Redrawing Educational Borders: Reimagining Eligibility and Placement of Students with Disabilities in Dual Language Programs

• In Event: Unforgetting the Past, Disrupting the Present: Border-Crossing Approaches to Inclusive Education Policy, Research, and Practice

Abstract

Objectives
Students with disabilities (SWDs), who are emergent bilinguals, are often excluded from Dual Language Immersion (DLI) programs (Cioè-Peña, 2021). This study examines how educational policies in Texas, D.C., and Florida construct and reinforce ideological and institutional borders that restrict access to these programs for dual identified students.

Perspectives
Grounded in Critical Border Theory (Parker & Vaughan-Williams, 2016) and Critical Discourse Analysis (Meyer & Wodak, 2015), this study views policy as a border-making practice that delineates inclusion and exclusion based on language, ability, and institutional power. CDA enables a critical examination of how policy discourse reflects and reinforces power relations, while CBT provides a lens for analyzing how the boundaries of policy, language, and ability intersect to shape access to educational programs.

Methods
Three research questions guide our interrogation: How do state-level policies reflect power dynamics and control over district-level enrollment practices for SWDs in DLI programs? What are the state-level variations in policy guidelines related to the inclusion of SWDs in DLI programs? What are the state-level variations in enrollment practices for SWDs in DLI programs? This policy analysis examines the intertextuality of state and district policies across three states. Thematic synthesis traced the manifestation of discourses, ideologies, and power mechanisms within policy texts and their impact on identification, access, and implementation outcomes that marginalize the dual-identified (DI) student population.

Data sources
Forty-two policy documents retrieved from the websites of state departments of education in Texas, D.C., and Florida, and representative districts (Austin ISD, DCPS, Hillsborough County) using systematic web-based mapping. Documents included legislative documents, administrative regulations, policy guidelines, accountability documents, and official communications related to DLI, special education, and language education services.

Results
We identified five themes: Power, discourse, and ideology; identification, evaluation, and dual eligibility; access and enrollment practices; collaboration and implementation structures; and academic outcomes and program effectiveness. The following insights enhanced our discussion about how SPED and language services operate in silos, without integrated frameworks, shared accountability, or asset-based data reporting: Texas: Centralized oversight with structured safeguards and mandated collaboration across teams. D.C.: Policy recognition of DIs, but implementation relies on local discretion with limited systemic accountability or enforcement. Florida: Minimal visibility of DIs; policies characterized by vague language and outdated terminology, lacking targeted inclusion efforts. The haphazard implementation cause DI students to be granted access without meaningful support, resulting in symbolic inclusion reinforcing the very borders that policies claim to dismantle.

Scientific significance
This study offers a timely contribution to research at the intersection of disability, language policy, and educational equity by providing a rare cross-state comparative analysis of how SWDs, particularly DIs, are positioned within DLI policy landscapes. It exposes how policies act as ideological gatekeepers, shaping the educational trajectories of DIs, and proposes a replicable framework for future studies that move beyond description toward critical interpretation where language and special education policies intersect. The work calls for unified, equity-driven policy frameworks that dismantle institutional borders ensuring meaningful, not merely nominal, access to linguistically and culturally affirming programs for all learners.

Authors

• Dionne L. Davis, Texas State University

• Xinxia Li, The George Washington University