data on how schools can improve the practices and policies that have contributed to school inequality. School officials are well-aware of these practices, such as, for example, the use of tracking systems that place students on different educational pathways based on their perceived abilities, and the unequal distribution of resources such as access to effective curricula, experienced teachers and staff, and extracurricular opportunities, to name a few. The students of color are disproportionately affected as are those from marginalized backgrounds. Parents and community members can readily access a wide variety of data available on the state agency’s website, and achievement scores provide an invaluable measure on how schools fare in the equity scale for certain student groups.
The Issue of Language
In most educational settings, parents welcome the opportunities for their children to become bilingual. However, in the case of most bilingual education programs, the educational outcomes for English Language Learners are specifically and primarily targeted to the learning of English. There are exceptions such as the Dual Language programs that include monolingual English-speaking children, encouraging the students to speak, read and write in both English and Spanish. But, for the majority of English Language Learners, the programs encourage learning English, while discouraging the development of their primary language of Spanish.
Critics of language-based curricular programs, such as bilingual education, often believe that ELs receive unfair advantages or privileges over their non-bilingual, White peers. Research consistently supports the effectiveness of providing primary language instruction to facilitate and accelerate English language acquisition. The transfer principle of this theory underpins this approach, emphasizing the application of first or primary language abilities to learn English as a second language. Successful primary language instruction, typically in Spanish, plays a crucial role in developing English proficiency and academic achievement. This theoretically based, language-learning approach is a standard in curricular and instructional teaching in the United States and globally. It has been proven beyond any doubt that the language-based program model yields the greatest benefits for second language learners when it is effectively implemented.
Opponents of language-based programs often lack awareness of the extensive research supporting positive educational outcomes. Personal opinions frequently overshadow evidence-based discussions on educating English language learners. Opinions and facts are often conflated to create a personal justification for why schools should not have programs that seem to advantage (exclusively) a specific group of students. And stark differences of opinions exist between monolingual and bilingual respondents with the former revealing a slightly more favorability toward programs that promote bilingualism.
Which Programs are the Most Effective?
However, educators are ethical, responsible professionals who follow the science, not unlike the scientist or physician that appropriates decisions according to their knowledge and training. Since the 80’s, published research on effective practices among students learning English as a second language has consistently concluded that language-based curricula are strongly associated with accelerated English learning and lead to better academic outcomes. Among the most effective program models is Bilingual Education that promotes bilingualism while English as a second language (ESL) program models are less effective. Regardless of whether ESL is a program model or not, the ESL techniques and approaches can be exemplary in facilitating the learning of academic language in English. However, there are certain curricular conditions under which ESL can have a positive impact, and most notably, ESL cannot serve as an equal replacement for the more effective program of Bilingual Education.
Stark Contrasts: Comparing Differences Within a Single District
In this section, I briefly analyze the achievement data among students by comparing two schools from a city close to where I live, a school district which I name North District (not its real name).
North District spans an area of 221 square miles; its schools interlacing along a major interstate highway on its east and west sides. Over 23,000 students are enrolled in 26 campuses: 3 high schools, 6 middle schools and 15 elementary schools. Recently, another elementary school was constructed and opened this year, and another two elementary schools are slated to open in 2026 and 2028 respectively. The school district is in one of Texas’ fastest growing regions with a population of over 62,000 inhabitants. According to the U.S. Census, the city’s population consists of 52 percent of Hispanic origin and 40 percent White, with 5 percent African American or Black. No doubt, the burgeoning economy in the region has influenced the increased enrollment figures throughout the school district.
North District’s ethnic make-up of the student body is 66 percent Hispanic, 26.4 percent White, and 3.1 percent African American. The category that lists the numbers of English learners are split in two: English Learners (20.7%) and Bilingual/ESL Education (20.5%), for a total of 41 percent.
