Dual Language with MILE

Dual Language education refers to long-term additive bilingual education models that consistently use two languages (English and a partner language) for content instruction, learning and communication with the three interconnected goals of developing high levels of

• bilingualism and biliteracy, 

• academic achievement, and

• socio-cultural competence.

In addition to these original goals, the field has recently added a fourth foundational goal to Dual Language Bilingual Education programs serving multilingual learners: the development of critical consciousness which entails naming injustices and engaging in equity-focused change.

Dual language bilingual education is an umbrella term that includes multiple types of programs. Based on the student populations they serve, their structure and implementation, the main program models include:

• Two-way dual language programs in which multilingual students who speak the partner language and their English-speaking peers are integrated to receive instruction in both English and the partner language. Other names used for two-way dual language programs include Two-Way Immersion programs (TWI) and Dual Language Immersion (DLI).

• One-way dual language programs in which students from predominantly one language group receive instruction in both English and a partner language. One-way dual language programs can be: 

• Programs that serve predominantly multilingual students who speak a language other than English, and who are preserving and developing this home language as they learn English. These programs are also known as developmental or maintenance bilingual programs; 

• Programs that serve predominantly English-speaking students who are acquiring the partner language as they continue developing their English language skills. These are also known as Foreign Language, Second Language or World language (WL) immersion programs; 

• Programs that predominantly serve students with a family background or cultural connection to the partner language. These are also known as Dual language heritage programs. In the US, these programs often focus on revitalizing indigenous languages, such as Cherokee and Dane, by teaching them to heritage speakers who have shifted towards English dominance due to assimilationist pressures.

The field uses Dual Language Bilingual Education (DLBE) for all DL programs that serve multilingual learners (TWI, heritage and developmental dual language programs). The term DLBE is intended to honor and highlight the historical roots of dual language in the Bilingual Education movement of the 1960s which fought to ensure immigrant communities had access to instruction in their home languages as a vehicle for economic and political empowerment and equal citizenship.

• In a whole-school dual language program, the entire school adopts the model, meaning all students in all grades and classrooms participate in bilingual instruction. A whole-school approach facilitates the alignment of the school’s culture, staffing, resources, and professional development efforts to the DL goals.

• In contrast, a strand DLBE program operates as one strand or track within a larger, predominantly English monolingual school, meaning only a subset of students (often a class or two at each grade level) participate in the dual language program while others participate in English-only or English-mainly curriculum. Although this approach is sometimes necessary due to student population and resource constraints, since the school is operating two models with different objectives at once, strand programs tend to encounter challenges in regards to leadership, resources, staff and PD alignment to the goals of DLBE.

Over 30 years of research has demonstrated that dual language education programs have multiple advantages for all students, both minoritized bi-multilingual students who speak the partner language (most commonly Spanish) and English-dominant students. These advantages include:

Improved Cognitive Skills:

• Improved executive control. Executive control involves a set of cognitive skills that allow individuals to exercise self-control, switch attention, plan, and use their working memory (Bialystok et al., 2014).

• Improved metalinguistic awareness; that is, the capacity to reflect on, analyze, and manipulate language as an abstract system. Metalingistic awareness is an important factor in the development of reading among young children (Bialystok et al., 2012; 2014).

• Higher cognitive flexibility and problem-solving skills (Bialystok et al., 2001) 

Higher academic achievement and improved educational trajectories:

• Equal or higher academic achievement in literacy and math than students in English-only programs (Alanis, 2000; Collier & Thomas, 2004, 2017; Padilla et al., 2024; Rolstad et al., 2005; Steele et al., 2017; Umansky & Reardon, 2014)

• Smaller achievement reading and math gaps between bi-multilingual students and English-dominant students (Lindholm-Leary & Block, 2010; Goodrich et al., 2021)

• Improved chances for bi-multilingual students to be reclassified out of the English Learner (EL) designation (Steele et al., 2017; Umansky & Reardon, 2014). 

