Considering the widespread growth of bilingual programming models to serve English learners (ELs), it is necessary to ask: what are the effects of school districts primarily providing English as a second language (ESL) services through a bilingual model on students representing less common linguistic minorities? This analysis examines the current research on ESL-aligned and bilingual approaches to English language development, identifying overlaps and gaps between them. The authors suggest that both approaches need to coexist in schools to meet the needs of all language learners, particularly those from less common, linguistically minoritized backgrounds.
Keywords: ESL, Bilingual, Multilingual Programming, K-12 Schooling, Minoritized Languages
In a time of increasing numbers of multilingual learners and decreasing resources and funding to support those students, schools and districts often face the challenge of selecting a multilingual service program model to meet the needs of their English learner (EL)1 populations. As decision-makers refer to research, they discover that bilingual education models consistently prove to be effective strategies for helping ELs acquire and develop English language proficiency, supporting home language development, and facilitating academic content learning (Gandára & Escamilla, 2016). Administrators are often confronted with a perspective that under-emphasizes the overlapping nature of English as a second language (ESL) and bilingual education and instead places these models along a spectrum that often positions ESL models at one end and promotes bilingual models as the optimal approach at the other end for English language development (Duran, 1993). While researchers like García and Kleifgen (2018) have explored models that draw from both fields, promoting an ideal of “dynamic bi/plurilingualism” –– programs where the linguistic repertoires of ELs, regardless of their home language, are valued, leveraged, and expanded –– programs like these are few and far between. A growing number of schools are adopting English-Spanish bilingual programming as their primary English language development program (Office of English Language Acquisition [OELA], 2025), even though not all EL populations align neatly with an English-Spanish bilingual model. For instance, for students whose home language differs from Spanish, both their home language and English may be unintentionally deprioritized in the implementation of an English-Spanish bilingual program. This may result in less time and fewer resources dedicated to their English language development.
Do we really need both?
As current teacher educators and former ESL and bilingual teachers, we advocate for a both/and approach rather than discussing ESL and bilingual education in theoretical and programmatic silos. We aim to revisit the space of overlap and assert the necessity of both approaches, emphasizing that students speaking languages other than Spanish or English deserve English language development that supports and affirms their home languages while providing critical access to content. In reviewing current literature and state policies regarding ESL education and bilingual education, we aim to put the two approaches in conversation and identify the overlaps and gaps that emerge in practice between them. Using the theoretical framework of language ecology, which examines the interconnectedness of languages within particular sociocultural contexts (Hornberger, 2002; Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 1996), we investigate the potential side effects of school districts transitioning all ESL services to a bilingual model. The language ecology framework helps us see beyond the binary of “best” and “worst” models, and instead ask questions such as:
- How are different program models serving multilingual learners conceptualized and positioned in education research?
- How are students who speak less common, linguistically minoritized languages considered in the implementation of English-Spanish bilingual models?
To address these questions, we examined cases of schools and districts from educational research studies that have implemented bilingual models to determine the side effects, challenges, and opportunities of serving distinct and diverse groups of ELs.
As stated above, the goal of this study was not to place ESL programming in opposition to bilingual programming (Escamilla, 1999) but rather to suggest that in the pursuit of educational equity, we must consider the side effects of schools and districts adopting bilingual education models to the exclusion of ESL approaches. Both approaches need to coexist in schools to meet the needs of all language learners, especially those from linguistically minoritized backgrounds. The challenge we face is that in many school districts, ESL and bilingual programs do not coordinate with each other; instead, they operate independently, with limited collaboration or coordination across their service models. It is an either/or. Students can either be in bilingual programs or have targeted ESL services; this creates ambiguity in the purpose of language programming and, naturally, leaves some students out.
What is the relationship between bilingual and ESL programming?
Bilingual education models serve students who share a common language and often require a large cohort of speakers of the same language in order to be implemented. Suppose a school or district opts to fulfill their state’s ESL programming guidelines through a bilingual approach. In that case, students who speak less common linguistically minoritized languages may be left out of language programming and receive fewer language supports than a more comprehensive ESL approach would have offered (Wis. Stat. § 115.95, 1999). As Walqui and Heritage (2012) noted, ELs from diverse linguistic backgrounds require diverse approaches to language support and development to thrive; one size does not fit all (Honigsfeld, 2009). Granle (2022) cautions against overgeneralization in bilingual education programs as schools and districts adopt dual-language education and begin to view their ELs as monolithic Spanish speakers. It is essential to note that ELs in U.S. public schools represent over 400 language backgrounds.
Although Spanish is the most common home language for ELs in the United States, individual states have anywhere from five to 225 languages represented (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Particularly when serving growing numbers of students with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE) and refugee students, the range of home languages represented among ELs grows ever wider (Schachter, 2013). Students who speak less common linguistically minoritized languages, such as Wolof, Amharic, Karen, and Arabic, are enrolled in schools that have Spanish-English bilingual programs in fulfillment of ESL programming requirements, with fewer resources and little funding available to specifically support their home and English language development needed for academic success (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2023).