The schools in North District exhibit a stark contrast in demographics based on their geographical locations. In the direction to the northwest of the interstate highway quadrant of the school district is a cluster of schools with a larger percentage of White, non-Hispanic students and lower enrollments of Hispanic students. And, toward the southeastern direction of the highway is a scattering of schools with the reverse proportions: lower percentages of White and non-Hispanic, and higher amounts of Hispanic students. One of the schools has 97 percent Hispanic and 2 percent White, which I selected as one of the schools in the example below.
By comparing two elementary schools, we can examine how student diversity yields very different academic achievement results. School X, in the northeastern area has a total of approximately 600 students; 33 percent are Hispanic, and 59 percent are White. School Y in the southeast quadrant has 730 students with 97 percent Hispanic and 2 percent White. A comparison of the academic assessment scores between these schools show how the district’s schools are vastly different from each other.
TABLE 1 2021 STAAR Reading and Math Scores for School Y and School X
The STAAR test scores in Table 1 are excerpted from the database website and indicate scores from the category of “meets standard.” According to 2021 data in the Texas Education Agency’s website, and as described in Table 1, the School Y third graders that took the STAAR reading assessment and whose school enrollment is mainly Hispanic (97%), scored a total of 15 percent, which, in other words, states that 85% of all third graders in the school did not pass the reading assessment. Whereas in School X with a demographic profile of about 59 percent White and 31 percent Hispanic, shows that 72 percent of White students passed the same STAAR reading test. The Hispanic students in School X scored less than 10 percentage points than their White counterparts, but in comparison with the Hispanic students from School Y, these students scored 47 percentage points higher.
The STAAR Math scores show that Hispanic third graders in School Y scored 7 percent, far below the White students in School X that scored 50 percent.
How Achievement Scores Create a False Narrative
The Schools Y and X school-pattern-contrast exists throughout Texas, however fictitious they may appear. What the scores mean and how they’re interpreted is concerning and subject to a wide range of misconceptions and opinions. A casual observer would think that there is something profoundly wrong with the children in School Y, and no doubt, the finger pointing would continue to fault everyone else from parents, teachers, to administrators. Indeed, these children realize the intensity of a public’s gaze upon them, and likely will introspectively feel a sense of self-blame. It appears as though no one can satisfactorily explain the complexity of feelings that the students are experiencing.
Interpreting Test Data: Who’s to Blame?
In the previous section, I used two contrasting schools to illustrate the appalling test results (Table 1) among Hispanic students. What is well-known about our country is that educational inequality has persisted from the historical origins of public schooling, affecting all students of color. What the wider public audience may not be aware of is that despite numerous and various school reforms that have been attempted, very little has changed. Expert research efforts have yielded enormous volumes of information yet, schools continue to operate as if change is unattainable. What has improved is the ease by which anyone can access the data from the state agency website that provides a wealth of information. By perusing the archives, one can create the birds-eye view of the long-term achievement records categorized by ethnicity. Thus, we observe the identifiable, consistent pattern of failure among Hispanic and African American students compared to their White peers. Every year, the pattern is the similar: the discrepancy scores show a difference of up to 30 percentage points or more, in each of the state assessments in the subject areas of reading, math, science and social studies.
When students are blamed for their failure in school, it’s usually because the school has given up on making the changes necessary to address the problems.
Parents with limited resources are readily accused of not providing adequately for their children’s needs. A student’s economic status is often described by school officials as the “root cause” of the academic underachievement.
What we know today is that the more informed we are as a society about how the educational system delivers its services, the better we can solve the problems. It appears that a policy of transparency is essential to drive our efforts in the right direction.