• Higher Grade Point Averages (PGA) and enrollment in Advance Placement (AP) classes (Morita-Mullany et al., 2020; Padilla et al., 2024). 

High levels of bilingualism and biliteracy:

• Improved reading, writing and oral language skills in both English and Spanish for Spanish-speaking multilingual learners and English-dominant students, with gaps between them closing by 5th grade (Howard et al, 2004; Lindholm-Leary, 2012).

• Higher levels of English proficiency in receptive and productive language skills while maintaining their home language (Johnson & Swain 1997; Swain & Lapkin, 1991).

• Higher early literacy English reading scores for multilingual learners in DLBE programs which predict stronger performance in later grades (Bibler, 2021; Palacio et al., 2024; Bohlmann et al, 2025)

Positive socio-cultural identity and socio-emotional development:

• Students engage in more positive cross-cultural relations (Christian et al., 1996)

• Higher levels of academic self-esteem, pride in their bilingualism, motivation, and college ambition among Latine students (Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 1998). 

• Stronger cultural and linguistic identities, self-esteem and cross-cultural understanding (García, O. & Kleifgen, 2018). 

Long term effects of bilingualism:

Furthermore, research shows that immigrants who achieve high levels of bilingualism, a primary goal of dual language bilingual education programs, experience a number of benefits:

• Stronger bonds with their families (Smokowski et al., 2007).

• Less likely to be involved in at-risk behaviors, and more likely to live healthy lives (Smokowski et al., 2007).

• Less likely to dropout of school (Feliciano, 2001) 

• Higher employment opportunities and income; earning $2,000 to $5,000 more per year than those who only speak English (Gandara, 2015).

• More likely to go attend college (Agirdag, 2014, 2015; Gandara, 2018; Rumbaut, 2014)

• Higher levels of empathy, open-mindedness, global thinking, (Dewaele & Van Oudenhoven, 2009; King & Mackey, 2009: Marcos, 1998) 

Flores, N., & García, O. (2017). A critical review of bilingual education in the United States: From basements and pride to boutiques and profit. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 14-29.

Hamayan, E. V., Genesee, F., Cloud, N., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2013). Dual language instruction from A to Z: Practical guidance for teachers and administrators. Heinemann.

Heiman, D., Cervantes-Soon, C., Palmer, D. K., & Dorner, L. M. (2024). Establishing a transformative foundation for dual language bilingual education: Critical consciousness at the core. The handbook of dual language bilingual education, 51-71.

Howard, E. R., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., Rogers, D., Olague, N., Medina, J., Kennedy, B., Sugarman, J. & Christian, D. (2007). Guiding principles for dual language education. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Kim, Y. K., Hutchison, L. A., & Winsler, A. (2015). Bilingual education in the United States: An historical overview and examination of two-way immersion. Educational Review, 67(2), 236-252.

Lindholm-Leary, K., & Genesee, F. (2014). Alternative educational programs for English learners. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (2nd ed., pp. 399–423). Wiley-Blackwell.

Palmer, D. K., Cervantes-Soon, C., Dorner, L., & Heiman, D. (2019). Bilingualism, biliteracy, biculturalism, and critical consciousness for all: Proposing a fourth fundamental goal for two-way dual language education. Theory into Practice, 58(2), 121-133.

Soltero, S. W. (2016). Dual language education. Heinemann.

Alanís, I. (2000). A Texas two-way bilingual program: Its effects on linguistic and academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(3), 225-248.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge University Press.

Bibler, A. (2021). Dual language education and student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 16(4), 634–658. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00320

Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M, & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for Mind and Brain. York University and Rotman Research Institute. NIH Public Access Author Manuscript. Trends in Cognitive Science 16(4): 240–250. 

Bialystok, E., Poarch, G., Luo, L., & Craik, F. I. (2014). Effects of bilingualism and aging on executive function and working memory. Psychology and aging, 29(3), 696.

Bohlmann, N. L., Palacios, N., Bell, B. A., & Oh, M. H. (2025). Academic outcomes of English learners in monolingual and dual language programs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 101, 101869.