The history of bilingual education includes a fight for legitimacy, opportunity, and access in schools (Moore, 2021). In the quest for acceptance and implementation, bilingual education advocates have often extolled the virtues of bilingual education in relation to economic opportunities for both native English-speaking students and ELs (Cervantes-Soon, 2014). The unintended consequences of that approach have been explored by many researchers, notably that some bilingual programs include an overrepresentation of English-speaking students and leave minoritized students fighting for access to their own language instruction (Escamilla, 1999). Now, bilingual programs are expanding in U.S. public schools and are considered key approaches to serving the nation’s growing population of ELs (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2017). Six states require a form of bilingual education once a threshold number of students is met; only one state, Arizona, has restricted bilingual education, and the remaining states vary in their stance on bilingual education, from no guidance to allowing districts and states to choose bilingual approaches if they meet the needs of ELs (Rutherford-Quach et. al, 2021).
Separate studies, separate conversations
After conducting a systematic review that resulted in a full-text review of 88 educational research studies on multilingual programs, we found that, in general, studies exploring program models for serving multilingual learners rarely discuss both bilingual and ESL programming as coexisting in the same schools or districts. These two models are presented without consideration of their interconnectedness, with bilingual programming consistently regarded as the most effective approach for serving multilingual students. When discussing the side effects or unintended consequences of bilingual programs, they are often framed in terms of privileged families co-opting the program for their own purposes and personal gain (Sun & Wang, 2023). When languages other than English and Spanish were discussed in the studies, the less commonly represented language was often used as a stand-in for Spanish in bilingual programming. Mandarin Chinese, Cantonese, Korean, French, Italian, American Sign Language (ASL), and Portuguese dual-language programs were all featured in the studies in the final sample for this review, but are again discussed in bilingual terms, omitting references to students in these schools from other linguistic backgrounds.
Several studies have directly addressed questions of inclusion and exclusion in bilingual programs, with Gomez and Cisneros’s (2020) article specifically exploring the paradox of excluding students identified as ELs in dual-language programs in Arizona. Other studies examined race/ethnicity and language programming. One study acknowledged the linguistic diversity of Maya students and suggests translanguaging practices may be the most appropriate pedagogical approach to meet their needs (Hernández et al., 2023). Likewise, several studies discuss Black or African American language practices and the need for inclusionary linguistic pedagogies and practices to affirm the linguistic practices of Black students (Morales et al., 2019; Frieson, 2021; Dorner et al., 2023). Another study highlighted the potential for a plurilingual approach to language programming by implementing and offering International Baccalaureate Diploma Programmes, which promote both English language proficiency and home language proficiency for bilingual students (Lew, 2020). This model aligns more closely with the bi/plurilingual approaches described by García and Kleifgen (2018), which can cater to the needs of students from a broader range of language backgrounds.
Upon reviewing, coding, and summarizing the results of this review, we found that our specific questions about linguistically minoritized students were not being addressed in the studies examining bilingual programming. Generally, even though ESL and bilingual programming are related topics, our findings showed that they are being studied and assessed separately. With the proliferation of bilingual programming, often supplanting ESL programming previously offered in schools, these models should be studied together.
Moving forward together
One potential research area for future studies is to investigate how schools interpret the relationship between ESL and bilingual programming at the (1) ideological level, (2) policy level, (3) programmatic level, and (4) instructional level. A study like the one proposed here would help illuminate the areas in need of alignment between the approaches, as well as the unique possibilities of coexistence and cross-programming for students from less commonly represented linguistic backgrounds.
To meet the needs of all multilingual learners, we must consider how school-based multilingual programming can support speakers of less commonly represented languages. Both approaches should coexist in schools to address the needs of all language learners, particularly those from linguistically minoritized backgrounds that are less commonly represented. To ensure that all ELs thrive in U.S. schools, schools and districts should engage in plurilingual (Piccardo, 2013; Prasad, 2015) and translingual (Bartlett & García, 2011) programming, which embraces the cultural and linguistic identities of students who speak majority-minority languages, such as Spanish, alongside less commonly represented linguistically minoritized languages.
In light of a political climate that threatens multilingualism in educational spaces and may further limit programming, this study emphasizes the importance of disrupting unnecessary binaries in language education, which can have unintended consequences for linguistically minoritized students (Villegas & Garcia, 2025). As we seek remedies for unjust language practices, we must be aware of the side effects on students from less commonly represented linguistic backgrounds. It is time for educational research, policy, and practice to adopt a plurilingual lens on language education and explore the possibilities of repair that arise from translanguaging pedagogies, thereby broadening the scope of focus beyond either ESL or bilingual programming. Our multilingual learners need both.