The Issue of Spanish Spoken as a Primary Language Among Students
Although well-founded research has concluded that language-based programs like bilingual education greatly improve academic achievement for ELs, the successful outcomes are greatly dependent on the quality of the implementation of the program’s curriculum. Quality bilingual education programs follow a clear and comprehensive curricula that ensures students’ success in language and academic content development. For example, North District, which I describe in a previous section, implements the Early Exit Transitional programs, a fast-track, primary language literacy instructional program that is quickly replaced by an all-English language curriculum. Research has proven that the Early Exit models represent the least effective of bilingual education programs because students are not afforded the opportunity to fully or optimally develop their primary literacy skills. The more fully developed their primary language (in this case Spanish), the more likely the students will acquire higher levels of English, facilitating their academic progress in a broader and accelerated scale. According to the North District documents, this program is implemented in six of the eleven (or more) schools that have proportionately more Hispanic, English Learners than White students.
English Learners not in Bilingual Education, are placed in “ESL.” Unlike bilingual education, ESL is not a program model. ESL classrooms consist of students that have diverse language learning needs. The classrooms are mixed: some of the students are monolingual, advanced-level English-speakers that don’t require ESL instruction, and some are ELs that speak a non-Spanish primary language. The ESL teacher is tasked with providing instructional support systems such as strategies, techniques and instructional aides to facilitate the learner’s language and subject matter development. However, the ESL approach is developed according to each teacher’s preference and/or training, and compared to bilingual education programs, it lacks a solid theoretical basis. Some of the classroom teachers, most of whom are not bilingual, do not have an ESL certificate that validates their knowledge and understanding in working effectively with ELs. It’s difficult to discern from the district’s documents what kinds of evaluative efforts, if any, have been carried out to verify the effectiveness of ESL teaching approaches. Furthermore, there’s a growing concern by parents and educators that many children who meet the criteria for enrollment in bilingual education programs are not being served because their school does not offer the bilingual education and/or ESL program. Parents whose children qualify for the language-based services are given the choice of having their children bussed to another school that offers the program or sign a statement of “denial,” not because they refuse the program, but rather for objecting to the bus-transporting of their children to another school.
Testing Students
When children must take a test that they know they will probably not pass, their emotional well-being and their self-esteem are invariably affected. This is particularly the case when they are expected to complete the state-mandated, State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, known as the STAAR. The situation among the English Learners is that they have no other option but to take the test, which their teachers and school administrators know or suspect that they do not possess the required academic English language skills. This practice violates the most fundamental aspect of testing among all students; without fairness as the absolute condition, all tests are rendered invalid. The rationale behind the illogical decision seems to be hinged on TEA’s accountability rule that students must show “growth” as measured by the test (STAAR) on a yearly basis. So, the expectation is that while the students may “fail” the test one year, they will “pass” it the following year, or at least achieve a benchmark as defined in the Glossary’s “transition table”. But the baseline must be established.
The practice of subjecting students to negative testing experiences on a prolonged, systematic basis has long-term consequences. English Language Learners comprise an identifiable group of test takers for whom the English language development, at various non-proficiency levels, plays a major role in the lowering of scores that result in flawed interpretations. The explanation is as follows: tests are designed to measure the knowledge and skills based on the main curriculum (the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, TEKS), and the scores do not accurately reflect the ELs abilities due to their lack of the academic English language that is still in the developing stages. In the field of educational testing, this scoring effect is termed a threat to test validity. The scores purport to provide measurements on how well the students have learned the curriculum, yet they obfuscate the fact that the test inadvertently measures their English language development. Thus, the test interpretations are complicated by this issue, affecting the accuracy of the tests to measure both student performance and program effectiveness.
The TEA’s policies that utilize the STAAR as an integral part of the accountability system are based on the false narrative that the test produces appropriate information to determine how well ELs are learning and how well the school staff is doing their job. The state agency disregards important ethical and responsible standards established by experts in educational testing fields that require the testers to publish information in their Glossary that explains the test’s limitations and other related factors.
The state’s mandated STAAR test has a high-stakes indicator because of the pressure placed upon schools to rely on these measures for accountability purposes. To ensure their students success on the STAAR, schools make the needed curricular modifications that often create a negative effect on the teaching and learning outcomes. The importance of this testing procedure places a disproportionate burden on ELs for two main reasons: 1) the predictability of the scores that show the ELs’ failing academic status on a continuous basis; and 2) the persistent perceptions that as members of a subgroup, ELs are far less capable than their White peers in their academic endeavors.