Christian, D. (1996). Two‐way immersion education: Students learning through two languages. The Modern Language Journal, 80(1), 66-76.

Collier, V.P., & Thomas, W.P. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 1-20.

Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2017). Validating the power of bilingual schooling: Thirty-two years of large-scale, longitudinal research. Annual review of applied linguistics, 37, 203-217.

Dewaele, J., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2009). The effect of multilingualism/multiculturalism on personality: no gain without pain for Third Culture Kids? International Journal of Multilingualism. 6 (4). 

Feliciano, C. (2001). The benefits of biculturalism: Exposure to immigrant culture and dropping out of school among Asian and Latino youths. Social Science Quarterly, 82(4), 865-879.

Gandara, P. C. (2015). Is There Really a Labor Market Advantage to Being Bilingual in the U.S. ETS Research Report. 

García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English learners. Teachers College Press.

Goodrich, J. M., Thayer, L., & Leiva, S. (2021). Evaluating achievement gaps between monolingual and multilingual students. Educational Researcher, 50 (7), 429-441.

Howard, E. R., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., Rogers, D., Olague, N., Medina, J., Kennedy, B., Sugarman, J. & Christian, D. (2007). Guiding principles for dual language education. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Johnson, R. K., and M. Swain. 1997. Immersion Education: International Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kim, Y. K., Hutchison, L. A., & Winsler, A. (2015). Bilingual education in the United States: An historical overview and examination of two-way immersion. Educational Review, 67(2), 236-252.

King, K., & Mackey, A. (2009). The bilingual edge: why, when, and how to teach your child a second language. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Borsato, G. (2001). Impact of Two-way Bilingual Elementary Programs on Students’ Attitudes Toward School. Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.

Lindholm-Leary, K., & Block, N. (2010). Achievement in predominantly low SES/Hispanic dual language schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(1), 43-60.

Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2012). Success and challenges in dual language education. Theory Into Practice, 51(4), 256–262.

Lindholm-Leary K. J., & Borsato, G. (1998, May). Impact of Two-Way Immersion on Students’ Attitudes Toward School and College. Research Report (No. 10) published by the Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Education.

Marcos, K. M. (1998, Fall). Second language learning: Everyone can benefit. The ERIC Review, 6(1), 2-5.

Padilla, A. M., Chen, X., Swanson, E., Peterson, M., Zamora, T., & Girsky, T. (2025). Longitudinal academic, language, and social emotional learning outcomes of graduates of a one‐way Spanish Immersion program. Foreign Language Annals, 58(1), 111-136.

Palacios, N., Bohlmann, N. L., Bell, B. A., Oh, M. H., & Yue, Y. (2024). Does Early Elementary Dual Language Instruction Deliver as Promised?. AERA Open, 10, 23328584241264513.

Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K. S., & Glass, G. V. (2005). Weighing the evidence: A meta-analysis of bilingual education in Arizona. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 43-67.

Smokowski, P.R., Chapman M.V., & Bacalla, M.L. (2007).  Acculturation Risk and Protective Factors and Mental Health Symptoms in Immigrant Latino Adolescents. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 16(3),

Steele, J. L., Slater, R. O., Zamarro, G., Miller, T., Li, J., Burkhauser, S., & Bacon, M. (2017). Effects of dual-language immersion programs on student achievement: Evidence from lottery data. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1_suppl), 282S-306S.

Thomas, W. P., and V. P. Collier. 2002. “A National Study of School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students’ Long-term Academic Achievement.” Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. Accessed March 24, 2009. http://crede.berkeley. edu/research/llaa/1.1_final.html. 

Umansky, I. M., & Reardon, S. F. (2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English learner students in bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 879-912.

Valentino, R. A., & Reardon, S. F. (2015). Effectiveness of four instructional programs designed to serve English learners: Variation by ethnicity and initial English proficiency. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 612–637. https://doi. org/10.3102/0162373715573310