Note
- The authors acknowledge a wide variety of terminology used to describe students who are in the process of learning English, including asset-focused terms like multilingual learner (ML) and emergent bilingual (EB). In this article, we have chosen English Learner (EL) to identify those students that have been specifically identified for services under state and federal guidelines.
References
Bartlett, L., & García, O. (2011). Additive schooling in subtractive times: Bilingual education and Dominican immigrant youth in the Heights. Vanderbilt University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv16b78cp
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2017). Directory of two-way bilingual immersion programs in the U.S. http://www.cal.org/twi/directory/
Cervantes-Soon, C. (2014). A critical look at dual language immersion in the new Latin@ diaspora. Bilingual Research Journal, 37(1), 64-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2014.893267
Dorner, L., Moon, J., Freire, J., Gambrell, J., Kasun, G., & Cervantes-Soon, C. (2023). Dual language bilingual education as a pathway to racial integration? A place-based analysis of policy enactment. Peabody Journal of Education, 98(2), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2023.2191566
Duran, L. (1993). Some connections between bilingual education and ESL programs. In L. M. Malave (Ed.), Annual conference journal: Proceedings of the National Association for Bilingual Education Conferences (pp. 135-141). National Association for Bilingual Education.
Escamilla, K. (1999). The false dichotomy between ESL and transitional bilingual education programs: Issues that challenge all of us. Educational Considerations, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.4148/0146-9282.1343
Frieson, B. L. (2021). Remixin’ and flowin’ in centros: Exploring the biliteracy practices of Black language speakers in an elementary two-way immersion bilingual program. Race Ethnicity and Education, 25(4), 585-605. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2021.1890568
Gandára, P., & Escamilla, K. (2016). Bilingual education in the United States. Bilingual and Multilingual Education, 12(1), 439-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02258-1_33
García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English learners. Teachers College Press.
Gomez, L. M., & Cisneros, J. (2020). Dual language programs: Questions of access in the state of Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28, 18. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.4680
Granle, K. I., Jr. (2022). Overgeneralization in bilingual education and the dual language classroom. Nonpartisan Education Review/Essays. https://nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Essays/v18n1.html
Hernández, A. W., Campos, I., & Zyskind, K. Z. (2023). Considerations in utilizing translanguaging practices to meet the language needs of Maya children in U.S. schools. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 54(2), 379-386. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_LSHSS-22-00082
Honigsfeld, A. (2009). ELL programs: Not “one size fits all.” Kappa Delta Pi Record, 45(4), 166-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2009.10516539
Hornberger, N. H. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approach. Language Policy, 1(1), 27-51. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014548611951
Lew, S. (2020) Multilingualism and multiculturalism in an International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme with particular emphasis on supporting linguistic minority students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(6), 488-502. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1660666
Moore, S. (2021). A history of bilingual education in the US: Examining the politics of language policymaking. Multilingual Matters.
Morales, P. Z., & Hartman, P. W. (2019). Positioning Spanish-language and African American language (AAL) speakers as knowledgeable and valuable contributors in the language arts classroom. Theory Into Practice, 58(3), 236-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1607654
Office of English Language Acquisition. (2025, January 13). Dual language immersion programs
[Infographic]. U.S. Department of Education, National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition. https://ncela.ed.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/dliprogramsinfographic-20250113-508_2.pdf
Piccardo, E. (2013). Plurilingualism and curriculum design: Toward a synergic vision. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 600-614. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.110
Prasad, G. (2015). Beyond the mirror towards a plurilingual prism: Exploring the creation of plurilingual ‘identity texts’ in English and French classrooms in Toronto and Montpellier. Intercultural Education, 26(6), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2015.1109775
Rutherford-Quach, S., Torre Gibney, D., Kelly, H., Ballen Riccards, J., Garcia, E., Hsiao, M., Pellerin, E., & Parker, C. (2021). Bilingual education across the United States. CCNetwork.
Schachter, R. (2013). Are schools getting tongue-tied? District Administration, 49(4), 57–60.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Phillipson, R. (1996). English only worldwide or language ecology? TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 429-452. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587692
Sun, W., & Wang, X. (2023). A raciolinguistic analysis of the neoliberal promotion of dual language education in a new Latinx South state. Discourse, 44(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2021.1955242
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). SEA file C141, LEP enrolled [Data set]. EDFacts Data Warehouse. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_204.27.asp
Villegas, L., & Garcia, A. (2025, May 13). Untangling fact from fiction in Trump’s call to defund English learner education. New America. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/untangling-fact-from-fiction-in-trumps-call-to-defund-english-learner-education/
Walqui, A., & Heritage, M. (2012, January). Instruction for diverse groups of ELLs [Conference presentation]. Understanding Language Conference, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2023). Report on the status of bilingual-bicultural education programs in Wisconsin. https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/english-learners/BLBC/Legislative/2022-23_BLBC_Legislative_Report_FINAL_12.28.2023.pdf
Wis. Stat. § 115.95 (1999). Bilingual bicultural education. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/115/VII/95