In this regard, the Texas Education Agency, as the ultimate authority as decision-maker, is responsible for the children who suffer permanent negative consequences because they have been subjected systematically to a testing practice that intentionally or unwittingly disparage them as a subgroup.
Without Accountability, Schools Remain Unchanged
School change has been a contentious issue for decades, yet many underperforming schools continue to operate unchanged under a “business as usual” mindset. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) is tasked with ensuring high-quality education, fairness, and excellence in the state’s curriculum. This framework is built on the principle that curricula should be implemented uniformly, with standardized timelines, materials, resources, and teaching methods. While this approach is effective for some schools, it falls short for students with unique needs who require differentiated instruction. For these students, accessing a quality education feels like navigating a complex labyrinth—visible but frustratingly out of reach.
Accountability in education can be understood from multiple perspectives. The court system, notably through landmark judicial rulings, has profoundly influenced how schools approach accountability. Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education and Lau v. Nichols have been pivotal, driving schools to adopt more inclusive and equitable instructional approaches. These rulings not only challenged previous norms of racial segregation and linguistic neglect but also paved the way for educational reforms that aim to accommodate and support diverse student populations, fostering environments that are more reflective of the principles of equity and inclusivity.
In the case of Castaneda v. Pickard (1981), the court argued, in an appeal ruling, that the plaintiff, Mr. Castaneda, a Mexican American parent whose children attended Raymondville ISD, was within his right to claim that his children’s school discriminated against them. His statements focused on the segregated nature of his claim, but his argument included significant related curricular issues. Children, identified as belonging to an ethnic and racial group, were denied an education comparable to others whose schools were dominated by White students in non-segregated conditions. The United States Court of Appeals ruled in its court decision that schools are responsible for ensuring that students’ rights are upheld according to the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. (EEOA, H.R.40, 92nd Cong.1974)
The court decision included specific directions on how schools must comply to fulfill the court order. The three-point criteria included the following:
The program for English learners must be “based on sound educational theory.”
The program must be “implemented effectively with resources for personnel, instructional materials, and space.”
After a trial period, the program must be proven effective in overcoming language barriers.
Forty years later, the Castañeda test remains a significant litmus test to gauge the efficacy of schools as described and ordered by the court.
Today’s questions can be framed in the following ways:
Is the ESL program “based on sound educational theory’?
Are programs for English Language Learners “implemented effectively with resources for personnel, instructional materials, and space”? and
Have the programs proven effective in overcoming language barriers over time? If not, what changes were made to the programs to address the problems?
The Castañeda test should be part of the state’s accountability system, but as the research on school reform efforts often indicate, “inaction” is preferred over political battles, especially in states like Texas that lean toward policies instigated by far-right ideologies.
When school districts decide not to take action to substantially improve the quality of education for ELs, the outcomes are inevitable. The student scores continue to spiral downward; the programs lose their quality appeal, teachers and staff are demoralized, parents are frustrated, etc. But the most serious consequences involve the emotional impact on children. They are left on their own wits and devices to understand that it’s not their fault. The invisible scars remain intact; children blame themselves as the schools send a strong message that their failure is of their own making.
A District’s Response to the Texas Lawsuit
Some districts have taken proactive steps toward school improvement in response to challenges they face. However, in some cases, school districts’ responses lack a genuine willingness to address the core problems. In North District, for example, the superintendent received approval from the district’s School Board to join a lawsuit against the state of Texas. Insights from the board meeting held on August 19, 2024, reveal the superintendent’s rationale for this decision. The central concern was that the district might be labeled as “low performing,” which would subject it to the Texas Education Agency’s stringent regulations, potentially leading to a state takeover similar to the recent Houston ISD intervention. According to the superintendent, such a takeover could have significant financial implications for the district, necessitating legal action to protect its autonomy and resources. His direct quote is the following:
“The differential may be that if we have a few low-performing campuses, instead of having to spend additional money for all that support, we may be able to save that money because then we can work on that in-house and utilize the resources that we must help bring those campuses up. And then they’re not going to be labeled as low performing (district).”
