Dual-language programs can create integrated learning environments for both native English speakers and English learners. They also have the potential to decrease school segregation and increase student enrollment, new research shows.
In a recent study published in the Social Science Research journal, researchers focused on two-way dual language (TWDL) elementary programs in the Los Angeles Unified school district. Two-way dual language programs mix native English speakers and English Learners, teaching core subjects in English and a target language. These programs often promote bilingualism.
Parents across the district can apply to enroll their child in such a program, even if they’re not zoned for that school. The researchers analyzed enrollment information of the TWDL programs and compared it to the demographics of the surrounding neighborhood to assess if the district’s dual-language programs were helping to desegregate schools.
The study concluded that dual-language programs are appealing across all racial demographics, regardless of distance to the school, but further work is needed to ensure all interested students have access. Overall, this form of school choice has the potential to help desegregate schools, the researchers said.
One result that signaled a problem with access is that Black students who are in out-of-zone TWDL programs traveled the farthest to attend them (a median of 3.8 miles). The report concluded that if these dual-language programs are established in neighborhoods with small Black populations, than only those with transportation could attend which may result in less Black students enrolled.
Across the country, interest in these programs has spread in recent years, with more than 3,600 dual-language immersion programs currently operating. As of 2021, schools in 44 states offer these programs—California, Texas, New York, Utah, and North Carolina account for almost 60% of all dual-language programs, with the Golden State leading in most dual-language programs.
Education Week spoke with Erica Frankenberg, a professor of education and demography at Penn State University, who was a researcher on the study. She spoke about the results,how districts could increase student access, and the number of dual-language programs overall.
The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
What were the main takeaways of the dual-language study?
Almost every school district in the country has attendance zone boundaries. If you live in a certain house, there is an elementary school that is associated with your house. Depending on district policy, you can choose to go elsewhere. That is the case in LA, but most students [nationally] still go to their neighborhood school.
There are actually a couple of different levels of school choice [with dual-language programs]. If you live in the school’s attendance zone and the school has a Spanish immersion program, as a parent, you can choose whether you want your kid to be in the dual-language program at the school. But those living outside of the attendance zone can choose to apply [to that school and program], and if there are seats available, attend the program.
We’re trying to, in this study, understand who is making those choices for those coming outside of the zone—do they differ demographically from those in the zone, and how far are they traveling?
Research on this intersection of dual-language programs and desegregation is limited. How does this study add to it?
Some of the research that we know about dual-language [immersion programs] and issues of equity and access can suggest different patterns. In some places, [these programs are] so highly desired, for example, by white or affluent families, that it can crowd them out. It can make them less diverse over time. This is sometimes referred to in the research as gentrifying.
Any type of school choice program is really dynamic; it has to manage sometimes competing interests. Here you also have the [two-way] language model, which requires having students from the native language [and] the target language for it to be successful. That’s a unique feature that other integration programs don’t have.
We were really interested to see how this choice aspect works when you have over 100 different [dual-language] programs in LAUSD. We only looked at elementary schools, [which] is the entry for most students into these strands, but we had different languages. There were some unique opportunities to look at other differences based on the language of the dual-immersion program. [Most of the programs are in spanish language, followed by Korean, Mandarin, Armenian, Arabic, French, and Japanese. Another difference amongst the programs is when they were founded.]
We were able to get attendance zone boundaries for the schools to see how the students who live in a neighborhood, the attendance zone, are the same or different from the kids that actually walk in the front door of the school.
How can people interested in building equitable dual-language programs or schools use this study as a guide?
This study helps us understand the different flows contributing to who is in the program. It can be hard to know who is in the program versus who is in a school that happens to have a program. Programs can be any sort of percentage of the total enrollment, so [it] helps to get a sense of who is enrolling in these programs.
For example, for the Mandarin programs, there was a pretty high average distance traveled by out-of-zone students, and this is in a district that doesn’t provide transportation automatically if you get into [the] TWDL school. Some choice policies elsewhere do provide transportation, although that can be an extra cost that the districts take on.
Families know that [dual-language programs are] an option. They know how to apply, they’ve been accepted, and they’re able to manage getting their child to school and home every day, which shows that it is a remarkable draw—and that you may not have equitable access.
Some districts are looking at projections of enrollment decline. This could be a way to have these attractive options and also have academic and social benefits for students who are enrolled in it.
If you also want to think about, “how might I overcome residential patterns in my district?,” [this study] shows that there are a lot of students who are willing to go to schools that might be farther from their neighborhood school to enroll because they care about this educational program. This is attractive across demographic groups.
How do you think waning federal support for English learners affects this intersection of dual-language programs and desegregation of schools?
Particularly in this climate, it might be worth renewed attention to these programs—how they serve our multilingual learners, but also how they serve and educate native English speakers.
There are encouraging findings about language acquisition for both native English speakers and multilingual learners in terms of learning both languages. There’s been some research looking at, for example, reclassification rates for English learners.
Intergroup contact theory suggests that when [programs are] structured according to certain conditions, one of which is that all groups have equal status, there could be really important social benefits for students from all backgrounds. Native English speakers can have less prejudice, more understanding when they’re in a school in which they are positioned for a part of their day as those without the knowledge that native speakers of whatever the target language is. There are real advantages to that—perhaps particularly in a moment of heightened political action and demonization of certain groups.
What new questions does the study spark for you?
I would be really interested in looking at other districts with different kinds of policy contexts. If there are some districts that provide transportation for students, how might that differ [in terms of enrollment]? Then we have some research that’s not quite done yet, but we’re trying to look at the demographics of dual-language and non-dual-language strands within the school and how they differ.
[We’re] trying to bring together these different areas of research—dual language, school choice, and school integration—and then trying to expand what we know, ultimately helping inform school districts and what they’re doing.
