Legislative education panel urges dedicated funding, teacher training and expansion of dual‑language programs for English learners

Lawmakers heard a data‑driven review of English learner programming from Legislative Education Study Committee (LESC) staff, school districts and the Public Education Department on how to improve academic outcomes for students who speak languages other than English at home. Presenters urged the Legislature to create a stand‑alone English learner funding factor, invest in teacher preparation and professional development, and scale high‑quality dual‑language models.

The LESC brief, introduced by Natasha Davalos, framed the challenge this way: English learners now account for roughly one in five students in the state and “the effectiveness of these efforts is often limited by resource constraints,” she said. Davalos recommended policy changes including “The legislature should consider creating a stand alone English learner factor in the school funding formula” to give districts clearer, trackable resources for EL interventions and bilingual programming.

Why it matters: presenters said English learners in New Mexico lag behind peers on key measures and that existing federal Title III funds—about $5 million for the state—are insufficient to meet district needs. LESC staff showed that only about 2–3 percent of EL students exit the program each year despite the federal expectation of proficiency within roughly five years, and that districts lack dedicated funding to monitor reclassified students during the two‑year monitoring period.

What presenters proposed and why: Viridiana Cicineros, who led much of the program analysis, detailed four subgroups of ELs (including SLIFE—students with limited or no formal education—and long‑term ELs) and said each group needs different supports. She emphasized more intensive, targeted English language development, preservation of students’ home languages, and additional school‑based collaboration so content teachers can support language development.

Michael Rodriguez, executive director of Dual Language Education of New Mexico, cited decades of longitudinal research showing two‑way and one‑way dual‑language models yield stronger long‑term outcomes. “Dual language programs are the only programs that assist students to fully reach the fiftieth percentile in both their first and second languages in all subject areas and maintain that level or higher through the end of schooling,” he said, urging expansion while acknowledging the cost and workforce hurdles such as recruiting TESOL‑ or bilingual‑endorsed teachers.

Anya Garcia Post, Executive Director of Bilingual Education, Translation and Interpretation for Las Cruces Public Schools, described local practice and capacity: of about 23,000 district students roughly 4,000 are emergent bilinguals, and 3,000 participate in bilingual/multicultural education programs. She described district efforts—peer coaching, QTEL instructional approaches, family outreach—and noted loss of a BMEP subgrant this year that reduced local capacity.

From the Department of Education: Candace Castillo, deputy cabinet secretary at the New Mexico Public Education Department, presented statewide metrics and said roughly 17 percent of students were classified as English learners (about 52,300 students). She emphasized culturally and linguistically responsive instruction, explained that students exit EL status with an ACCESS composite score of 4.7 or higher and then require two years of monitoring, and recommended separating EL funding from the at‑risk bucket so programs are not forced to compete with other priorities.

Questions from legislators focused on why exit rates remain low, whether assessment practices (especially the oral/speaking portion of ACCESS) and student shyness affect results, how much TESOL is embedded in teacher preparation (pre‑service programs typically require one course; an endorsement requires additional coursework), and what the dollar cost would be to scale expansion. LESC staff and presenters said a true cost‑function analysis is needed because costs vary by approach and scale.

Next steps: presenters asked the Legislature to consider several policy moves—creating a discrete EL factor in the school funding formula, extending targeted funding to reclassified students during the two‑year monitoring period, supporting stipends or incentives for TESOL and bilingual endorsements, and funding start‑up grants or multiyear support for dual‑language programs so districts can implement with fidelity.

The committee moved next into initial FY‑26 budget considerations, including broader multiyear budgeting proposals for K–12 pilot programs and specific dollar recommendations; LESC staff said those budget discussions will continue in December.

Ending note: presenters repeatedly framed English learner programming as both an equity and an academic issue—arguing that investments in teacher expertise and sustained, evidence‑based program models are necessary to move students toward grade‑level performance while preserving bilingualism and students’ home languages.