It’s unclear which resources, if any, were directed or planned to be directed toward improving the low-performing campuses. These low-performing campuses have not been clearly identified, although based on the data, they have disproportionate number of English Language Learners. In the 2022 School Report Card, one of the North District’s middle schools located in the same area as School Y scored “Not Rated” which is lower than a “C” in each of the four areas: Overall Rating, Student Achievement, School Progress, and Closing the Gaps. A few elementary schools in the same area with similar enrollment and achievement indicators have also received a “Not Rated” score.
In his statement, the superintendent described the proposed approach as a “band-aid” solution, aimed more at preventing a potential Texas Education Agency takeover than at achieving meaningful and lasting educational improvements. The focus of this plan seems to prioritize avoiding state intervention over addressing the underlying issues of low-performing schools. Consequently, the strategy appears to prioritize maintaining the status quo in high-performing schools, ensuring their current management practices remain unaffected, with little emphasis on broader educational reforms.
Unfortunately, the North District’s approach is reflective of a broader trend among school districts. Instead of committing to long-term, comprehensive program designs that address systemic issues, many districts opt for short-term fixes with minimal financial impact, essentially deciding on the “inaction” approach. This often leads to legal actions against state agencies, such as the one recently filed, which may provide only temporary relief without fostering sustainable progress in educational equity and quality.
In my line of work as a teacher educator at a local university I often find the need to create a new spin on decades-long, doggedly-persistent problems that address school failure among minority students. My students will soon become part of the next generation of teachers, and old, tired theoretical explanations lack the power of persuasion. As the election cycle finally draws to an end, certain repetitive rhetoric remain consistently annoying and even problematic. There’s a way in which we can recreate spaces of productive dialogue for the new gen teachers. In this essay, I discuss two issues that shape the framework for addressing theory and practice in teacher education.
The persistent, negative verbosity against immigrants is increasingly concerning. I recognize the political ploys used by politicians to win favor among groups with same ideologically-minded ideas. But the spill-over effect is particularly troublesome since the deep level and immense scope of hatred that such discourse engenders seems unprecedented. The hateful, fear-inducing political speeches are considerably intensified in social media, and like clockwork, a single kernel of a spiteful idea turns into a deluge of racist, unimaginable hatred toward anyone or any group that even has a slight resemblance of having immigrant roots. We don’t need a laboratory to determine the hypothetical conditions of a theory of race relations in our society when we can experience the outcomes in real time. Instead, I lead my students to recognize how the macro-interactions in racial contexts can be and are reflected in schools where students of color are perceived as failures and labeled as such due to deceptive racial biases and practices.
On the other hand, I can turn attention to the uniqueness of their power as teachers in their efforts to address issues of race and identity in our society. Of course, young students of color, especially minority students learning English as their second language, are incapable of fully grasping the complex social, economic, political circumstances of their daily lives, but they’re well aware of their assigned societal positions of power. They listen to the hateful, racist disparagements in political speeches. These politicians are a powerful force that represent the worst fears and insecurities of children in our schools. But teachers have a greater influence then anyone else in power. This is how I frame a counter solution to a complex and alarming problem. As teachers, they (will) have the most powerful and influential voice in their students’ lives. What matters the most is that students understand that their teachers genuinely care about their general well-being, and expect them to know their strengths and needs, and understand that they can reach their ultimate educational goals and become successful much more than they will ever imagine.
The messaging is clear: By believing in your students, they will succeed. It is crucial for teachers to understand the power they hold and use it to create a classroom, a microcosm of a greater society that is positive and inclusive for all students.
Bilingual Frontera 